House of Lords
Lord Speaker: Baroness Hayman
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, when the result of the recent election for the office of Lord Speaker was announced, I indicated that there would be an opportunity to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, our very first Lord Speaker, for the service she has given the House. That opportunity presents itself today.
The familiar sight of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, in the unfamiliar setting of the Woolsack reminds us that this is a significant day for the House; we have witnessed the first succession in what is by the standards of this House a fledgling office. Taking up the office five years ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, ushered in a new era. It is a mark of the respect and confidence that the House placed in her personally that over that period the role of Lord Speaker has become an established element of the way in which the House regulates and governs itself. That alone is a remarkable legacy that will secure her place in the history of this House and of Parliament.
Some noble Lords may recall that on the occasion of her inauguration five years ago, the task facing the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was likened to that faced by Julie Andrews, on the one hand, and the Archbishop of Canterbury on the other. We were warned that she would require the skills of a nanny and a singing nun, and forbearance on a par with that shown by the most reverend Primate, in order to preside over a self-regulating institution such as ours, vested with wide visibility but patchy authority. However, the House could hardly have known that even that rare mix of qualities would prove insufficient, for the term of office of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was to coincide with a period of difficulty for this House, for Parliament and for British politics.
We have witnessed the removal of the appellate jurisdiction of this House, allegations of paid advocacy that prompted the House to revive its powers of suspension, and a press campaign that exposed serious abuses of the financial support available to Members of both Houses. As Lord Speaker, Chairman of the House Committee, and a member of the Procedure Committee of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was in the eye of the storm on each occasion. She displayed tremendous energy, resolve and patience in helping to steer the House through these episodes. She leaves behind a more resilient and transparent institution, equipped with a new code of conduct for Members, an independent Commissioner for Standards, and a simpler and more transparent system of financial support for Members.
Although less visible to the majority of your Lordships, we can also take pride in the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, represented the House as our Speaker. She established herself as an energetic and persuasive ambassador for this Chamber. She was the driving force behind the creation of the House’s outreach programme and she herself led by example, engaging in an extensive programme of parliamentary diplomacy in order to build relationships with other parliaments and second chambers, particularly those in the Commonwealth. Many of us particularly admire the poise and elegance with which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, represented the House on ceremonial and state occasions, most memorably during the recent visits of Pope Benedict and President Obama.
I close by welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, as our new Lord Speaker. She has been chosen by the whole House and can count on the support and confidence of noble Lords on all sides as she resumes her service to the House in a new capacity. Her predecessor has set an exacting standard for what the House can expect from a Lord Speaker. We remain indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for that legacy and can count ourselves fortunate that she will continue to contribute to our work.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for what he has said about the outgoing Speaker and I know that the whole House will concur with all that he has said. He has rightly emphasised her work in establishing the new post, in carrying out her work both in the Chamber and on the important committees of this House, her work on governance and transparency, and on external engagement. In all those areas, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has carried out her role and responsibilities with energy, conscientiousness and dignity in a way that commanded great respect and affection both here and in the wider world. I understand, however, that occasionally there was amusing confusion with foreign counterparts because the Lord Speaker was clearly neither a Lord nor someone able to speak in her own Chamber.
Perhaps I may touch on three points in particular. The first refers to the considerable difficulty that this House and, indeed, Parliament as a whole have faced over matters of conduct. I believe that this House took the right steps to deal with these matters but in doing so the Lord Speaker had an important but difficult role. She had at once to be apart and above these issues, and, at exactly the same time in terms of her own concerns for the reputation of this House, to be fully involved in helping to resolve them. She struck entirely the right balance in doing so, at once working closely with all parts of the House and its processes, and at the same time maintaining an important detachment from the political parties and other groupings and individuals. I pay tribute to her care and carefulness in doing so.
Secondly, she has been a vital catalyst in helping to improve the way your Lordships’ House does its work. The House now has before it an important set of proposals for reform of its working practices. The fact that it does so can be traced directly and specifically back to initiatives taken by the Lord Speaker. If this House updates, improves and reforms its working practices, as I hope it will, it will be a testament to the outgoing Lord Speaker that it has done so.
The third area which I would mention is young people. The outreach programme which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, or Helene as she always will be and always has been for many of us on all sides of this House, has successfully established has already been mentioned. It has been of real benefit to this House and to Parliament. I also believe that it has been of genuine benefit to thousands of young people and it has been appreciated up and down this country.
This is not a party political occasion. This is an occasion which is informed by politics—it is, after all, what we do—but it is not governed by them. I hope, however, that we might on this side of the House be given a few seconds of indulgence because we are particularly proud and pleased to be able to pay tribute to the first Lord Speaker. She was a trailblazer in this post of great constitutional significance but, of course, she was also a trailblazer in the other place as the youngest MP—one of only 27 women MPs and one of very, very few women in the House who had babies. The Lord Speaker has been scrupulous in her impartiality and punctilious in her application of that and all aspects of her role.
At the same time, we know that she came from our Benches and from a long record of service to our party. We are proud and pleased that she has been such a credit to the whole House and, in doing so, a credit to our party too. We know that in returning to the House she now has to sit on the Cross Benches and we know that she will carry out her role there with the same impartiality and care that she has shown as Lord Speaker. We hope, however, that from time to time—just as with some of her Cross-Bench colleagues—we will be able to persuade her of some of the arguments which we will be making.
We welcome the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, as the new Lord Speaker, especially on this her first day on the Woolsack. She has a hard act to follow. I hope that the new Lord Speaker will see fit to follow the example of her predecessor in writing annually to all Members of your Lordships’ House. Her letters have been models of clarity and information, and I believe that they have been widely welcomed on all sides of the House. Her scrupulousness has been applied to keeping her own thoughts and views out of these letters, but in her final letter, she does say that it has been a privilege and an honour to serve this House. The real position is the reverse. It has been a privilege and an honour for this House to have the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, serve this House as its first Lord Speaker. We thank her for all that she has done.
Lord McNally
My Lords, it is my pleasure to pay tribute from these Benches to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has already referred to the fact that it was me, from the Benches below the Gangway when she was appointed as Lord Speaker, who referred to her as a cross between the Singing Nun and Mary Poppins. She got hold of me immediately afterwards and with some indignation pointed out that she could not sing and that she was certainly no nun. So I shall take this opportunity to withdraw that comparison. However, I refer noble Lords to the Wikipedia entry on Mary Poppins as portrayed by Julie Andrews. There it says that Mary Poppins is:
“‘Practically perfect in every way’. She is not only firm in her use of authority, but kind and gentle as well”.
I rest my case. There could be no more accurate description of our retiring Lord Speaker.
I echo the tributes paid by the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition, particularly when the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, spoke of her behind-the-scenes skills in managing the House through very difficult times. She has trod with delicacy in establishing the authority of the Lord Speaker inside this Chamber while being sensitive and aware of the way the House wishes to safeguard its self-regulation. As has been mentioned, she pioneered the outreach programme to promote better understanding of our work among young people and the voluntary sector, and she initiated a meeting of the Youth Parliament in this House when the other place hesitated and refused to do so. It has now followed our example. And as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, she has been a first class ambassador for this House abroad and has represented it on major occasions with just the right words and the right sentiments, whether for monarchs, popes or presidents. The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, knows that she has a hard act to follow, but she should also know that she has both our confidence and our affection in setting out on that road.
As for the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, it is never easy to step down from high office and go to the Back Benches. But my prediction is that she will mellow just as the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, has mellowed. In fact, it is my prediction that she will mellow exactly as the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, has mellowed. We wish her well on the Cross Benches.
It is always difficult to sum up a tribute with a single, simple word, but I will try, and I wish Hansard luck with it. I think that the noble Baroness has been supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.
Lord Laming
My Lords, I am so very pleased that my first formal task as Convenor on behalf of the Cross-Bench group is to contribute to the richly deserved tributes being made to our former Lord Speaker. This is a special pleasure for me, not least because I first met the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, when as far back as 1974 she was elected to be my local Member of Parliament. Her election attracted a great deal of attention, first, because she was a woman, and secondly, because she was so young. Such factors were considered to be remarkable, and that of itself is very noteworthy. But for me, then a chief officer in the local authority, from the outset she demonstrated in abundance a much more significant, third feature. That was her evident energy, drive and unyielding commitment, especially to the well-being of the least fortunate and least able of her constituents.
Later, the noble Baroness was to experience the reality of many a political career, which is that of a marked political swing in an area. Once again, it was demonstrated that being a hard-working and enthusiastic representative of the people does not guarantee re-election.
However, when in 1979 the noble Baroness lost her seat in the other place she did not seek a new life in rich pastures. Instead, she decided to build on her earlier career in Camden social services and with the National Council for One Parent Families. This time, she also tackled with vigour a range of very challenging posts in the National Health Service and with local and national charities. So when in 1996 she was appointed to your Lordships’ House, she had accumulated a wealth of experience both in the public services and the voluntary sector. It was, therefore, hardly surprising that very soon she was appointed a Minister in three different departments of government. But, of course, her work in government that many of us remember best was the time she spent in the Department of Health.
As has been noted, in 2006 the noble Baroness became the first Lord Speaker in your Lordships’ House. As has been said so ably, there can be no doubting that, during the past five years, she has fulfilled her responsibilities with great distinction. All of us have had the benefit of her vast experience and personal qualities.
More than that, the noble Baroness has been a great ambassador and a splendid advocate for this House, both nationally and internationally. To highlight just one example, many of us have had the pleasure of contributing to the Peers in Schools programme. No matter how generous the concluding vote of thanks, I suspect that, on leaving a school, most of us have hoped just that the students have gained as much as us from the visit. The Lord Speaker’s lectures and the involvement of young people have added greatly to the standing of this House.
Looking back over the past five years, each of us will have our own special memories of the work of the former Lord Speaker. For my part, I hold dear the occasion when, on behalf of both Houses of Parliament, she thanked President Obama with such warmth, grace and evident sincerity. It was a moving conclusion to a memorable event.
We all look forward to the time when we welcome back the noble Baroness to these Benches. Then, the whole House will once again benefit from her vast experience and great ability. What is for sure is that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has our warmest thanks for all she has done for us during her time as Lord Speaker.
I feel sure that our former Lord Speaker would approve of me adding a brief word of welcome to her successor. It goes without saying that we in the Cross-Bench group take particular pleasure in the election of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza. She must be the first Cross-Bencher to hold this post either in its previous or in its current form. We are delighted. It gives us huge pleasure in her achievement and we wish her great success. However, perhaps I may take the opportunity to reassure the House that trying to step into the footsteps of the noble Baroness once is challenge enough—I have no ambition to try to do it a second time.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
My Lords, bishops are used to bringing up the rear in formal processions. Today, I find myself bringing up the rear of a procession of worthy tributes to the work and character of the outgoing Lord Speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. In consequence, I shall seek to avoid, as far as is seemly, hesitation, repetition or deviation.
It is with great pleasure and humility that I add my appreciation on behalf of these Benches to that expressed by others for the Lord Speaker as she retires from this role in your Lordships' House. On these Benches, we have been extremely grateful for all that she has so graciously and ably offered to the life of your Lordships’ House. Those charged with responsibility for convening the Lords spiritual have in particular been grateful for the Lord Speaker’s warmth, help and support. The present Convenor, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, is deeply apologetic that he cannot be here today.
Our outgoing Lord Speaker has been an excellent ambassador for your Lordships’ House. In her work promoting overseas all that is good about your Lordships’ House, she has delivered with great imagination and diligence. Travel seems an increasingly wearisome business, yet the Lord Speaker showed herself willing to go wherever and whenever she could to promote your Lordships’ House. Her efforts in seeking to inspire and inform young people in understanding our work have found her again to be an exemplar. This has been a passion if not a healthy obsession. We are particularly grateful for her diligence in this.
At all times, the Lord Speaker has attempted to inform and communicate with your Lordships on matters of concern and interest. In this, the Lord Speaker has again achieved a high standard. Her hosting of a series of seminars, including recently one on the interaction between religion and politics, is but one example of her willingness to engage with issues of significance by using her office to create a thoughtful and impressive space for the airing of pressing current issues. As has been said, she will be the proverbial hard act to follow. With your Lordships, we on these Benches look forward to welcoming and working with the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, in her newly elected role.
To conclude, on behalf of these Benches I am more than happy to add our heartfelt thanks and appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, the former Lord Speaker, for her efforts on our behalf since she was elected in 2006. We wish her well and hope that, free from the responsibilities that she has so willingly and ably borne, she will enjoy her retirement from this particular role and, who knows, have a little extra time on her hands for family and friends—of whom she has many, not least in your Lordships’ House. We look forward to the noble Baroness’s continued contributions from the Benches of your Lordships’ House, from which I am certain that we will undoubtedly continue to benefit.
Lord Brougham and Vaux
My Lords, as the longest-serving Deputy Speaker, may I say, on behalf of all Deputy Speakers, that we would like to be associated with the tributes paid to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, from all sides of the House? It was a great pleasure working with her and we look forward to working with the new Lord Speaker.
Lord Haskel
My Lords, I have had the honour and privilege of working as one of the noble Baroness’s deputies for five years. During that time, she was genuinely concerned about her deputies. She worried about whether we got home on time or had had something to eat if the House sat late. Never since I was a teenager has somebody worried about that on my behalf. I am most thankful to her and look forward to working with the new Lord Speaker.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
My Lords, I am extremely happy that my first task in the Chamber today is to add to the tributes already paid to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. The noble Baroness has, as we have already heard, fashioned a role over the last five years into which I can now step with great gratitude. No one should underestimate what hard work it has taken to build such a successful programme, one that I would now like to continue—and even, perhaps in some areas, expand. It is clear from today’s tributes how much we owe the former Lord Speaker and how much she is now welcomed as a Back-Bencher and, particularly, as a Cross-Bencher.
Health: HIV/AIDS
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Fowler
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, the Government fund national HIV health promotion programmes for men who have sex with men and for African communities, the groups most affected by HIV in the UK. This is in addition to harm minimisation programmes for injecting drug users, NHS HIV prevention programmes and open-access testing and treatment services. The White Paper, Healthy Lives, Healthy People, sets out the Government’s strategy for reform of public health in England. This includes sexual health and HIV.
Lord Fowler
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, but does he really think that we are getting the message over on the dangers of HIV? Is it not a fact that the number of people accessing care for HIV has trebled in the past 10 years, that we now have almost 100,000 people with HIV in the United Kingdom and that the cost of treatment and care has now risen to almost £1 billion a year? Given that this is an entirely preventable disease, does not my noble friend agree that we have devoted disgracefully little to HIV prevention programmes over the past decade and that our efforts here should now be urgently increased?
Earl Howe
My Lords, may I begin by paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Fowler in his continuing interest in HIV and AIDS, here and internationally? He has done a huge amount to raise the issue’s profile in Parliament and more widely. I agree with much of the thrust of what he said; there is no doubt that over the past 10 or 12 years great progress has been made in a number of areas, but we are still concerned about the increasing incidence of HIV among men who have sex with men and sub-Saharan African communities, which are the groups most affected and vulnerable to HIV in the UK. That is why our prevention campaigns have been targeted primarily at those communities. There is much more work to do. The sexual health framework report that we are publishing later this year will have a separate section on HIV, and I hope that in that document my noble friend will be reassured that our efforts in this area will not let up.
Lord May of Oxford
Would the Minister agree that while HIV is of special importance it is also a fact that all other sexually transmitted infections are showing similar marked patterns of increase? Should not the Department of Health be showing more concern about this than it currently seems to?
Earl Howe
The noble Lord is right to draw attention to the rising incidence of other sexually transmitted diseases. I draw the House’s attention in particular to the large numbers of cases of chlamydia and herpes, where he is perfectly correct in saying that the statistics are rising. In other areas, the statistics are stabilising—but he is generally right in the point that he makes. The data show that in 2010 there was a 1 per cent decrease in all diagnoses, but within that there are areas on which we undoubtedly have to concentrate.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister appreciates how important it is to have early testing. What efforts will the Government make to ensure that GPs and other primary care professionals routinely offer HIV testing to all new patients, particularly in high prevalence areas? More than that, is any action being taken to give the new GPs and other new professionals the confidence, skills and ability to be able to offer that test?
Earl Howe
The noble Baroness with her experience makes a central point here. We absolutely agree that increasing the offer and uptake of HIV testing in a variety of healthcare settings is important to reduce undiagnosed HIV. We welcome the BHIVA professional guidelines in this area, which have been extremely helpful. The sooner a person with HIV is diagnosed, the sooner they can benefit from treatment and also make any behavioural changes to prevent transmission. It is those behavioural changes that count most strongly.
The department funded pilots to support the implementation of recommendations from the BHIVA, and those were extremely successful. In the coming days, we will consider carefully the report that is due to be published by the Health Protection Agency to see how we can take forward its findings in this area.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, as a member of the House of Lords committee that produced the report, I pay tribute to our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for his excellent work. Is the Minister aware that one-quarter of the people with HIV do not know that they have it? That is extremely dangerous; late diagnosis costs a lot and many of those people die early. Will he do more to promote prevention?
Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, following on from the previous speaker, perhaps my question is appropriate. The Minister knows my interest in this subject but would not the legitimisation of brothels be a great help, with regular health checks therein?
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall
My Lords, as a member of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, I ask the Minister if he agrees that the contribution made by the voluntary sector to the effort both to prevent and to inform about AIDS is very significant. It is particularly important in the combating of stigma, which, as he will be aware, is a tremendous impediment to the good take-up of treatment and testing. Will he reassure the House that funding to the voluntary organisations that are most involved in HIV/AIDS will not be affected by the cuts that are currently being undertaken?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I readily join the noble Baroness in paying tribute to those voluntary organisations, not least the Terrence Higgins Trust, which over the past 10 years has done a great job in leading the department’s national programme of work—we believe that that has contributed in a major way to the increased uptake of testing in clinics—while for African communities the African Health Policy Network has managed the department’s national programme, working with community-based groups in a very positive way. Those two groups in particular are being funded this year. No decisions have been made about next year because a tendering process will apply, but this work needs to continue in some form.
Retirement Age
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sheldon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they are giving further consideration to extending the state retirement age beyond the present age of 65, and 68 in 2046.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, the noble Lord has, of course, previously suggested that there should be a formal relationship between pension age and life expectancy. We have consulted on a mechanism to ensure that revisions in life expectancy are reflected in the state pension age. The summary of responses was published on 27 July and we will publish our proposals in due course.
Lord Sheldon
My Lords, the pension age will be equal for men and women in only seven to eight years’ time, and it will rise from 66 to 68 in 2044. That is very slow. Longevity is rising so rapidly that an assessment has been made that more than 11 million people can expect to live to be more than 100 years old. Should not the pension age be affected by the rapid rise in longevity?
Lord Freud
My Lords, the noble Lord is right to pinpoint what is happening to longevity. There needs to be a response to that because we cannot afford to pay for the large number of people who spend upwards of 40 per cent of their adult lives in retirement with a state pension. The process that we are undergoing is to look at how best to move the pension age with either a review or some automatic process, and we will be coming out with our proposals for that in due course.
Lord German
My Lords, a woman born this year will have a one in three chance of living to the age of 100, whereas a woman born in 1931 would have had only a one in 20 chance. Given the acceleration of the change in life expectancy and the results of the consultation that the Government have just concluded, is it not right that there should be an accelerating change in the connection between the state age of retirement and life expectancy, which is growing all the time? We cannot expect this to be something that is predicted for 20 or 30 years hence. It has to be predicted on a much more regular basis.
Lord Freud
My Lords, clearly that is the issue: life expectancy is growing rapidly. It is hard to set the figures many decades in advance. The responses to the consultation show that most people think that a period of around 10 years seems appropriate, although other countries have used shorter periods. It is right that we should look at a number of factors when we move the retirement age. These include not just longevity but healthy life expectancy and regional and other variations.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, it is clearly reasonable that the pension age for men and women should rise alongside longevity. However, it is clearly unreasonable that up to half a million women have recently learnt that they will have to wait up to two years longer than they expected for their state retirement pension. The noble Lord will know that many sectors of the House were deeply unhappy about this. The Pensions Bill is now in the other place. Will he tell the House whether the Government are shifting their position on this so that it is fair to all women and not so deeply unfair to so many women?
Lord Freud
My Lords, as the noble Baroness pointed out, we debated this in some depth when we looked at the Bill. Those concerns, expressed around the House, were taken very seriously. The Secretary of State responded at Second Reading in another place by saying that we needed,
“to implement the change fairly and manage the transition smoothly”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/6/11; col. 50.]
We are looking at how best to do that. Should there be legislative changes, they will of course come to this House to be considered in due course.
Lord Flight
My Lords, I urge the Government to accelerate to a retirement age of 70, not just on grounds of longevity and fitness but on fundamental economic grounds. It is entirely natural, if you have an ageing population and wish to keep economic growth up, that the workforce should remain the same through people working longer. Finally, the highest growth in new jobs now is among people over 65, so this is a reality in the workplace.
Lord Freud
Yes, my Lords, it will be extremely expensive if we do nothing. In the past five years we have already seen real expenditure on pensions go up by £20 billion to £81 billion a year. If we do nothing, the projections are that age-related spending will go up to more than 5.5 per cent by the middle of the century. We must do something about it. That is why we have this consultation to look at the best way of moving the pension age upwards to reflect the changes in ageing.
Baroness Drake
My Lords, the level, manner and timing of any increase in the state pension age will be controversial, as instanced by the recent debate on women’s state pension age. I hope the Minister will agree that it is important to build a consensus on how to respond to increasing life expectancy, both between political parties and between government and the people. In particular, we must avoid undermining confidence in pension saving, particularly in younger generations, where the problem is so deep. Are the Government considering setting up an independent body to monitor and analyse matters related to increasing life expectancy, including socioeconomic differences in morbidity and mortality? Its published findings could inform government and parliamentary decision-making. Anecdotal, sentimental and emotional debate is not the way to resolve this issue.
Lord Freud
My Lords, this is a long-term issue and one needs to address it on a long-term basis. When the Chancellor introduced this topic, he said that he would like to see it addressed on a cross-party basis. That remains the position.
Living Standards
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rooker
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the Resolution Foundation's Commission on Living Standards' report Missing Out, published on 27 July 2011.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Rooker, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, the Resolution Foundation report finds that the share of national income going to the bottom half of workers in the form of wages has shrunk over the past 30 years. While this has been a long-term trend in most advanced economies, the Government are committed to the UK having a better educated and more flexible workforce within a more balanced economy and to ensuring fairness, with all individuals rewarded for entering and progressing in work.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and for drawing attention to that key finding. However, the other key finding of the report is that the main reason for the falling proportion of national income going to those on low and middling wages is rising wage inequality, particularly at the top. Will the Minister please advise your Lordships' House what the Government plan to do to reduce wage inequality both before and after tax, particularly at the top end of the wage distribution?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former member of the advisory board of the Resolution Foundation, whose work I very much admire. The report talks about wages before the effects of tax and benefits. Indeed, the noble Baroness is right that about two-thirds of the effect which it identifies results from growing wage inequality. However, it is interesting that the report’s tables point out that, at one extreme, the wage inequality results in those within financial services on the 90th percentile of earnings earning 6.2 times the amount earned by somebody on the 10th percentile, whereas in manufacturing the differential is only 3.3 times and has hardly changed over the past decade. Therefore, we need to see a much better balanced economy; balanced growth is what we want to see. In the previous decade, manufacturing’s contribution to the economy halved and that of financial services increased very significantly. The starting point has to be a more balanced growth in the economy.
Lord Newby
My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the findings of the report is that the increase in taxes, particularly national insurance contributions, among lower income wage earners was a contributory factor to the growing inequality? Does he therefore agree that the decision taken by the Government on the national insurance contribution threshold and the decision to increase the income tax threshold will go some way towards addressing the problem which the report mentions? Does he agree that the Government should proceed quickly to increase the income tax threshold in particular as quickly as possible?
Lord Sassoon
Indeed, I agree with the points that my noble friend makes. The Government are working on other initiatives to help address this problem, such as driving through the entire package of tax and welfare reforms, introducing the universal credit from 2013-14 and making it pay to work. It is a terrible state of affairs that everything earned by a lone parent who works part time for 10 hours a week is immediately taken off that person through changes to their tax and benefit. Therefore, the introduction of the universal credit and driving through our reforms to tax and welfare are critical to making inroads into this problem.
Lord Lea of Crondall
Does the Minister recall that Mr David Cameron, during the election campaign, expressed regret about growing inequality in this country? Of course, that inequality has now accelerated. Does he not agree that the time has come for remuneration committees, which are mutual admiration societies that have been going higher and higher above the upper quartile, should be subject to a reformed company law structure, with supervisory boards and multi-stakeholders to make sure that these people cannot just go on paying themselves a fortune without any regard to the principle of greater equality?
Lord Sassoon
Just to be completely clear, inequality increased under the previous Government. The latest data show inequality coefficients to be flat, but it is too soon to see what the trends are under this Government. However, inequality increased under the previous Government—and that was in a decade when 40 per cent more in real terms was put into working-age benefits and tax credits, so this is a very difficult problem to crack. However, I agree with the noble Lord that it is important that informed and active shareholders make sure that they consider the split of rewards within companies between shareholders and employees—and that is precisely why it is high up the agenda of my right honourable friend the Business Secretary, who is considering proposals as we speak.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, the House will have appreciated the Minister’s customary lucid answers to these questions, but the country will be more interested in the obvious question. How is it that after the banking failure of three years ago banking practices in terms of remuneration are being restored to their customary outrageous level?
Lord Sassoon
Unlike the mess that the previous Government left behind in banking—we really do not need a lecture on this—the Merlin agreement put in place by this Government is making sure not only that credit is delivered by the banks to our hard-pressed industry but that bankers’ remuneration was less in 2010 than it was the year before and is less than it would have been without that agreement in place. This Government are therefore very much on the case with bankers’ remuneration, as with so many other aspects of this very difficult inequality challenge.
Summer Recess: Ministerial Cover
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what arrangements were in place to ensure appropriate ministerial cover during the summer recess.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, every department must have a Minister on duty in the United Kingdom for the entire Recess, including weekends. It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to ensure that sensible and comprehensive arrangements are put in place.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his reply, although I must say that I was hoping for a bit more and I am disappointed by that response. Does he not accept that when problems occurred during the Recess the Government were caught flat-footed, off guard and not on top of their game? Is it not time that they apologised for that?
Lord Strathclyde
I simply do not recognise the characterisation that the noble Lord has given to the last few weeks of the Recess, particularly given that the House was recalled and that the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister returned from holiday to take full charge of events. As far as I can see, they did a most splendid job.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
My Lords, since this country is involved in armed conflict, will the coalition Government ensure that consequential decisions and responses to developing threats and initiatives are taken jointly by named members of the Cabinet in that sphere?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am not entirely sure of the point that my noble friend is trying to make, but the Cabinet makes decisions collectively. Of course, individual Ministers make decisions that tie the entire Cabinet and, if there were any difficulty or issue, a Cabinet Minister could no doubt bring it back to the attention of the Prime Minister.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, when the Prime Minister is on one of his many holidays abroad and the Deputy Prime Minister is here is London, who is in charge of the Government?
Lord Strathclyde
The Prime Minister is always in charge, of course, but when he is abroad the Deputy Prime Minister, if he is in the United Kingdom, holds all the regular, routine meetings in and around No. 10. When he, too, is on holiday, another senior Minister, usually the Foreign Secretary, chairs all those regular meetings.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, to adapt the novel structure of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who was in charge of government economic policy between 2007 and 2010?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, my noble friend has clearly enjoyed his Recess. No doubt he will be inviting the House to read the former Chancellor of the Exchequer’s book, which has just been published.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, summer months are often torrid times. I seem to recall that, at some point during the recent Recess, we were told by senior figures in the Government not to worry because everybody had BlackBerrys or iPhones. BlackBerrys and iPhones are great pieces of kit, but does the noble Lord agree that in difficult times the physical presence of senior members of the Government is absolutely necessary to reassure not just parliamentarians but the citizens of this country that the machinery of government is working and properly able to respond?
Lord Strathclyde
Yes, my Lords, but I am sure that the whole country was enormously reassured when the Prime Minister returned from holiday, took full control of the unfolding situation and, indeed, recalled Parliament.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, perhaps the Leader of the House will permit me to take a step to one side in my supplementary question. Is it the Government’s policy to encourage European Commissioners that there should always be a European Commissioner on duty in the month of August, or at least someone deputising for him? In my experience some years ago, there was a time in August when there was not a European Commissioner available and it was impossible to get a decision out of Brussels.
Lord Strathclyde
I wonder if at that time the European Union was better run with or without a European Commissioner on duty.
Business of the House
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Monday 3 October to allow the Sovereign Grant Bill to be taken through all its remaining stages.
Administration and Works
Privacy and Injunctions
The Chairman of Committees
That Lord Boateng be appointed a member of the Joint Committee in place of Lord Grabiner.
Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Bill [HL]: Special Public Bill Committee
The Chairman of Committees
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be appointed to the Special Public Bill Committee on the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Bill [HL]:
L Borrie, L Davies of Stamford, L De Mauley, L Eatwell, L Goodhart, L Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, B Kramer, L Lloyd of Berwick (Chairman), B O’Cathain, L Sassoon, B Wheeler;
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the evidence taken by the Committee shall, if the Committee so wishes, be published.
Localism Bill
Baroness Hanham
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 132 to 146, Schedule 14, Clauses 147 to 154, Schedule 15, Clauses 155 to 165, Schedule 16, Clause 166, Schedule 17, Clauses 167 to 170, Schedule 18, Clauses 171 to 182, Schedules 19 and 20, Clauses 183 to 185, Schedule 21, Clauses 186 to 209, Schedule 22, Clauses 210 to 212, Schedule 23, Clauses 213 to 217, Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 11, Schedule 2, Clause 12, Schedule 3, Clauses 13 to 15, Schedule 4, Clauses 16 to 60, Schedules 5 and 6, Clauses 61 to 67, Schedule 7, Clauses 68 to 97, Schedule 8, Clauses 98 to 104, Schedules 9 to 11, Clauses 105 to 109, Schedule 12, Clauses 110 to 116, Schedule 13, Clauses 117 to 131, Clauses 218 and 219, Schedule 24, Clauses 220 to 223, Schedule 25, Clauses 224 to 227.
Localism Bill
16:09 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 164 / Noes: 197 - Amendment 1 disagreed.
17:31 - Division on Amendment 5 - Ayes: 188 / Noes: 199 - Amendment 5 disagreed.
18:03 - Division on Amendment 6 - Ayes: 179 / Noes: 202 - Amendment 6 disagreed.
Lord Whitty
“Housing strategy
(1) All measures required of local housing authorities in relation to social housing and homelessness as a result of this Part shall be undertaken in consistency with the housing strategy required by subsection (3) and with requirements under section 87 of the Local Government Act 2003 and section 13 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and regulations and guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
(2) All local housing authorities must draw up an analysis of housing supply and demand in their areas and neighbouring areas as far as is relevant.
This analysis should include all forms of tenure in their area and cover at least the following—
(a) trends in housing supply and demand in the owner occupied, private rented and social housing sectors;(b) trends in housing prices and rents;(c) new developments, new build and conversions;(d) empty properties;(e) second homes; and(f) broad demographic and employment trends in their areas.(3) On the basis of this analysis, each local housing authority shall draw up a rolling ten year housing strategy for their area.”
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I recognise the Minister’s confusion and nevertheless thank her for agreeing to deal with Report as we have. The reason that she was confused was that we clearly did not have a satisfactory end to Committee, and the last couple of parts of the Bill were not sensibly debated in this House. I am therefore very grateful—as, I think, are my colleagues on the Front Bench—that we are first debating on Report those parts which were then rather sparsely dealt with. I thank her and, having seen the Chief Whip just walk into the Chamber, I hope that equivalent flexibility is shown from the Government Front Bench on other issues.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I think that I had better assist the House. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, recognised, the flexibility given was in granting extra time at Report. However, for the guidance of the House, we follow Report stage rules, and I would not wish there to be any confusion on that matter.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I hope that I and my colleagues will keep to that.
In moving Amendment 1, I declare an interest as chair of a recently formed campaign group, Housing Voice. Amendment 1 is very similar to an amendment which was debated in Committee and it sets the provisions on social housing under the Bill in a wider context. This reconfigured amendment takes account of the response given by the Minister to that amendment. Like everyone else, I want to get on to the amendments that deal with the detailed issues which were not debated or replied to in Committee, so I shall not go over all the arguments again.
Simply, there are three reasons why we need an overarching commitment to the role of local authorities within housing as a whole. First, under localism, and as a result of other things, including the abolition of regional housing targets, local authorities have now become the major driver for achieving housing policy across the country. This follows more than two decades when the housing responsibilities of local authorities under both Governments have been somewhat reduced and their direct control as landlords has substantially reduced. This Bill and its consequences will put local authorities and a lot of the strategy relating to housing back on to local authority shoulders.
Secondly, I think we all recognise that housing is in crisis in terms of its provision, availability and affordability, and I shall just repeat one statistic. Household formation in this country is now running at twice the rate of the provision of new housing. Thirdly, that crisis affects all forms of tenure—owner occupation, the private rented sector and social housing—as well as mortgage markets. Therefore, it needs to be tackled holistically and there is a key role for local authorities in that. That should be put clearly at the beginning of this section on housing and the strategic responsibilities spelled out up front.
In reply to me in Committee, the Minister referred to other legislation where a strategic responsibility was already imposed on local authorities. As a result of her remarks, I have looked at those pieces of legislation and cross-referred to them in this new amendment. They are either rather specific or rather general. The Minister also referred to guidance in this area. Of course, the guidance is in the process of being changed to become somewhat more general, so the existing statutory references and the guidance are rather too vague. It is therefore in the context of localism and of the effective devolution of strategic responsibility to local authorities that we need a strategic responsibility in this House, rather than further ghettoising social housing, as there is a slight tendency to do in the Bill. The Bill would make significant changes to the way in which social housing operates without cross-reference to the effect of the changes on other forms of tenure, or indeed vice versa.
We will come to debate the provisions, on which there will be strongly differing views, but my central point is that almost none of them can be confined to social housing. They will have effects on the private rented market. That is referred to in part in the homelessness provisions but nowhere else. They will also have effects on the demand for affordable mortgages, on planning, on development, on homelessness and on how local authorities deal with empty properties. The consequences of some of the provisions will be that social housing is seen as a residual housing responsibility rather than part of this whole. Whatever one thinks of those policies and the parallel policies dealing with the benefit side in the Welfare Reform Bill that we will debate next week, one cannot deny that the present housing crisis means that the pressures on social housing by restrictions on access to tenancies, or by raising rents, will cause further pressures on the private rented sector and the mortgage market. Nor can one deny that the effects of moving relatively high income groups of current social tenants out of the social tenancy market will also have those effects.
This Bill will make radical changes to social housing. It removes security of tenure for future tenants, abolishes most rights of inheritance and abolishes the financial framework under the HRA. It makes the availability of social housing effectively means-tested and the Welfare Reform Bill caps housing benefit. One can query whether that is consistent with the Government’s overall strategy to move people from benefit to work, but nevertheless it will have those effects. There are also changes, which we will debate shortly, to the obligation of local authorities on homelessness. It will therefore push working families into the private rented or affordable mortgage market and may well drive the working poor in many parts of the country out of social housing and to change their location from the inner cities, putting pressure on areas where perhaps it is not currently so great. Except in relation to homelessness, there is no cross reference to those pressures.
Pressures are likely to increase and we will see a spiral increase in demand. A low rate of new build is continuing and the level of rents and access to mortgages and deposits on mortgages are all still going up. The latest reports suggest no let-up in that tendency. We need a clause of this nature in the housing provisions of a Localism Bill. We also need local authorities to co-operate with each other, which will be discussed in the planning provisions of this Bill. Whatever we decide on the provision for social housing, and assuming that the rest of the Bill more or less stands—especially if it stands as it is—we need social housing measures now clearly devolved to local government level to be placed within this wider context. We therefore need a clause such as this.
The existing provisions are not adequate. I appreciate that the Government may not like the wording of this proposed new clause, so if they want to take it away and come up with a better version in time for Third Reading, I am not proud and would be very happy if they were to give that commitment. Such a provision is absolutely needed. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Whitty put forward a similar amendment in Committee on the last day before the Summer Recess. The Opposition did then, and do now, give this amendment our full support and hope that there will be a positive response from the Government today.
There is a crisis in housing across all sectors. We have huge numbers of people on the waiting lists for social housing. The private rented sector cannot meet the demand as the cost of renting in this sector is often out of the reach of many people. You have only to look in the windows of your local estate agents, nearly all of which have a section devoted to private renting, to see what rents are being demanded per month. I grew up in social housing and was lucky enough to buy my first property in my twenties, but the picture is very different now, with people often having to wait until their thirties or forties to get on the property ladder, as they save up the money required for the deposit needed to get on the first rung.
In her response to the debate in Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said that the amendment was unnecessary as local housing authorities were already under statutory obligations. She quoted both Section 13 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and Section 87 of the Local Government Act 2003. That is fine as far as it goes, and noble Lords will see that my noble friend Lord Whitty draws on those two provisions in proposed subsection (1) of his amendment in relation to social housing and homelessness. It goes on to require all housing authorities to draw up an analysis of housing supply and demand across all forms of tenure in their areas and neighbouring areas as far as is relevant. They must look at housing trends across all sectors, take stock of house prices and rents, understand what has been built and provided locally, and know the number and type of empty properties: for example, is this an area where there are a number of second homes, and what are the demographic and employment trends in the area? All this must be brought together to enable an authority to plan, make informed decisions and act to build communities and to enable areas to grow and prosper.
This is a sensible proposal and I hope that the Government have reflected on it over the summer. If they are not prepared to accept the amendment, that is regrettable, and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House in detail why not. If my noble friend is not satisfied, he may wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Waddington
My Lords, I was not intending to speak in this debate. In my few words I will try to be helpful. It is slightly extraordinary that we are prone to talking about the need for joined-up government, yet we debate for hours housing need and broad demographic trends and never mention the dreaded word “immigration”. There has been study after study of population trends. Every one comes to the same conclusion; if immigration continues at about the current level, there will be a massive explosion in our population. As long ago as 2007, the ONS pointed out that up to 70 per cent of housing need is driven by immigration. Therefore, it is completely frivolous to talk about housing need without putting it in the context of many factors, of which clearly immigration is one.
It has been argued forcefully that if we could have a neutral position with precisely the same number of people leaving the country as coming into it, all the housing projections would be shown to be entirely unhelpful, because they suggest that housing need would evaporate just like that. That is the conclusion of almost every study that has been made. I am not saying that nil immigration is a possibility, but we ought now and again in our debates about housing need to mention how immigration and housing policies are closely interrelated. One cannot talk about one without talking about the other, yet most people are terribly fearful of talking about immigration. It is almost a forbidden subject. It is time we related the two subjects to make sense of them.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet
My Lords, will the noble Lord read again what the amendment of my noble friend Lord Whitty calls for? I, too, had not intended to speak, but need to react to what he has just said. Subsection (2) states:
“All local housing authorities must draw up an analysis of housing supply and demand”—
that is to say, need—
“in their areas and the neighbouring areas as far as is relevant”.
Therefore, there is no need for us to specialise in any particular area in the way in which the noble Lord suggested, because the amendment demands that all of that should be looked at—what is needed and what the supply will be, taking into account further areas that the authorities need to look at before covering that.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, I had not intended to intervene, either. I do not want to go too far down the same line as my noble friend Lord Waddington. Obviously, immigration—the number of people coming in as against the number going out—has some effect on the housing market. It must do. However, a lot of other trends, including the growth in the number of single-parent families and the huge increase in the number of people living on into old age as single people, are generating an additional demand for housing. That should be set against the current background where, even with low interest rates, the low availability of mortgages and the drop in housebuilding are creating something that we need to take seriously—namely, a diminution in home ownership in this country. As a Conservative who strongly supported the right to buy, with all the effects that that had, I am alarmed that we now have a situation in which our housing policy appears to be leading to a steady diminution in home ownership. There are strategic issues here that need looking at.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I am, of course, an immigrant, although I immigrated a long time ago. I remember being quite unsurprised to learn when I arrived in this country that there was no way in which an immigrant could get social housing. As the years have gone by, that position has changed dramatically. My major concern is the people who have waited on a housing list for 10, 15, 20 or 25 years without a hope in the world of ever getting anything. They see others—very often asylum seekers or others who have newly arrived in this country and are in need—jumping the queue. I cannot understand why if you arrive in this country needing housing—and are very grateful to be here, because this has always been a very hospitable country—you would be unprepared to go to an area of the country where there is vacant housing that is not being used. Many of these immigrants are quite capable of doing up properties themselves. I cannot understand why that is not a process. I am told by a local authority that I spoke to recently about this type of case that it has no flexibility in the matter. As I understand it, under the Homelessness Act it cannot say that people are entitled to be considered for housing because they have waited 25 years. It is not allowed to take any such matters into consideration. This is where the Bill will improve people’s rights and make the process for getting social housing fairer.
The other thing that is desperately important is for councils to empty out social housing that is occupied not by those to whom it was given but by the sub-tenants to whom those tenants let it illegally. A huge amount of housing could be made available if that was looked into more thoroughly.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I shall contribute briefly to this debate, although I, too, had not intended to do so. From my perspective, immigrants are welcome and underpin our economy. I say that because our wealth as a country has been dependent over many generations on those who come to live here.
Perhaps I may take us back to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. In Committee I said that I had some sympathy with calls for a housing strategy. However, I am less certain that the timescale which the amendment describes—a 10-year rolling housing strategy—is sufficient because, as my noble friend Lord Newton pointed out, things change quickly. We are well aware that we have a growing rented sector; that in some parts of the country rents are rising well above the rate of inflation; that mortgage repossessions are rising, and that household formation is running at twice the rate of our new house-building programme. As we all acknowledge, the Government’s plans for 170,000 homes at affordable rents will not be sufficient to bridge that gap, which is why the growth in owner occupation matters so much. However, people have to be able to get a mortgage. At present, with signs of rising unemployment and rising homelessness, there is a very real danger that more people will go into the private rented sector and that there will be a reduction in the quality of that housing stock.
There is a case for local councils here. Surely good local councils will have some awareness of what is lacking in their area, what the market needs, what private house builders will want to build and what the social housing needs of their area are going to be. They are going to have to be aware of that, otherwise I do not think that another part of the Localism Bill—the part relating to neighbourhood planning—will work. Neighbourhood planning requires some kind of evidence base to enable decisions to be made by neighbourhoods and, more broadly within the authority as a whole, about what the plans for that area should be. Housing and the use of land are central to that.
I hope that there is a way forward and that my noble friend will be able to reassure us. You do not actually need a 10-year housing strategy. You do need an acute, local awareness of housing demand and trends and an ability to be much more fleet of foot in meeting those trends than we have seen over the past two decades.
Lord Williamson of Horton
My Lords, we are now coming to the vital questions of homelessness and overcrowding, but this amendment is a little different. It is a general amendment dealing with housing strategy. It does not deal only with the problems of homelessness and getting on the housing ladder: it deals with the whole structure in a local area of what is happening in the housing domain.
I see a lot of merit in this amendment for ensuring that in one way or another we can guarantee that this sort of information is available at the local level. No doubt the Minister will comment on that point because that is the issue underlying this amendment. Is this information seriously available at a local level? For myself, issues such as employment trends, not in the country as a whole but in a region or local area, are quite different. These issues are important for the planning and future analysis of how we can have the houses that we need for the population in individual areas.
Similarly, there is the question of empty properties. We now have town centres with hundreds of empty shops which could easily be converted into housing. Will they be converted into housing? We do not know, but that should be featured in the knowledge available to the local authority. I am not pressing for the exact words, but I am sympathetic to this idea and I hope that the Minister will comment on that in his reply.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Whitty and will make a couple of observations—one in relation to something that was touched on in the amendment and another that is implicit. In the first case I refer to subsection (2) in the amendment, where my noble friend suggests:
“All local housing authorities must draw up an analysis of housing supply and demand in their areas and neighbouring areas as far as is relevant”.
In many cases that is a fundamental point which was made more difficult by the abolition of the regional spatial strategies. We know of authorities that are currently having considerable difficulties. In earlier debates I cited the case of Stevenage, which was looking to increase its housing stock. It cannot do so within the narrow confines of the borough, and it is not finding a warm welcome from the adjoining borough of North Hertfordshire. There are other cases of that kind.
In looking at housing needs, as has previously been indicated, it is sometimes necessary to look beyond the confines of an individual housing authority and to make proper provision for at least a sub-regional area. That is an important part of the amendment. I would be grateful for some assurance from the Minister that, even if she is not prepared to accept the amendment as it stands—and I hazard a guess that she might not be—the Government will look at how these cross-boundary issues of determining housing need can be adequately addressed.
The other issue could be wrapped up within subsection (2)(f) of the amendment:
“broad demographic and employment trends in their areas”.
One change in the housing situation in many towns and cities with universities and colleges is the high demand for student accommodation. Some of that is met by purpose building—by the university or private institutions—but a lot of it is met by the occupation by students of what in normal circumstances would be family housing.
As with immigrants, there is certainly a strong case to be made for the contribution made by students, and higher and further education, within the local economy. However, they absorb a considerable amount of housing accommodation that was originally designed for families and put additional pressure on the local housing stock and the local housing market. In the light of changes to be made to housing benefit and welfare benefits generally, that pressure is likely to increase because private landlords may well find students a readier purchaser of rented accommodation, as it were, and more able to afford it, than ordinary families and ordinary individuals seeking housing. I think my noble friend Lord Whitty would agree that this should be included in the demographic trends and analysis that he suggests authorities should make. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister were able to comment on this issue.
Finally, the issue of the number of vacant properties has already been touched on this afternoon. This was referred to this morning in a meeting convened by the Minister, with her right honourable friend the Minister for Housing. Mr Shapps rightly pointed out that waiting lists have grown to something like 1.2 million. He also said that there were a million empty properties in the country—correcting me, appropriately; I thought it was somewhat less than that—which would virtually take care of the waiting list.
Of course there are good reasons why some properties will remain vacant for some time—while they change hands, for example—but there is a real issue over bringing into use the empty properties that could help deal with the housing problem. I regret that the Government’s policies on empty dwelling management orders, for example, make it more difficult, not less, for local authorities to address the issue of properties that have been left vacant for some time. They now have to be vacant for two years or more and include an element of environmental degradation before a council can take action. Again, dealing with empty properties is referred to in the housing strategy, but it would be welcome if the Minister would indicate whether there are proposals currently in the Government’s mind to facilitate the use of empty accommodation and to speed up the process of dealing with empty properties.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I got us off to a really good start, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has taken that on as well. This is a general amendment on a very serious and specific subject, and I recognise all that has been said across the House and the analysis of the housing situation. In all fairness, I should point out that this is not just a short-term problem. This has been a long-term problem over the years, and both the previous Government and this Government have been trying very hard to address at least some of the issues that have been raised.
There are all sorts of reasons behind a lack of housing and none of us would disagree that the present situation is pretty difficult. It is pretty difficult in the private market. It is very difficult, as has already been said, for young people to get on to the housing ladder; it is very difficult for them to afford mortgages. There is a big problem for that age group and for people starting off on their housing lives.
As has already been said, and was admitted by the Minister this morning, there are empty properties that need to be brought back into use. There is a lot of pressure on housing requirements all round. As the Minister also said, in reality we cannot build ourselves out of these difficulties in the short term. One hundred and seventy thousand homes are being built through the affordable homes programme for social housing, and they will make some contribution towards it. The waiting lists have gone up and, as has been said already, a million homes are required, which is a big problem. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is about drawing attention to that and identifying what is required. He said that in Committee I said that this amendment would not be needed. It will not surprise him when I say now that it is not needed. Already, there are statutory provisions requiring local authorities, which the noble Lord mentioned, to collect evidence on housing need and demand in their areas for market and affordable housing. That is in planning policy statement 3 and is included in the guidance.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving the amendment her careful consideration, and I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, my noble friends Lord Beecham, Lord Kennedy and Lady Wall, and to some extent the noble Lord, Lord Newton, for speaking in support of it. The Minister has reiterated her previous position that this amendment is not necessary and I think I interpret that as her saying that not only are there objections to the wording of this particular proposed new clause in terms of a 10-year rolling strategy and other things but that she could envisage no strategic clause that would be helpful to the position. If that is the case, I have to part company with her.
The noble Baroness was right to say in opening that there is a long-term trend and that it will certainly take a long-term programme to reverse it. However, things have got significantly worse in the past few years with the decline in new build as well as in the mortgage market. As the noble Lord, Lord Newton, said, for the past 30 or more years we have assumed that the housing situation was going to be improved, at least in the long term, by the increase in home ownership. That has seen a very sharp reversal. We see from a report published only last week by the National Housing Federation that home ownership has already fallen from over 70 per cent to 63 per cent, and it envisages that it will shortly be below 60 per cent. That is an entirely new situation confronting the Government, developers and local authorities, so there is a sharper situation than the one envisaged by the provisions of the earlier legislation.
I also think that this Bill as a whole places more responsibility on local authorities than was the case when those pieces of legislation were brought forward. Personally, I am in favour of putting more responsibility on local authorities in this regard, and in that sense I depart from some of the measures taken by the previous Government and the one before that. However, in the situation that we face, local authorities are both legislatively and in reality going to have to take more responsibility, and therefore they need a strategic framework.
Furthermore, the key point which the noble Baroness missed is that the third line of the amendment makes it clear that we cannot consider the social housing strategy set out in subsequent clauses of this Bill, which we shall come to debate, unless it is set against an overall strategy. That, in a sense, is the main reason for putting this in at this point in the Bill, otherwise we move straight to social housing, with all the problems of waiting lists, which we know councils face, and all the problems that have been identified in relation to the provision and allocation of social housing without referring to a wider framework. That would be wrong.
There are legitimate questions about whether a 10-year strategy is the right one. We need some sense of perspective for planning and development purposes, but we must also recognise that we have to adapt to changing circumstances. A rolling programme allows you to do that. If the noble Baroness wishes me to change the reference to 10 years, I will do so, but we need some sort of rolling programme. If we do not have it, the social housing propositions in the Bill will be seen—I hate to put it in these terms in one sense—as an attack on past social housing practice and a problem for future social housing rather than as a contribution towards solving the overall housing crisis. I therefore think that this issue is sufficiently important for me to test the opinion of the House on the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I moved these amendments on the last day before the Summer Recess and we are back to them again on the first day after the Recess. These are two very important amendments and, as I told the House on 20 July, the Opposition have considerable concerns about this section of the Bill as presently drafted. The Bill enables local authorities to decide what class of person qualifies for housing in their areas. My amendments seek to protect existing tenants to make it absolutely clear that they qualify automatically as a secure tenant if they move through the local authority allocation scheme.
I have tabled these amendments because at present it is not clear that tenants have any protection and, as it stands, the effect of the Bill may be to block up the system. As people progress through life, if they have children and then grow up and move on, often they want, and are prepared, to downsize the accommodation they are living in. This would mean that they can live in a property that is more suitable to their present circumstances. That is good for them and good for the local community at the same time, as it frees up much-needed accommodation with a large number of bedrooms and other amenities, which can then be used to help people in housing need. But no one will even consider downsizing in that way if the consequence could be that they lose their secure tenant status. Of what possible benefit would it be to them? If you are in your late 50s and it is just the two of you and you have downsized, all of a sudden you could be on a flexible tenancy for, one hopes, five years, because the council has followed the guidance and not tried to give you a shorter tenancy. Why would anyone want to do that? There is no incentive to do that; it would just cause risk and worry to you, as you start to think about retirement and taking things a bit easier.
One of the most worrying aspects here is the law of unintended consequences. You may be trying to solve a problem and make matters worse. It is also worrying that, taken with the proposal to cut housing benefit for people who are under-occupying, this could be seen as a two-pronged attack on some of the most vulnerable people in social housing and in social need. We on these Benches oppose that strongly.
In the other place, Mr Andrew Stunell, the Liberal Democrat Member for Hazel Grove and a ministerial colleague of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, at the Department for Communities and Local Government, recognised that these proposals would cause concern. He spoke about what any sensible landlord would do, but the problem is that people sometimes do stupid things and social landlords and local housing authorities are no exception to that rule. Also, I do not think it is a sensible way to legislate—with our fingers crossed, saying, “Don’t worry, it will never happen”. If we go on like that, we will very quickly be able to point to new examples of exactly that happening. If the Government have no intention of seeing secure tenants offered flexible tenancies when they move, they should accept my amendments, because to do otherwise gives a clear signal that they are either not thinking the problem through or in fact that is exactly what they really intend. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, when I stood up last time I was remiss in not welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, to his full-time position on the Front Bench. He is very welcome indeed and I hope that he is going to enjoy it. He may not enjoy the start of it, though; I fully understand what he is saying on this amendment but I also think that a bit of flexibility within the provisions is required.
We do not think that it is necessary to legislate to prevent local authorities from ever disqualifying transferring tenants. There may be exceptional circumstances where, for example, tenants have not paid their rent or there is some problem associated with the transfer, but by and large, under practically all circumstances, we would expect transferring tenants to be transferred without trouble. The noble Lord mentioned downsizing to a smaller flat, moving from a bigger flat to a smaller one or moving because of work from one place to another. We would expect all those to go without any difficulty at all and without the local authority having to make any exceptions.
As I say, though, there might just be exceptions. The only one that I will give the noble Lord at the moment is that there might be rent arrears that need to be paid off before the tenants move. Flexibility for the local authority in those circumstances would be removed by this amendment. We are producing secondary legislation that will outline when local authorities can and cannot prevent people transferring. If there were any evidence that local authorities were disqualifying transferring tenants inappropriately, that would be covered by that secondary legislation, which will not be on hand immediately but is coming.
I believe that the provisions as currently drafted are correct and that the proposed provisions are unnecessary. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that he can withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I thought we could do that on Report for a question. I asked the Clerk earlier. Perhaps that could be clarified.
If the local authority were adopting a flexible policy and happened to adopt the policy as set out in the amendment, could it do that in any case without it being in the Bill?
Baroness Hanham
The local authority has flexibility at present so it would be able to prevent the transfer. The wording will mean that it is fully understood that the transferring tenants will perhaps not be able to transfer under those circumstances.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Before the Minister sits down again, when does she expect to see drafts of the guidance that she referred to?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I will seek advice about that as it was not in my notes. I will tell the noble Lord about that as soon as that information appears, whether on this amendment or another one.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the Minister, and I am grateful for her kind remarks at the start of this debate. Hopefully, we will get a response on the guidance later on. Her remarks have given me some comfort and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Shipley
Lord Shipley
My Lords, in moving Amendment 4 I shall speak also to Amendments 7, 17 and 18. I first thank my noble friend the Minister for the helpful letter that she sent to me during the Recess in response to several of the amendments that I had tabled in Committee. Several of the issues that arise from that will be considered further on Report. In this group of amendments, I should like to press a little further on some of the key issues.
The effect of Amendment 4 is to extend the period during which the homelessness duties will recur if a local authority discharges its duties by means of a private rented sector offer. I am keen to extend it from two to five years. Secondly, it would provide for a household that has been accepted as homeless to receive reasonable preference on the authority’s allocation scheme during that period of five years because of its need for stable accommodation to break the cycle of insecure accommodation. Two years is simply too short and will increase the insecurity of those who have been accepted as homeless.
The Bill currently sets out that the homelessness duty can recur only once following the loss of accommodation during the recurrence period. Therefore, if the applicant was subsequently evicted from the accommodation provided on the reapplication, the duty would not recur for a second time. The applicant would have to make a fresh homelessness application. I find this restriction difficult to justify and see no good reason why the homelessness duty should not recur on each reapplication. Crucially, it would provide a key incentive for local authorities to ensure that their original allocation was as suitable as possible.
The main homelessness duty is owed to people who are considered to have a priority need. These include households made up of a pregnant woman; dependent children; applicants aged 16 or 17; applicants aged between 18 and 20 who have been in care; applicants who are vulnerable as a result of having been in care, old age, mental illness, handicap or physical disability; and those who have perhaps been a member of the Armed Forces, served a custodial sentence or fled violence or threats of violence. These are examples of groups who are most in need of secure, affordable homes and whose welfare would be most at risk from a series of short-term lettings and repeat homelessness. That is why two years is simply not sufficient and five years would be much better.
People who leave an institutional setting such as care, hospital, the Armed Forces or prison often struggle to live independently and deal with all the practicalities involved in establishing a home, particularly if they lack support. Knowing that they may be forced to move again quite soon can be particularly unsettling and may throw up practical and financial problems. Combined with the recent and forthcoming restrictions to the local housing allowance, this part of the Bill will mean that households that are dependent on full or partial housing benefit will be pushed into the cheapest third of the private rented sector, without any reasonable preference by virtue of their homelessness for a permanent and affordable home provided by an accountable and regulated social landlord, who can then refer them to support and advice services.
There is a link between homelessness and reasonable preference for social housing. The Housing Act 1996 limited the duty to accommodate homeless applicants to two years. Part 6 of that Act established that permanent accommodation can be obtained only through the allocation scheme, not through the homelessness duty, although homeless people should have reasonable preference in allocation. The Homelessness Act 2002 restored the duty to accommodate indefinitely, if necessary via the provision of temporary accommodation, until a settled home is secured. However, the 2002 Act also introduced the qualifying offer, whereby the homelessness duty can be discharged into the private rented sector with the applicant’s consent.
The danger here is that the Government may undermine the homelessness legislation by removing the need for consent to discharge the duty into an insecure private letting. I fully understand the need for local councils to use private sector accommodation but that private setting needs to be secure as opposed to insecure. Children and vulnerable adults in particular need the security of a permanent home in order successfully to address issues around family relationships, education, schools, employment, mental and physical health, reoffending and drug and alcohol dependency. The only sustainable way to meet housing need in expensive market areas is by increasing the supply of secure and genuinely affordable rented housing. Allowing housing authorities simply to discharge their homeless duty into the private rented sector regardless of local pressures could simply encourage a race to the bottom whereby homeless people are routinely discharged into the private sector, even in areas where social housing is in plentiful supply.
Amendments 7 and 17 relate broadly to the same point. However, Amendment 18 would prevent the duty recurring just once. The Bill allows households who have been placed in the private rented sector and who have become homeless again within two years still to be owed the main homelessness duty regardless of their priority need status. However, it allows this to happen only once. Amendment 18 would remove this provision. A single recurrence of duty does not offer sufficient protection. A homeless person’s first accommodation may be unsuitable and lead to repeated homelessness. If people become homeless again because a tenancy breaks down, they should continue to be owed a duty of accommodation as often as it is needed. Reassessing the household each time to determine their priority needs status could be stressful for the household and, indeed, burdensome for the council.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look again at the aim of Amendments 4, 7, 17 and 18. I do not think it is too much to ask that those who have been owed such a duty at any time within the previous five years, as opposed to two years, should be assisted in this way. It would help families and individuals who are living in difficult circumstances or have difficult problems to become stabilised in a neighbourhood where they get to know people and people get to know them. I hope very much that my noble friend will increase the two-year period to five years.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, might wish to speak. I would rather hear from him first. However, I listened with interest to the noble Lord who moved the amendment. I noticed that one of the categories to which he referred comprised those who had fled violence, which comes back to the asylum seekers we discussed earlier. People who have waited years and years for housing feel great resentment in that regard. Their local authority may have placed them in private sector housing. That was certainly the situation in a case of which I know. The people in that case have found the situation in the private sector impossible as the landlady is not prepared to reduce the rent to the housing benefit rate and has already had an eviction order confirmed by the court. The tenants have been told that they must stay in the accommodation and be made homeless as otherwise the council will have no obligation to them at all, and that if they leave the accommodation they will be regarded as being voluntarily homeless. They have gone everywhere to try to find alternative accommodation. I am talking about central London, which has particular problems in this regard. For some reason we all automatically come to central London because it has a great charm. Whether that is because someone else from your country came here previously and you would like to be in a little group with everyone else, I do not know. I was never in “Kangaroo Valley” in Earls Court, but that was a well known fact even there.
However, it concerns me that people who have for years been deserving cases are not getting any opportunity or help. The people who I am talking about are now being offered an opportunity, after 16 years in other accommodation—they are well over 50—of a possible place in a hostel, although they have not been promised that. They are elderly people—well, they are in their 50s, but the husband is not well and has a heart condition.
Why should that happen to people who see accommodation offered to an asylum seeker, who is in a category of being very grateful to this country? It was said by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, when he moved the amendment, that there are areas where social housing is in plentiful supply. When, years ago, I was on Westminster Council and had responsibility for housing, we decided to offer people the right to live in Liverpool where a lot of accommodation was available. They could be offered that rather than bed and breakfast in London, which was all that we could offer here. They were all offered buses and were supposedly taken off to Liverpool. Only 50 per cent of them ever arrived. The other 50 per cent were never seen again, never made any further application to the council, and I have no idea what happened to them. But why was what proved to be an attractive offer for 50 per cent totally unattractive to the other 50 per cent?
We therefore have to be careful when considering anything regarding homelessness that we do not overlook the people who have become homeless after perhaps years of having somewhere to live, or the people who would qualify if we passed the Government’s proposals in the Bill, of which I am a strong supporter. They would make it possible for councils to attach value to various things that they think are important locally, such as the connection with an area over time. I am worried by this sort of amendment. I am not directly opposed to it because I have every sympathy with homeless people, but we have to look wider and think about the full implications.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, my experience of the housing of asylum seekers in the city of Newcastle certainly does not lead me to the view that they have been given wonderful accommodation for which there was a great deal of demand by those in housing need locally. On the contrary, NASS, the national body charged with responsibility for housing asylum seekers, seemed—if I may put it this way—rather less than careful in its choice of the landlords it engaged and the standards of accommodation that the asylum seekers were given. That reinforces the views of some of us that, while we join the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in recognising that there is a perfectly reasonable place for the private rented sector in helping to rehouse homeless people, it is imperative that the standards of that housing be adequately assessed and continually monitored.
I therefore strongly support the amendments—in particular the provision about the length of time for which the obligation to rehouse would remain. However, the reference of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, to Westminster’s generous offer to ship people up to Liverpool raises a question. It actually raises several questions, but the one for this afternoon’s purposes is whether it would be possible for an authority to discharge its duty under the Bill as it currently stands by offering accommodation outside the area of the authority in which the homeless person currently resides. I may be wrong, but I assume that that would be the case. One hears of authorities in London that are already faced with the possibility of tenants no longer being able to afford accommodation, given the impending changes, and are seeking to acquire or make arrangements for accommodation along the south coast and elsewhere—something that has happened in the past.
Can the Minister give an assurance that it would be at least the initial responsibility of the local authority to try to accommodate people within its boundaries unless the protected tenant or homeless person chooses otherwise? It would be unfortunate if the legislation were, no doubt unwittingly, to encourage the export of homeless people to other authorities, as that may well carry with it other local authority responsibilities—social care and the like—which will be a charge on those authorities, let alone the fact that the people involved may not want to move, at any rate, not for a considerable distance. As I read it—I am open to correction—although authorities are required to advise initially on what might be available locally within their area, if that does not work, they can allocate accommodation outside it. Presumably, if that is refused by the homeless person, the duty to find them accommodation would end. That seems an unsatisfactory conclusion, further compounding the difficulties which many people face.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, briefly, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. This is a welcome group of amendments that are intended to give homeless households additional protection to that proposed under the Bill.
As I said before, we have a housing crisis. Homelessness is one of the many symptoms of that. We need to ensure that appropriate procedures are in place to protect people who find themselves in distressed or difficult situations. In some cases, two years may be more than adequate, but there will be cases where that is not appropriate, and we should look at how we can make further provision for those situations. Of course, it is very likely that homeless households that need to make use of the provision will include some of the most vulnerable individuals with whom local authorities have to deal. If the Minister is not minded to accept the amendment, perhaps she can reassure us that the matter will be kept under review following implementation of the initiatives on homelessness in the Bill.
I add that if the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, were minded to test the opinion of the House, he would find support on these Benches. I also make the point that the Government Chief Whip reminded the House earlier that we have additional time, but otherwise this is a normal Report. If the opinion of the House is not tested at this point, we are running out of options.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed to the debate. We recognise that the homelessness duty is one of the major responsibilities of local authorities. However, I resist the amendment to extend the duty to five years, on the basis that often two years is sufficient. People who face homelessness need suitable accommodation, but that is often supportable within the private rented sector. As has already been said, the homelessness duty involves reasonable preference for people on the priority list who need housing. They need suitable accommodation, but not always social housing. The amendment would be unfair to other households on the waiting list that need social housing, which would have to wait longer to have their housing needs met.
One purpose behind the Bill is to allow local authorities much more flexibility in the use of the accommodation they have and in how they can fulfil their obligation to house people—not only homeless people, but those who are on their waiting list. Sometimes, two years is quite sufficient to let people who have been homeless start to find their way forward.
A number of points have been made on that matter and I should like to start with the one raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, on asylum seekers—a point also picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. For asylum seekers in this country who are homeless, the homelessness provisions require that accommodation should be in their area if reasonably practical. Only after that requirement has been tested can they be placed out of the borough but, again, there is the certainty that several factors have to be taken into account, such as location and affordability—matters that are now considered all the time. As has been said, applicants who become homeless after two years can reapply, and they will still be able to obtain support by making a fresh application for assistance, should that be necessary. Therefore, they are not abandoned at the end of two years. There is support for them and the local authority still has a responsibility towards them.
I understand the noble Lord’s desire to see that timeframe extended, but we do not think that that would be in the interests of local authorities, those who are homeless and those who are waiting for accommodation. We are satisfied that local authorities’ obligations to those who are homeless can be fulfilled satisfactorily within two years, with the expectation that if at the end of two years they still require housing they will again either be treated as though they are unintentionally homeless or be given advice and help in finding accommodation.
I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with that reply and I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for her response, although from my perspective it is a little disappointing. I think the evidence over the next two to five years will demonstrate that a five-year period would be wise. However, I am still hopeful that the Minister will think further about this matter. Perhaps discussions can take place over the next few weeks between Report and Third Reading that will cause the Government to look further at whether the timeframe can be extended to five years. In the hope that that may yet prove possible, I am prepared to await an outcome that we might secure at Third Reading, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Prevention of homelessness: advice and assistance
(1) The Housing Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 184 (inquiry into cases of homelessness or threatened homelessness) insert—
“184A Prevention of homelessness: advice and assistance
(1) An authority must, in the course of its enquiries under section 184, offer advice and assistance to the applicant for the purpose of the prevention of homelessness.
(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations about the information to be provided to applicants under subsection (1), following consultation with local authorities.””
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I was hoping that the Government would have indicated that they were going to accept this amendment or perhaps even sign up to it before this afternoon’s debate. The amendment seeks to amend the Housing Act 1996. It would insert an additional clause, adding a new Section 184A. The new clause would put a duty on local authorities to offer advice and assistance to applicants for the purpose of preventing homelessness, and it would give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations in this respect if he so wished. It is a proportionate amendment that places a sensible and not too onerous duty on local authorities.
I am sure we all agree that homelessness must be eradicated. The Government, local authorities and the voluntary sector need to work together to develop strategies and initiatives to ensure that all citizens can sleep in a bed in their own home. Only with a multi-agency approach can we develop solutions to this grave social problem that destroys people’s lives and their prospects for the future.
People become homeless for a whole variety of reasons, including mental illness, social exclusion, family breakdown and repossession—to name but a few. What is clear is that if you are homeless you are a vulnerable person no matter what your circumstances have been in the past, and as a society we need to be in a position to provide help and support.
I am not sure whether any noble Lords have ever been homeless. I certainly have not, but it is fair to say that if you find yourself in that position you will not be in the best frame of mind. You will most likely be distressed and worried and not thinking too straight or clearly. It is a shocking truth today that in one of the richest countries in the world there are still people living on our streets. You can find rough sleepers close to here. I do not mean the protesters in Parliament Square. One need only walk down Victoria Street on the way to Victoria Station, or past Charing Cross Station and Coutts Bank to where rough sleepers gather in the evening for soup and bread. One of the most tragic scenes is of young people with their lives in front of them living on the streets. They are easy prey for a whole variety of people who would do them harm.
My amendment is a small step in the right direction, which I hope the Government will take. Amendments 12, 13 and 14, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, are worthy of support and would ensure that people are given improved notification of advice and assistance that they receive. The amendments would build protections for vulnerable people, ensuring that they understand their rights and are not missing out on the support that they are entitled to. I am sure noble Lords will be aware of the report of the Local Government Ombudsman, Homelessness: How Councils Can Ensure Justice for Homeless People, which is strongly critical of the way in which many councils prevent or delay homeless applications. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16. Amendment 12 would require local housing authorities to provide written notification of housing and homelessness advice and assistance given under housing option schemes and to undertake other measures for the prevention of homelessness. Central to many councils’ current approach to homelessness and its prevention is the concept of housing options. Under this model, people who approach the council for assistance are required to have a formal interview in which advice on housing options is offered. This is a prerequisite not only for those seeking homelessness assistance but for those seeking to join the housing register or to apply for social housing under a choice-based letting scheme. Under the current system, housing options advice is subject to virtually no statutory guidance.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, drew attention to the recent report by the Local Government Ombudsman, and I should like to say a little more about that as it is highly material to this part of the Bill. That report highlights instances of council gate-keeping, where local authorities delay or prevent homelessness applications for no good reason. It notes how many people are prevented from making a homelessness application even when they are clearly in a priority need category. It warns that councils could be guilty of maladministration, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, pointed out. It also states that some councils fail to do enough to prevent people becoming homeless, fail to look into whether a person needs help and fail to recognise an application for help with interim accommodation when someone is legally entitled to it. The ombudsman’s report specifically calls on councils not to use homelessness prevention activity to block people from making applications, illustrates why this amendment is necessary to ensure minimum standards for housing option services, and, crucially, recommends that councils explain any decisions in writing.
The ombudsman, Dr Jane Martin, said:
“We see too many cases where individuals have suffered injustice at a particularly precarious moment in their lives when they most needed help. Often extremely vulnerable, they can find themselves sleeping rough or on people’s sofas, struggling to find the foothold that would allow them to change their circumstances. When councils fail to give them a helping hand at that key moment, it can affect that individual for years”.
In many instances, people are not being permitted to make a homelessness application. In other cases, they may accept the offer of a private sector tenancy, believing this to be made under one of the statutory homelessness duties, only to find that the authority does not regard itself as having taken a homelessness application at all. The amendment would ensure that people who seek homelessness advice are fully aware of whether they have made a homelessness application, and are given a letter clarifying the advice that they have received.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top
I shall intervene very briefly. The Minister may remember that I had responsibility for homelessness, way back, from 1997 to 2001. It seems a long time ago. I had responsibility for reducing the number of rough sleepers, and we managed to reduce it by more than two-thirds in less than two years. We were only able to do that with the co-operation of local authorities. I know that this Government came to power with an intention to develop and extend the commitment to keeping people off the streets. The problem is that, because of all sorts of circumstances, that has not happened.
For example, in Newcastle, I chair a major homeless organisation, which has worked very well with the council that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, led until fairly recently and that my noble friend Lord Beecham led some time before that. In the winter of 2009-10, we successfully, together, made sure that there were no rough sleepers in Newcastle. That was a remarkable achievement. I am very sorry to tell the House that every night last winter there were between 12 and 18 rough sleepers. That was because there was no alternative accommodation. There was no room in hostels, and no room in other accommodation to which people could be moved from hostels, so this is, once again, becoming a crisis. The House will recognise, I suspect, that the availability of social housing in the north-east is still better than it is in many other parts of the country, certainly better than in central London, but if we are suffering those problems in the north-east, there are going to be even greater pressures in the rest of the country. What I very quickly learnt, and it has stayed with me ever since, is that a good local authority, working effectively with the voluntary agencies involved, can help prevent homelessness. As the Government have recognised in a range of areas, early intervention and prevention are far more cost effective to the public purse and, in relation to the people we are talking about, far more effective in their lives. If there are children, early intervention certainly becomes even more critical in their lives and prospects.
These amendments are around the responsibility of the local authority to work with other partners in their locality to do whatever they can to prevent homelessness. I do not pretend that this is easy. I know from my daily contact with the Cyrenians in the north-east and with other homeless organisations nationally that this is not easy, but unless that begins to be seen as a priority within the local authority, it will not happen in different localities. Whatever we say in this House, the Government need to find a way of reinforcing that to those local authorities that are identified in the ombudsman’s report as not fulfilling that responsibility. I do not believe that you sort things through legislation: you sort them through good practice and commitment, but legislation should help.
I know that the Government will not have the opportunity to come back to this legislatively for some time because the pressures on the legislative timetable will be too great. I therefore ask the Minister to recognise what is happening in our society in terms of the increasing problem of homelessness and will find ways in this Bill to re-emphasise to local authorities their responsibilities to intervene quickly so that homelessness is prevented. It is possible. There are good examples in the country where that has happened. It is unusual for me to welcome anything from Newcastle quite honestly, and people from the north-east will understand why I say that, but there has been good co-operation in Newcastle. However, even there, street homelessness is rising. We know why and we know how to solve the problem but we cannot do that without support from the Government.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I am prompted to intervene by listening to what my noble friend Lord Shipley said about the Local Government Ombudsman's report and the reinforcement that we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong. I am ashamed to say that I have not read the report myself, but I note with concern what it says about councils doing everything that they can to prevent homelessness, which is what the noble Baroness said, and what my noble friend said about the councils that failed to do enough to prevent homelessness. That can be so important at the critical moment when a person becomes homeless and may suffer the effects of the rest of their lives.
I particularly wanted to say something on the subject in light of the fact that we are about to witness a case in which a council is deliberately making people homeless. I am talking about the case that your Lordships will be aware of where the local authority in Basildon is evicting 150 people from the Dale Farm Travellers’ site. That will take place at some point in the week beginning 19 September, so these people will find themselves dumped on the road imminently. Their homes will be placed in storage and it will have a vast effect on the lives of the people who are presently resident there, particularly the vulnerable people such as pregnant women, the elderly and the disabled. One woman is on dialysis. Although the local authority has made quite considerable efforts to find out who are the vulnerable people on the site, we have no idea how they will be dealt with when they finally become homeless. Therefore, my noble friend's amendment on the prevention of homelessness is germane to this episode.
I would like to know what the local authority in Basildon will do when these people find themselves without a home, because their homes will be taken away and put in storage. They will be left on the roadside. How will we deal with a situation of that kind? Why can we not take national action to prevent this crisis? All it requires is for local authorities to discuss with the neighbours in the county of Essex how land can be provided for the small number of people who live on the 51 pitches that will be subject to eviction instead of scattering them all around the landscape. Culturally appropriate alternative accommodation has been identified, but it is far away in the distance. One site is in Suffolk where there may be 10 pitches and another is in Lancashire where there may be six.
The families on the Dale Farm site are interrelated and very cohesive, and will be deprived of the social support arising from the fact that they have all lived together on the same site for 10 years and are mutually supportive. They have a network of local support: for example, from the churches and from some councillors, particularly Councillor Candy Sheridan, who has made enormous efforts to identify alternative land in the neighbourhood, and who was on the point of being successful when this Government came into office. I am very sorry to say that I think it was a direct result of Mr Pickles tearing up the regionalism agenda, which of course may be very good in general but does not happen to suit this particular case.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for these amendments. I will resist the temptation, if I may, to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. It is a very specific case and not in the general terms of this amendment, which concerns homelessness, in particular people who become intentionally homeless.
As I have said previously, the amendments seek to put a bit more bureaucracy into the work that local authorities do and for which they have duties. Indeed, the Local Government Ombudsman, in the report that was referred to, acknowledged that the homeless legislation and duties within it are clear, although these are perhaps not always carried out in the way they should be.
Homelessness is a terrible thing and nobody would stand here and say that we should not try to deal with it in the most expeditious way possible. The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, who is very much involved in dealing with homelessness and who had a very good reputation, if I might say so, as a Minister, has laid out very clearly the difficulties inherent in reducing homelessness, though the fact is that it can be done. I think that, in London, the mayor has introduced a one-night-only policy whereby people are not able to be homeless for more than one night. They should be found, fed and given accommodation. That sort of flexibility and ability to move on one’s feet is required as regards anything to do with the resolution of homelessness matters.
Once again, I will resist getting too dogmatic and bureaucratic about this. We know that there were 188,000 cases of prevention and relief in 2010-11. Many people who were helped and assisted with accommodation would not have been recognised as statutorily homeless. The Government working in partnership with local authorities rather than compelling them to do things makes that work better. Putting housing options and homelessness prevention work on a statutory footing would be overly burdensome and probably counterproductive because it would become a tick-box exercise, which we do not believe is the correct way to deal with individual cases.
As regards Amendments 5 and 15, it is important to reiterate what I have made clear previously. A person should not be found intentionally homeless if the only reason for their homelessness is that he or she cannot afford their accommodation because of a reduction in financial resources outside their control. Therefore, they will be helped under those circumstances.
We have also said that a local authority owes those who are intentionally homeless and in priority need a duty to secure that accommodation is available for a period that will help them to get back on their feet. Placing a duty on local authorities—
Baroness Whitaker
Will the noble Baroness say how the arrangements that she prefers apply to Gypsies and Travellers? I will not take one particular case but, nationally, 25,000 Gypsies and Travellers are homeless and they very much need advice and assistance on what legal sites can be made available to them. In the years she quoted when so many homeless people were found accommodation, no accommodation was made available for those 25,000. Basildon is only one example, albeit perhaps the worst at present. How can arrangements be made other than through these sensible amendments to accommodate 25,000 homeless people?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that there is already a requirement under legislation for local authorities to identify land that can be made available for Gypsies and Travellers in their local area, and in conjunction and agreement with local residents. There is already a recognition that Travellers are in a special position. However, a lot of Travellers are no longer travellers. Some of these people have put down permanent roots, although not always with approval. While they clearly need the help of the local authority and nothing should take that away, they do not always require accommodation.
Baroness Whitaker
The 25,000 people I mentioned are all nomadic Travellers. The recognition to which the noble Baroness refers has not resulted in sites being provided for them.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I think that local authorities are being asked to identify sites at the moment. It may be that they are not all available at present but, as I have said previously in the House, the Government have recognised the requirement to ensure that Travellers have somewhere to put their caravans and tents in order to be helped.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I am sorry to continue on this theme, but I wonder whether the noble Baroness realises that we are facing an absolute crisis because the Government have torn up the previous mechanisms which were designed to ensure that all local authorities made a contribution towards the accommodation of Gypsies and Travellers and have left them free to decide, of their own volition and without any guidance whatever, whether they will provide accommodation and, if so, at what level. The result is that most authorities have scrapped the plans set out in the previous Government’s regionalism system and said that they are not going to provide any sites. That is the case in Essex, for example, where the neighbouring authorities to Basildon are not going to lift a finger to rescue the 150 people who are to be thrown on to the roadside.
Baroness Hanham
A lot lies behind the matter raised by the noble Lord. A lot has been said by the leader of the council and I think that there are expectations in Essex that this is a matter for Essex to resolve. However, it will be resolved against the background that they have been and should be asked to identify somewhere where the Travellers can be placed.
I am going to move on and say that placing a duty on local authorities to secure accommodation for a period for households that are intentionally homeless or not in priority need does make great demands on their limited resources, and this could have unintended consequences. Local authorities have a clear duty to provide advice and assistance to help those found to be intentionally homeless and, as under Amendments 13 and 14 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, all those who are unintentionally homeless and not in priority need will be assisted in any attempt to seek accommodation for themselves. The only difference between ourselves and the noble Lord is that his requirement is for all this to be put in writing and for there to be quite a lot of formula around how it is to be done. Local authorities already have discretionary powers to provide emergency accommodation to applicants who are not in priority need and not intentionally homeless, and they have a requirement to give assistance and advice. As I have already said, they are under a duty to provide advice and information to all people who approach them. People can make a homelessness application, and if they are homeless through no fault of their own and are eligible for priority need, local authorities must secure accommodation for them. The requirements are there and do not particularly need to be put into a more statutory framework.
Of course, anyone who is not satisfied and feels that they are not being properly helped has the right to go to the Local Government Ombudsman. The ombudsman’s report has said that homelessness legislation is clear, so it is a question of how it is implemented.
Finally, it only remains for me to say that the Government are committed to tackling homelessness and rough sleeping. The Minister in the other place is well known for his efforts to deal with homelessness. Indeed, he said today that that was why he came into politics. The Government have maintained their homeless person’s grant funding of £400 million over the next four years. There is a ministerial working group looking into tackling the complex causes of rough sleeping, which we have already spoken about. A rough sleeping count is now taking place so that we can know the full figures rather than just the estimated number.
I will resist these amendments and I hope that, with what I have said about local authorities having a duty to ensure that people are helped and assisted if they are in danger of becoming homeless, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, including the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Avebury, my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, and the Minister. My noble friend Lady Armstrong set out very clearly what needs to happen, the benefit of early intervention and the problems that she sees emerging on the streets of the north-east. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made a very useful contribution, expanding on the points that I made about the report of the Local Government Ombudsman, which is so critical of the way that many councils operate in this field.
I disagree with the Minister that the measure is unnecessary and overbureaucratic. I also doubt that a homeless person’s first priority would be to make a complaint to the ombudsman about their situation.
The amendment seeks to improve the provision of essential information for people in some of the most distressing circumstances in which they could ever find themselves. It is so important that I feel that I need to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, this group of amendments is probably the most important that we will consider today as part of our deliberations on the housing section of the Localism Bill. If passed, it would give Parliament the opportunity to reflect on the changes after they become law and a period of three years has elapsed. They would then only be renewed if affirmative resolutions were passed by both Houses.
The changes in the Bill are significant. There is widespread concern about them. When the Government make such changes, they should always be prepared to listen and to be aware of the law of unintended consequences. By passing this amendment, Parliament would have the ability to review the decision it has made in a simple way that would not require lots of parliamentary time. I hope that the Government will be persuaded to accept this group of amendments.
It is important that we remind ourselves of what the Government propose and then reflect on the benefit of what I am proposing to your Lordships’ House today. Clause 134 amends Section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 to enable local authorities to discharge their duty to homeless households by offering private sector accommodation. Individuals concerned lose their right to give their consent to the arrangement. Clause 136 gives a two-year safety net. We have to examine that in the light of the fact that that may not be long enough.
Organisations working closely with homeless households are most concerned by these proposals. The chief executive of Shelter, Campbell Robb, said recently:
“It is unbelievable that at a time when every two minutes someone faces the nightmare of losing their home, the Government is proposing to reduce the rights of homeless people who approach their local authorities for help”.
The charity Crisis has an equally concerned view of these proposals. Both charities, along with many other respected organisations, have a unique understanding of the problems faced by homeless people and we should listen to them carefully.
If the proposals are further considered with the impact of the changes to housing benefit then the risks of homeless households being placed in a difficult, downward spiral are all too apparent. These are the reasons why we should avail ourselves of the opportunity to correct the situation, in case the reality turns out to be much less welcome and more damaging than the intention of the proposals in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Best
My Lords, my name is against this amendment, in support of the sunset clause coupled with a report on the position of homelessness three years from now. The Minister said earlier that one of a local authority’s most important duties is towards the homeless. A pretty fundamental change in the way that that duty is to be discharged means that it must be a good idea to pause for thought three years down the line and see whether these quite important and significant changes have made a big difference.
At the moment, the local authority must find the family or householder a secure and affordable place in the social housing sector. In the future, they will be able to fulfil the requirement placed upon them by seeing that family into a place in the private rented sector. That, by definition, is not going to be secure in the long term. Understandably, landlords may wish to have the property back and security of tenure over the long term cannot be offered. It may be that that property, after the reforms to housing benefit and the local housing allowance, will prove to be unaffordable. There is a gap between what the tenant pays in rent and the amount that they receive in benefit, and the private rented sector option may not work out.
It may be that the dire warnings that we have heard from Shelter, Crisis, Homeless Link and others do not work out in practice, but there is a danger that those warnings prove to be entirely timely. We had a lot of discussion on these provisions earlier in the House. The noble Lords, Lord Shipley, Lord Rix, Lord McKenzie and Lord Kennedy, the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Greengross, and others all spoke on this matter in Committee. There is a great deal of concern about the fundamental changes to the duties upon local authorities.
I hope that noble Lords had a chance to look at Hansard over the summer. As I have said, noble Lords should regard reading the last debate as a bit of a teach-in on all the aspects of homelessness that we ought to think about. We were not able to secure all those different aspects as a whole series of amendments to the Bill but the Government have, in trying to ensure that accommodation is suitable in the private rented sector, come up with a code of guidance. That has some very good things in it. It does not go all the way down the line, but perhaps that will lead to a successful outcome for those who are placed in the private rented sector. This sunset clause would ensure that after a period of three years a thoroughgoing report is placed before Parliament, and that unless the Secretary of State revives these measures by order, those measures will fall.
Earlier this year I moved a Motion on the housing benefit regulations asking the noble Lord, Lord Freud, the Minister responsible, whether he would over the months and years ahead put in hand a fundamental reform along the lines of the housing benefit reforms in order to see what impact they had on homelessness, families, poverty, people’s incomes and the local authorities themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Freud, not only agreed to do that and to have a review, which is now under way and which will report in three stages over the next 18 months, but did it in a way that, I am pleased to report back to the House, met entirely with my approval and indeed that of others interested in these matters. He has brought together Professor Kemp from the University of Oxford and Professor Cole from Sheffield Hallam University; he has Ipsos MORI doing surveys and the IFS looking at the macroeconomics. It is a real, thoroughgoing review of the impact of these changes, which is just what we asked for and just what this House required. A comparable exercise to look down the line at how things are going would again be a triumph for the Government and a thoroughly commendable and useful exercise, which would provide the evidence and inform a decision on a sunset clause three years from now. Let us do it again. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Beecham
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Kennedy and the noble Lord, Lord Best, on moving this amendment. Having paid that compliment, I hope that they will not mind if I claim paternity of the amendment itself.
There are two issues that really need addressing. One is affordability and the other is the quality of the accommodation that will be offered to people. They give rise to the need to review the situation, as noble Lords who have moved and spoken to the amendment have made clear. Nearly half those who are housing allowance claimants find that their housing benefit now falls short of what is required by an average of £24 a week, which is a considerable shortfall. That is before the impending changes. A significant proportion, a quarter of tenants, find themselves spending half their income on rent, which is a very high proportion.
The condition of properties in the private rented sector in particular also gives rise to concern, as 40 per cent of them fall short of the decent homes standard, which is twice as high as the percentage in the social rented sector and well in excess of the figure in the owner-occupied sector. A high proportion of cases dealt with by Shelter come from the private rented sector—twice the proportion of claimants that you would expect from the proportion of households in the sector. Again, a high proportion of environmental health officers are reported by Shelter as encountering landlords who refuse to carry out even the necessary repairs to maintain properties in a safe condition; 36 per cent of environmental health officers say regularly that they find private landlords in breach. Yet this is the sector to which many people will be directed under the provisions of this Bill.
It may be that things will improve, which is obviously the Government’s hope and intention, but it is surely necessary to take a check on this after a reasonable period. These amendments give that opportunity to rethink the situation if necessary. If things are going well, it is a simple enough matter to carry the legislation forward; if not, there will be an opportunity to address what might well be a very difficult situation for a great many people.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor
My Lords, I declare an interest since I chair the National Housing Federation. The Government are embarking on some quite fundamental changes to the homelessness legislation, a piece of legislation that dates all the way back to my former colleague, Mr Ross. It has been of immense benefit to have that legislation in place, although it is not always popular. That said, as things stand there are some perverse consequences to the legislation and in how people may respond to its provisions. As a Member of Parliament for a Cornish constituency where homelessness and poverty have been high for many years, I saw some of that taking place. Concerns have been expressed about the use of the private sector, but I think that is wrong; the private sector can be right for individuals and homelessness should not be seen as a trump card in the process of housing allocation. So there are important potential benefits in the changes that the Government are making.
I have great sympathy with the argument that when profound changes are made we should ensure that there is a proper process of review of the consequences that come from those changes. Inevitably, there are unexpected consequences of these things; while it may not be that this particular amendment is the best form for that, I hope that I will hear from the Minister a very clear commitment for a process of review, in particular to look at whether the quality of accommodation provided by the private sector is adequate and, perhaps even more important, what the consequences have been in terms of individuals’ ability to pay rent given the changes to the benefit system. I hope that the consequences of these changes will be positive, but I am all too aware that they may not be, so I look to the Minister to give some reassurance on that front.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, I am slightly concerned about two different aspects. First, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, made the point about places being unsafe. That concerns me greatly because I understood that the council had powers, if a property was unsafe, to demand that work be carried out. So that disturbs me.
The other point that worries me very much is the whole attitude of private landlords to housing benefit claimants. This is a serious problem that I had personal experience of this week when someone I know, who has been going to estate agents and finding properties that they could afford with their £250 a week, was told by estate agents and by landlords themselves, “Sorry, we won’t take anyone on housing benefit because if they don’t pay”—I know that there is talk of sending the payment directly to the landlord, which has both advantages and disadvantages—“or if there’s any doubt, we have to meet all the costs of the court and of getting possession of the property again”. If there were some way in which the council could help the private landlord by ensuring that if there were any need to reclaim the property they would not be faced with those extra costs, that might change attitudes. It is a serious concern if people with a property to let within the range of housing benefit are unwilling to take such tenants.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I understand that this is an important aspect for those who have moved the amendments.
I point out at the start that the noble Lord, Lord Best, made a powerful intervention over the welfare Bill and as a result—or, perhaps, we fully intended this anyway—the Department for Work and Pensions will carry out extensive research into the impact of the changes to the local housing allowance that are being introduced in 2011. That will go a long way towards dealing with the matters that are raised in this amendment. The department intends to monitor the impact of the changes on claimants, landlords and local authorities over a two-year period and will be publishing an interim report in 2012, with a final report due in 2013.
We do not want to trudge along this path twice. Not only should the report being carried out by the DWP address the impact of its changes but it will pick up some of the points that the noble Lord has made in his intervention today. I am not much wedded to having yet another report on what is virtually the same subject, although we might ensure that the report being produced by the DWP picks up on some of the points that have been made. I am not making any promises on that right now but I promise to raise the issue and see if we are at a stage where that could be done.
We believe that requiring the homelessness clauses to expire three years after commencement, which is what the noble Lord’s amendment is about, would undermine the intention of our reforms. Allowing people under the main homelessness duty to turn down offers of suitable accommodation in the private rented sector and wait for an offer of social housing would be unfair. I do not think that that point was raised particularly but I want to lay it down at the moment. The changes that we are making are part of the reforms to social housing and we need to ensure that all this is fair, not only to the people who are homeless but to those who are on the waiting list and looking for good, affordable housing. We need to ensure that we get the best from our 4 million socially rented homes.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I am a disappointed that the Minister has not accepted my amendment, and she needs to go a bit further to satisfy me on that. If passed, my amendment would enable Parliament to review the situation, with the benefit of a report, of what the reality over the previous three years had been. That, I contend, is good government. With that, I seek again to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Shipley
Lord Shipley
My Lords, in moving Amendment 8 I shall also speak to Amendment 20. Amendment 8 would restore the requirement that any offer of private sector rented accommodation must be reasonable for a homeless household to accept. For clarity, the amendment would simply restore the law to its current position, which is why it refers to the deletion of a clause.
At present, local authorities must be satisfied that accommodation offered to homeless households is “reasonable to accept”. The Bill as drafted removes this requirement. However, the condition is important because “reasonable to accept” is distinct from suitability. It covers cases where a property may be defined as suitable in law by its condition, location and affordability but where there may be wider reasons for a household to turn down the offer. It has been used to challenge through the courts an offer of housing in an area where there had been racial harassment. It could apply equally in cases of domestic violence.
Amendment 20 seeks to define the suitability criteria for private sector rented accommodation offered to homeless households. It was previously tabled in Committee and would define suitability criteria for private rented accommodation in which homeless households are placed under the changes to the homelessness duties proposed in the Bill. It sets out important safeguards around physical standards, management, location and affordability. The Government have accepted some of the concerns raised about these issues at previous stages of the Bill, and have said that they are prepared to use order-making powers to set standards on physical condition and property management. Those are indeed very welcome. However, the Government have still not fully addressed the concerns around affordability and location.
Let me address examples of why an environment might not prevent accommodation being objectively considered as suitable but would, if an applicant were housed there, have a detrimental effect on that applicant. Examples include the risk of threats of racial harassment or violence by individuals unknown to the applicant, or a risk to the welfare of the applicant where the accommodation offered is in a neighbourhood associated with drug use or dealing and the applicant is a recovering drug addict. There may be a perceived risk of harassment or violence from individuals known to the applicant, such as a violent ex-partner whose relatives, friends or associates live in the neighbourhood.
There have been such legal cases; I draw attention to one in particular. A family refused an offer, arguing that it was unreasonable for them to accept the accommodation, even though it was suitable in terms of what was in it, because, when viewing the flat, they and their children had suffered racist abuse from people living nearby. That case went to the Court of Appeal, which considered that the flat may have qualified as suitable in its size, location and so on, but that the council should have gone on to consider the wider question of whether it was reasonable for the family to accept it in light of the intimidation. The court stressed that suitability and “reasonable to accept”, while overlapping terms, are different concepts. The requirement of “reasonable to accept” does not apply to temporary accommodation, but only to offers that are intended to discharge the authority’s homelessness duty completely. It is a serious issue and I am concerned.
In an ideal world I would be opposed to the removal of choice from homeless people by allowing local housing authorities to discharge their homelessness duty via an offer of private rented accommodation without the applicant’s consent. However, I recognise the general problem of supply and that more than three-quarters of local authorities, when responding to the Government’s consultation, said that they welcomed the proposed change and would use it. If local housing authorities are potentially able to discharge their main duty with one offer of private rented accommodation, it becomes much more important that this offer is suitable to meet the needs of the household.
The Government have recognised that physical and management standards are important and have outlined them in the statement that the Minister placed in the Library recently. However, I do not think that we have been told what the draft regulations will say. As the protection of homeless households is such an important issue, and given the absence of draft regulations, should we not include definitions of suitability in the Bill, particularly physical and management standards? The statement in the Library does not address the vital issues of affordability and location. The assurances given by the Minister in Committee that the local authority must by law consider the applicant’s financial resources and the total cost of accommodation in determining whether the accommodation is suitable will do nothing to tighten the affordability aspect of the suitability definition.
There seem to be no reassurances on location. Once an authority has considered the applicant’s financial resources in assessing family income and expenses, it can still take its own view of what is affordable when deciding where to place a family, as long as it can show that it has had regard to the guidance—or, to put it another way, local authorities are advised that a household’s residual income should not fall below subsistence level. However, a local authority is able to depart from this guidance as long as it can prove that it has been considered. It would be much better if this were included in the Bill. The proposed new clause would include in the Bill certain specific criteria in relation to the affordability of accommodation and its location. These tend to be the most important factors in any offer of accommodation. This will prove to be a very important issue as homelessness continues to rise and local authorities have less accommodation to offer to those who are homeless and potentially homeless.
In addition to the affordability and location of the accommodation, we should consider the management of standards, who is renting out the accommodation, what processes they follow in managing their accommodation and whether it meets the standards of decency and reasonableness that I am sure all your Lordships would expect. I have further amendments concerning standards of accommodation in the private rented sector. I do not want to discuss them now but it is important that we define the quality of the accommodation, minimum physical standards and management standards better than we do at present. We should also take greater account of affordability and location. I hope very much that the Minister will agree to look further at this issue. People should not feel that the making of a single offer on the part of the local authority means that it has fulfilled its legal obligation towards them and that they should therefore take it up. I have great doubts about this issue but I still hope that the Government will understand that they have to do a little more than what is outlined in the note that has been placed in the House of Lords’ Library.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I wonder whether I can tempt the Minister—probably not—to answer the point I made on a previous amendment about the applicability of offers made outside the area of the local authority that is determining the issue of homelessness. It is a question of suitability in this context. Perhaps she could enlighten us on that aspect when she replies.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
This is a question of whether people have a 100 per cent right to decide what is suitable. I think we have all read about the case of a family who were very unhappy in Kilburn as they considered that the shops were not smart enough and who were moved to Kensington and Chelsea, which involved a huge amount of housing benefit being paid. I consider that those people did not have the right to say that they did not like Kilburn as it was not smart enough. That was unreasonable. However, as regards Amendment 20, is it not a fact that if a local council wished to do so it could use these criteria as part of its own flexible criteria and would not need to have that enshrined in the law? I very much support the flexibility in the Bill. It is unreasonable to tie councils in this regard. However, if you do not like what your council is doing, you can vote it out in the hope of getting a new council with a different attitude.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I know that the Minister does not want to discuss the Dale Farm evictions, which are to take place in the week beginning 19 September. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, said, we are talking about a general instance of homelessness. She pointed out that every single Gypsy or Traveller who is encamped on an unauthorised site is ipso facto statutorily homeless and therefore the local authority has a duty to provide that person with alternative accommodation. However, in no case of which I am aware has any offer of alternative accommodation been made to a person living on an unauthorised site that would enable that person to bring themselves within the law concerning their accommodation.
As regards the definition of suitability which my noble friend has suggested in Amendment 20, people in this position are often deprived of the rights which he proposes to confer on the homeless. For example, there is a reference to,
“disruption to the education of children or young persons in the household”,
and more than 100 young children on the Dale Farm site attend the local primary school and will be dispersed across the countryside with no provision made for their education to continue. Bearing in mind that Gypsies and Travellers are the most deprived of all ethnic minorities, in terms of achievement and attendance in education, it is something of a triumph that so many of the children on this site have been persuaded to attend primary school. That is all going to be scrapped because, when they are on the roadside, it will be physically impossible and impractical for them to attend local schools—assuming that there would be a place for them to be admitted.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I support Amendments 8 and 20, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. Amendment 8 is simple and keeps the law as it is. The proposals from the Government weaken the position of the homeless household and potentially put it at further risk. A property could well be deemed suitable, but not having the protection of “reasonable to accept” means that other factors such as a risk of racial harassment or, in domestic violence cases, the closeness to a former partner may not be taken into account. That is surely unacceptable.
As to Amendment 20, the ability to allow local authorities to discharge their homelessness duty through an offer in the private sector without the applicant’s consent is controversial. If housing authorities are able to discharge their main duty with one offer of private rented accommodation, it becomes much more important that this offer is suitable for the needs of the household. A number of factors need to be taken into account, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley: affordability, location, management standards and physical standards.
One of the major factors in people becoming homeless is affordability. Is the home being offered really affordable, without the risk of them falling into debt? Is the location right for the family? Can the children remain at the same school or, conversely, do they need to be moved to another area because of threats to the safety of family members? On management standards, it is a fact that homeless households are very likely to be offered accommodation at the cheapest end of the private rented sector market. This puts the family at risk of being placed with landlords who are unsuitable—who breach housing legislation, have undertaken unlawful evictions or harassment, or have committed other offences. As to physical standards, private rented accommodation is often poor quality, and the Government’s own research shows that 40 per cent of people living in the private rented sector live in non-decent homes, compared to 23 per cent of social tenants and 29 per cent of owner-occupiers.
If local authorities are to be able to discharge their duties in this way, the points I have outlined need to be taken into account, and the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord seeks to do just that. I hope for a positive response from the Government but, if there is none, I hope that the noble Lord will test the opinion of the House. He will certainly find support on these Benches and, I hope, in other parts of the House. I say that in particular as I reflect on the comments of the government Chief Whip that, other than an extension of time, this is a normal Report stage, and as such we are running out of options to deal with these serious and pressing issues.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I hope that there will be few differences between us by the time we reach the end of what I have to say, because one of the main differences is that I would resist these amendments, largely due to the need for flexibility for the local authorities, and because definitions are always very difficult to follow.
I should like to go through not only what I laid in the House Library, which includes our statements on what we expect to do, but our discussions with Crisis and Shelter over the past few months on an order that will bring in some of the aspects that have been raised—probably most of them. Over the summer we have been considering our preparedness to use order-making powers and discussing which factors could be included in such an order. That includes consideration of protections against physical property standards, mentioned by the noble Lord, and whether landlords are fit and proper. We do not believe that there is any need to amend the Bill to achieve these aims. As I said, we have discussed this with Crisis and Shelter and have informally consulted local authorities on the proposed content of such an order, which we will bring forward for consultation. Do not ask me when, but we will bring that forward.
Existing safeguards in the homelessness legislation and statutory guidance will apply before the duty can be brought to an end with an offer of private rented sector accommodation. The authority must be satisfied that the accommodation is suitable for the applicant and his or her household. I shall go into more detail on that. It must also be made clear to the applicant that he or she has the right to ask for a review of suitability.
In considering suitability, the authorities must by law consider whether a specific property is suitable for the applicant and the household’s individual needs. This includes considering whether the accommodation is affordable for the applicant, its size, its condition, its accessibility and its location. In considering affordability, again, the local authority must by law consider the applicant’s financial resources and the total cost of the specific accommodation in determining whether it is suitable. That means that it would not be able to place households in accommodation with a higher rent than they could afford, whether with the help of benefits or otherwise.
When determining the suitability of the location of the accommodation, the authority must—again by law already in place—consider factors such as whether the accommodation is near the applicant's place of work; whether it will remove or disrupt the education of young people in the household; and whether it is as close as possible to previous accommodation, so that established links with doctors, social workers and so on can be maintained. As now, applicants have the right to ask for a review of accommodation suitability and, if not satisfied, to appeal to the county court on a point of law—the law being as I outlined.
I hope that that will, to some extent, reassure those who have moved or spoken to the amendments that there are already sufficient provisions within the current homelessness legislation regarding location and affordability. We are concerned that further strengthening that in legislation would restrict the ability of local authorities to make decisions on what is reasonably affordable, balanced against the availability of properties in the area. We have been discussing that tension all afternoon.
Following concerns raised in both Houses about the standard of private rented accommodation—made much of by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley—in Committee I referred to a statement that I laid in the House Library. That confirms that we are prepared to use existing suitability order-making powers to set out the factors that could be included in such an order. That includes not only physical standards but the landlord's behaviour and tenant management standards, which responds to the noble Lord’s concerns. As I said, we have worked with Crisis and Shelter on the order, and that seems to be going smoothly.
On Amendment 8, I spoke in Committee about whether “reasonable to accept” removes a protection for homeless applicants, whether “suitability” will deal with that and the wider factors that, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, the courts have considered to fall under “reasonable to accept”. I stress that there will be no change to or lessening of protection as a result of what we propose. The Government's view is that suitability covers a wide range of factors, and that view was included in the 2006 statutory guidance. For example, that guidance specifically provides that account needs to be,
“taken of any social considerations relating to the applicant and his or her household that might affect the suitability of accommodation”.
Importantly, in the light of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, any risk of violence—I take that to include domestic violence—or racial harassment in a locality would also have to be taken into account, so the applicant retains the right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation and can raise any issues at the review. We remain in discussion with Shelter to provide the necessary reassurance on that point.
There were a couple of other questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, reinforced what I said at the beginning of the debate: by putting all this in the Bill we could reduce the flexibility for local authorities. We believe that an order—which, of course, has to go through Parliament—is the proper way. The provisions are as they stand at present.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I thought that I had responded to his question. Homeless people, under “suitability”, can be placed outside a borough, but all that I mentioned would still have to be taken into account, so that if it was not suitable for them to go to live in the noble Lord’s lovely Newcastle—which I know is perfectly managed and always has been—they could not be made to go. It is clearly possible that they might want to live somewhere else so, yes, they can be moved.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has tempted me again on the subject of Dale Farm and a few others. Some of what he mentioned will depend on whether the site on which Travellers are resting is authorised or not—whether it has planning permission or not—and therefore whether it falls within other regulations and legislation. That helps with the matters which the noble Lord raised.
I have dealt with the matter this time by reading my notes, because I felt that it was so important that this was done properly. If noble Lords need to look at what I said before our next sitting, they can. However, I very much hope that what I said will reassure them that this has all been taken very seriously, but that it is a restatement of what the law can already do.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may press her a tiny bit further. Her comments are welcome. Would it be possible to see an early draft of the order before Third Reading?
Baroness Hanham
I see a nod of the head. Third Reading might be before the end of September, but I seriously doubt it, so the answer is yes.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I am very grateful for the intervention and the Minister's response. I was encouraged by the fact that most of the issues that we have raised under the amendments will be in the order and that further discussion will take place. Strong views have been expressed on this issue and a lot of worries have been expressed in this afternoon's debate about increasing homelessness and the rights of those who are or may be made homeless. Any debate that can take place between now and Third Reading would be very helpful. I am very grateful to the Minister for making that clear and clarifying the position. On those grounds, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Shipley
“( ) For section 190 substitute—
“190 Duties to persons becoming homeless who are not in “priority need”
(1) This section applies where the local housing authority are satisfied that an applicant is homeless and is eligible for assistance, and—
(a) are satisfied that he or she became homeless intentionally,(b) are satisfied that he or she is not in “priority need”, or(c) both of the above.(2) The local authority shall—
(a) secure that accommodation is available for his or her occupation for such period as they consider will give him or her a reasonable opportunity of securing accommodation for his or her occupation, and(b) provide him or her with (or secure that he or she is provided with) advice and assistance in any attempts he or she may make to secure that accommodation becomes available for his or her occupation.(3) The applicant’s housing needs shall be assessed before advice and assistance is provided under subsection (2)(b).
(4) The advice and assistance provided under subsection (2)(b) must include information about the likely availability in the authority’s district of types of accommodation appropriate to the applicant’s housing needs (including, in particular, the location and sources of such types of accommodation).””
Lord Shipley
I shall speak also to Amendment 21. In a sense, the ground has already been covered because Amendment 16 relates to the emergency duty to accommodate to ensure that non-priority-need homeless people are entitled to emergency accommodation. To repeat the position, at present, if a household is deemed to be in priority need but intentionally homeless, in addition to providing advice and assistance, the authority has a duty to provide suitable accommodation for a period that would give the household a reasonable chance of finding accommodation themselves. The amendment would extend the duty to homeless people who are not in priority need. The evidence base for the amendment has been previously stated, so I shall leave it at that, but other Members of your Lordships’ House may want to add to it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I support Amendment 16 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. The amendment seeks to make provision for non-priority-need homeless people to be afforded emergency accommodation. The charity Crisis collected considerable evidence that the homelessness service of local authorities does not always provide single people who are not in priority need with any meaningful assistance. A small extension of this provision to those who are not in priority need may be all that is needed to get people back on their feet, to help them to stay in employment and to prevent them from falling into a downward spiral. If the Government are not minded to accept the amendment, I ask the Minister to give the House an assurance that this matter will be looked at by the ministerial working party on homelessness chaired by Mr Grant Shapps MP, on which the noble Lord, Lord Freud, and the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, serve as members.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, was very brief in moving this amendment, for which I am grateful. I think that the best thing I can do is to say that I will certainly make sure that it is considered by the homelessness working party and I shall ask the Minister to take that on board. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Shipley
“Exemptions from flexible tenancy regime
(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide that a secure tenancy shall not be capable of being a flexible tenancy if it falls within one of such classes as shall be prescribed.
(2) The prescribed classes of secure tenancy referred to in subsection (1) shall include—
(a) tenancies granted to a tenant (alone or jointly with others) aged 60 years or more;(b) tenancies granted to a tenant (alone or jointly with others) in circumstances where the tenant or a member of his or her household suffers from a long-term illness or disability, or has a need for secure accommodation on medical or welfare grounds;(c) tenancies granted to such other persons as regulations shall provide who have a need for secure accommodation.(3) In determining whether a tenant falls within one of the prescribed classes of person, the landlord authority shall have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State under this section.
(4) Where a tenancy is a secure tenancy by reason of regulations made under this section, it shall be a ground for possession within section 84 of the Housing Act 1985 (grounds and orders for possession) where the accommodation afforded by the dwelling-house is more extensive than is reasonably required by the tenant.
(5) The court shall not make an order for possession under subsection (4) unless—
(a) it is satisfied that suitable alternative accommodation will be available for the tenant when the order takes effect; and(b) it considers it reasonable to make the order.(6) Part IV of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985 (suitability of accommodation) shall have effect for determining, for the purpose of subsection (5)(a), whether suitable alternative accommodation will be available for the tenant.
(7) Where the landlord considers that the ground for possession in subsection (4) applies to a tenancy, the court shall not entertain proceedings for possession of the tenancy unless the landlord has complied with the notice requirements in section 83 and subsections (3) and (4) of section 84 of the Housing Act 1985.
(8) Where proceedings are brought for possession of a dwelling-house under the ground in subsection (4), the court shall have the powers set out in section 85 of the Housing Act 1985.”
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 25 and 26. Amendment 22 defines the exemptions from flexible tenancies and, in particular, ensures that people aged over 60 and those with a long-term illness or disability are exempt from flexible tenancies. The amendment is designed to ensure that people who are in need of settled or stable accommodation and whose situation is unlikely to change are exempt from the flexible tenancy regime and receive a fully secure tenancy. It reflects the Government’s own stated policy to guarantee social housing for life for some new tenants. Indeed, in their consultation paper, Local Decisions: A Fairer Future for Social Housing, the Government acknowledged that,
“we recognise that the needs of some are likely to remain broadly constant over the long term and social housing (although not necessarily the same social home) to remain permanently the most appropriate form of tenure for them because of the stability and security which it provides. This is likely to be the case particularly for older people and those with a long term illness or disability”.
If the changes go ahead, this amendment will offer vital protection for some of the most vulnerable households in need of social housing.
Fear should be a great worry for us. I refer to people who fear that they will not have a roof over their heads for whatever reason and those who fear that they may not be able to stay in the place where they have cultivated a garden or looked after a home with happy memories and family associations. It is important that we are seen to do the right thing by those who are more vulnerable, who, under Amendment 22, are defined as those aged over 60 and those who have a long-term illness or disability.
Amendment 25 would increase the minimum tenancy period to five years. I feel strongly about this because the stability provided by social housing is vital for many vulnerable people. Indeed, it may be the first stable housing experienced by those in homeless households. Stability through social housing can provide a platform from which people can improve their individual and personal circumstances and it will encourage their aspirations.
Flexible tenancies will mean that people stay in areas for shorter periods, leading to higher turnover on estates and an increase in the associated problems of poor community cohesion. Therefore, as I think I said at Second Reading and in Committee, in theory I support lifetime tenancies, although I realise that there are practical difficulties in continuing to implement them in relation to new tenancies. It is absolutely right that the lifetime tenancies currently enjoyed by existing tenants should not be altered. In an ideal world I would prefer that to be the case for new tenants as well, although the inadequate number of social housing units means that in reality it will not be possible to do that for everyone. However, increasing the minimum tenancy from two to five years is important.
I have addressed this issue briefly from the perspective of the household and its personal circumstances but perhaps we can also address it from the perspective of a neighbourhood where there is no stability of cohesion because no one has a stake in it. Who will run the local community association and residents’ groups or the youth clubs and all the things that come with stability and from people feeling part of an area?
The Government have already indicated that they would be willing to regulate to make it clear that in most cases the tenancy length will be five years. I would appreciate hearing more from the Minister about how that might work but I would prefer a minimum tenancy of five years to be written into the Bill.
Amendment 26 would ensure that secure tenants moving to a new property rented out by a social landlord were granted another secure tenancy. There was discussion about this in the other place and in your Lordships’ House in Committee, when it was raised by my noble friend Lady Doocey. In response, I think that the Minister said that the Government would ensure, through directions to the tenancy regulator, that existing tenants moving from a social tenancy to another social home would keep their security of tenure. That is welcome, but the current direction to the regulator may be insufficient because it does not protect tenants who move to an affordable rent tenancy. As many of the available properties will be let at the affordable rent, this fundamentally undermines the goal of protecting the security of tenure of existing tenants.
These three amendments are important because they relate to the exact kind of tenancy and tenure that individual households are going to enjoy. One can approach this matter from the perspective of the individual, which I have tried to do, but one can also approach it from the perspective of the neighbourhood. Neighbourhoods need cohesion. Cohesion comes from people being part of a neighbourhood and that comes through length of residence. In turn, the people who enjoy that increased length of residence will participate in and contribute more to the delivery of social and community cohesion. I hope that the Minister will be able to say a little more about this and about ways in which such a provision might be placed in the Bill. If that cannot be done, perhaps she would say how we can make sure that the more vulnerable are properly supported.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend putting forward these amendments, and particularly Amendment 22. I should like to chase the Minister for some clarity about what seems to me a fundamental issue in the Government’s reforms. There are two forms of provision in the development of social housing—long-term social housing at low rents for security and an intermediate affordable rented model. There is something of an unanswered question and for clarity it would help if Ministers could explain their long-term intention in how we are approaching these changes.
It seems to me that—this is reflected in Amendment 22—where there is clear, long-term need, it continues to make complete sense to have a model of housing that is secure and has low rents, for which the primary government support system is through a capital subsidy. We should be looking in the long run to ensure that there is adequate provision in terms of numbers of social houses to meet long-term needs. It makes no sense for the state to do this otherwise. That does not provide adequate security to individuals and it comes at high cost to the state if higher levels of rent are paid. In pure value-for-money terms, it makes sense to adopt the traditional social housing model.
I believe that, for people who are transitioning through periods of need, it makes more sense to have a much more flexible model, in which the subsidy may well come in the form of temporary help with rent—that involves a benefit system rather than a huge up-front capital subsidy and then a low rent. Very similar individuals in similar circumstances can either get the gold standard trump card of social housing or they may be in the rented sector. It is not obvious what the distinction is other than the circumstances in which people went into that housing. It is also the case that it makes no sense, when we are short of such housing, for property that has had a huge up-front capital subsidy to be permanently made available to people whose needs may radically change over time and who may not need it.
I can see the argument for two models but I do not see the Government being sufficiently explicit about the path by which the right people will get the right kind of offers and the circumstances in which they will get the security that they need if their needs are long term, in the way described by my noble friend. The definition in Amendment 22 looks perfectly reasonable, but it may be that it can be done better or that the Government think there are other routes for doing it. It is deeply important to define this and debate it properly, understanding not only the transition but where the Government ultimately want to take us. If we understand that, we will have a clearer idea of the long-term social housing need in this country. We can play that against those with such long-term needs. We will understand better the role of intermediate affordable housing and where that plays into the equation in the long term.
It looks to me that, without such a definition, we will be left with deep uncertainty for individuals in long-term need who want security. There will be deep uncertainty in terms of the individuals who get housing—some may get a social housing offer or an affordable housing offer, but there will be no clarity about who gets what. It is more likely that it will depend on what is available at any given time rather than on need. In particular, on the social housing model for those in long-term need, which is the best form of delivery, we will be giving up assets as they transfer over to affordable rent without any clarity on the numbers that we need in this country, the places where we need them or the long-term strategy.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, my name is down for two amendments in this group. I strongly agree with most of what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that this is the point where we are asking the Government to set out their long-term strategy. I am afraid that once they do, I think I will deeply disagree with it.
I appreciate and understand that existing tenants in their lifetime tenancies are by and large protected from this change. Therefore, any change and ultimate destination is pretty long term. It also seems to me that the Government’s long-term ambition is to abolish long-term and lifetime tenures. I can understand the temptation for them to do so when there is a shortage of affordable housing and great pressures on the existing stock but it is the wrong temptation, largely for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. The role of council housing, not in its absolute origins but for most of its existence, has been to provide for people who cannot get on the housing ladder a degree of security and stability and to live in and work for a community in which to bring up their children.
I appreciate that there are some failures in that but there are also some significant successes. It has also meant that in some areas both rented and owner-occupied private sector properties can put the market price well out of the reach of most people. It has also allowed us to have mixed neighbourhoods in areas that would otherwise become ghettos for the rich. Just to take a random example, I mention the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Because of the legacy of Victorian philanthropists and some of their predecessors in what were two boroughs, there is a significant amount of social housing in an otherwise extremely rich area. Is that to be gradually phased out for people who are not regarded as exceptions but as part of the community? The stability of community has existed in many of the estates there, in other London boroughs, and in places such as Bristol, Newcastle, and so on because we have had long-term and lifetime tenancies. To abandon that prospect and effectively in the long term to turn the whole of social housing into safety net and emergency provision is to run the risk of destabilising communities which have hitherto been relatively stable and to ensure that only the very, very poor and those falling within the kind of exemptions specified in Amendment 22 can live in a lot of areas in our country, particularly our inner cities.
That is not a recipe for a stable and coherent society. The Government should hesitate before going completely down that road. There are some brakes on that provision in this group of amendments. On the amendment suggesting that flexible tenancies should be a minimum of five rather than two years, I cannot understand the Government’s position. They are telling us that in practice five years probably will be the minimum except in exceptional circumstances, so why cannot we write the provision that way round in the Bill? It could say that there would normally be a minimum of five years except in exceptional circumstances which could then be defined in secondary legislation, and which would be subject to a degree of quality control by council decisions. If we move into flexible tenancies throughout, that would at least put a brake on the destabilising effect of potentially having only two-year tenancies, which does not give a couple, a family or even an individual a lot of security.
I would like to be more radical than that. My final amendment in this group suggests that there should be a limit, at least at this stage, on the degree of movement towards flexible tenancies, thus preserving, for the most part, that the default position for those who are entitled to new tenancies under these provisions are limited. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on his exemptions. The most vulnerable people should certainly be exempt from this provision, but I would make the exemption wider or put a limit on the degree of progress towards destroying the stability that social housing has provided for many in our population.
As I said in the earlier debate, other sectors of housing provision are in crisis and overstretched, and likely to be so for a considerable time. That leads to instability and to a change in relations between the generations. If people cannot get on the housing ladder until they are 40, they will not be in a position to help their sons and daughters until they are well past retirement age—or at least the current retirement age. Therefore, there will be a need for more family accommodation, because people in many parts of the country will not able to get on to the housing ladder, or in many cases meet the rent for decent accommodation in the private rented sector.
Social housing should continue to provide that asset. The terms on which it does so may vary, but the comprehensive move away from life tenancies to flexible tenancies that may have a length of as little as two years would destroy a significant element of housing provision and opportunities in this country. I appreciate that it will take time to get to that position, but it should not be the final position. Therefore, my amendment in this group suggests that only 25 per cent of households should be moved to flexible tenancies. One could argue about the percentage, and obviously individual councils will take different percentages. However, there needs to be a maximum, otherwise we are laying down significant problems for the future at a time when other sectors of the housing market are in such a dire state and when the pressure on housing as a whole will increase for at least the next 20 or 30 years.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has the full support of the Opposition. I concur in particular with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Whitty. This amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Best, in the curtailed Committee stage on the last day before the Summer Recess. As the noble Lord explained, the amendment concerns the flexible tenancy regime proposed in the Bill. It is supported by both Crisis and Shelter and seeks to provide protections for certain vulnerable groups by excluding them from the proposals. The groups to be exempt are of people for whom, through a variety of circumstances, flexible tenancies are not appropriate. The groups include older people aged 60 or more, households where one or more member has a long-term illness, and tenants who need more secure forms of accommodation.
What worries me most about this section of the Bill is the reliance that the Government have placed on words such as “in most cases” or “of course, the social landlord will take into account the needs of the vulnerable”. This is all too risky for the people most in need of additional help and protection. I hope that the Minister has had time over the summer to reflect on the proposals, and will be able to give us some welcome news today, and assurances that at least things will be tightened up. If that is not the case, I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, will press his amendment and test the opinion of the House.
Lord Best
My Lords, perhaps I may say a brief word. I moved an amendment along these lines just before the Committee stage finished, and received many helpful reassurances about the way in which the policy might work. Perhaps it would help the House if the Minister, in responding to the question about where the policy leads, would agree with me that a fundamental part of the policy is that no opprobrium will fall upon any council or housing association that decides not to deploy flexible—that is to say, fixed-term—tenures. The Hanover Housing Association, which I chair, houses only older people. We are a retirement housing organisation. We have absolutely no intention of giving anybody a two-year or five-year tenancy: the idea is absolute anathema. People who move in to a sheltered flat or a retirement apartment will be able to stay there for the rest of their life: that is the deal. Some local authorities may take the view that the families whom they are housing—just like the older people in my case—should have security on a permanent, long-term basis. I invite the Minister to confirm—I think that she will be able to do this—that if a social landlord, be they a council or housing association, does not wish to take advantage of flexible tenures and fixed-term tenancies, that will not in any way rebound on them.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, perhaps I may briefly comment on the back of that. It was extremely helpful. Incidentally, I note that the noble Lord opened the Hanover Housing Association development in what was my constituency and is now part of my wife’s patch: she was then in charge of social housing, so I declare that interest.
A lot of councils and housing associations do not want to go down this path. I hesitate to oppose all ideas of flexibility, because on the whole it is a good thing—and trying to say that localism is not a good thing is rather like opposing motherhood. However, if it were acknowledged that most people do not wish to see this policy applied, and if the Minister were to accept that no pressure will be put on them to apply it, that would ease the minds of many of us.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I hope that I can ease the minds of all noble Lords on this. When we say flexible tenancies, that is what we mean. We also mean, with localism, that local authorities, housing associations and social landlords will be able to make their own decisions about this. If local authorities decide that they have enough housing provision and can manage their tenancies without the flexibility that we are offering, and if, as the noble Lord said, they are providing specialist housing, for example for older people, they will offer lifetime tenancies and that will be it—no one will put any pressure on them.
The reasons for introducing the measures relate, first, to the fact that housing is in short supply. Anyone who has anything to do with local authority housing knows that some people do not need lifetime tenancies. For various reasons they need them for a short term such as five or 10 years. At the end of that time their children may have grown up, they may need to move, their income may have improved so that they no longer need social housing and they may be perfectly happy to have a shorter tenancy. The move is in the right direction. It is correct that we should be able to say to local authorities that in discussion with their tenants they will be able to offer a tenancy of less than a lifetime. If, at the end of the three, four, five or 10 years that the tenancy is for, the situation has not changed, they will renew the tenancy. Nothing here threatens any housing association or anyone who is looking for social housing.
We have made it absolutely clear, and I have laid information on this in the House Library, that the two years mentioned in the Bill—I do not accept the premise of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that we should put five years and then downgrade it to two—will be exceptional. Some noble Lords may not agree, but some people need only short-term accommodation. The Minister, Mr Shapps, cited someone he knew who had a major disability that was caused unexpectedly and who for a very short time needed help, which the local authority under these provisions would be able to give him because it could give a restricted-time tenancy. Other people such as recovering drug addicts and people with short-term financial problems should not be given a lifetime tenancy but would benefit from social housing for a short time on the understanding that if at the end of two years the situation has not changed they will be offered a further tenancy if it is required.
I refute absolutely that we are trying to change the whole nature of a tenancy. We are trying to maximise the use and value of social housing. We have all agreed this afternoon that it is limited, that it is precious and that some people require it at various stages of their lives. To entitle local authorities to have flexibility in what they do seems to us to be just plain sensible at this stage and in the situation we are in. We have made it clear—again, this draft is in the Library—that two years is to be exceptional and that the tenancy policies of social landlords and local councils will have to state what they mean by exceptional. A tenancy policy will state what the landlord sees as a possible exception for two years. That will have to be laid out so that everyone knows what it is. The expectation is that these will not be used very frequently. They will probably be used very infrequently, but there should be the right to have that flexibility. Therefore, by definition, the tenures stretch from two years rather than five, as is being proposed. We wish the two years to stay in the Bill.
I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and others have received the letter that I sent during the summer saying what we are proposing to do. We have made clear to the social housing regulator that this is to be the situation in the new tenancy standard on which we are currently consulting. The revised text sets out that tenancies with a term of less than five years may be granted only exceptionally, and if social landlords decide that there are exceptional circumstances they will be able to set out in their tenancy policies what those exceptional circumstances will be.
In addition to the example I have given, young people who need support for a short time, families who need a larger home for a short period and shorter-term support for recovering alcoholics and drug addicts are examples that we have been given as a result of the consultation on this by social landlords. They are real cases and there is a real ability to help people.
When the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised this in Committee, I made it clear that we recognise that the needs of older people and those with disabilities, for example, are going to remain constant over the long term. It will certainly be open to local authorities to give them long-term tenancies. It is perfectly sensible to keep older people in the house or flat that they are familiar with and not to remove them from the people and places that are familiar to them. We believe that landlords understand that as well, but we believe that safeguards are needed and that the tenancy standards are the right place for them as they will cover all tenants. This is important because the amendment would not cover both social tenancies and local authority tenancies. We believe that they should cover both so there is no doubt about it. We are consulting on a draft direction, and we will consider whether that can be tightened up. The direction relates to the tenancy policy. If it is possible, I hope that we will have a draft of that before Report, but I shall not make any promises on that at the moment.
We believe that Amendment 28, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is unnecessary. It seeks to guarantee continued security on moving home for secure and assured tenants, but only when they move to a local authority home. We want to make it clear that we are talking about moving within the affordable sector. Through the tenancy standards, we have guaranteed continuing security for existing tenants who move to another social-rented home.
I hope that I have made it clear in what I have said and the way I have said it that we do not expect these provisions to do anything other than free some local authority and social housing from people who do not need it and make it available for people who do, but they by no means undermine the provision and ethos that people who need a home for life should have it. It is just recognition that that is not always the situation and that local authorities should be able to work to that.
Lord Whitty
Before the Minister sits down I should say that I felt that her assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Best, was not quite as unequivocal as the one I think he was seeking. The history is that when the past two Governments gave flexibility to local authorities, if those authorities had not followed the Government’s preferred option—being less enthusiastic than was hoped about the right to buy or, under the previous Government, less enthusiastic than they wanted on stock transfer—a financial penalty followed down the line. If the Minister is giving an assurance in response to the noble Lord, Lord Best, that that will not happen this time, we should be grateful, but I do not think she quite went that far.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thought I made myself pellucid on this. Local authorities and housing associations will have the flexibility and the right to offer only lifetime tenancies. I do not see that that money has anything to do with this. I do not think there is any likelihood that Parliament will want to intervene in that. That is the situation. They can have lifetime tenancies for everyone if they wish, but if they have other people who they think could make better use of the property or have people who do not need it, as I have said before they will be able to do that. I cannot commit future Governments, so I would like to commit mine for a very long time, as they will be there, but as the noble Lord knows perfectly well one can commit only one’s own Government, and I think I can commit ours to that.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the Government’s approach to these amendments. I raised two issues. The first was the extension of minimum tenancies from two to five years and the second was the exemption of vulnerable people and households from flexible tenancies. On the first, I heard the Minister say that housing providers, local authorities and social housing can all continue to offer lifetime tenancies to new tenants. I think that is a very important statement, and I am encouraged by it. As I said earlier, I am an advocate of lifetime tenancies, largely on the grounds that if people are financially able to move, the vast majority do so and enter owner-occupation in practice. The problem that I have been trying to solve is not obvious in that respect because people move on from rented accommodation to owner occupation in large numbers. I was concerned about two issues. On the two to five years, I heard the Minister say that councils and social housing providers may continue to offer lifetime tenancies if they wish to do so, and that for two years to be used has to be exceptional and that the exception has to be clearly defined by that authority. That is extremely important because that becomes a public declaration of what an exception is.
On Amendment 25, which deals with the exemption of vulnerable households, I heard the Minister say that there is nothing in it to threaten anyone. I am much encouraged by that because I believe that to be true. We all recognise the fear of people who do not feel confident that they have their homes for their lifetimes and that they may be forced to move in old age, which is not particularly nice.
I am sufficiently encouraged by what the Minister said to believe that five years may apply in some places. I believe that most housing providers will continue to provide lifetime tenancies. Some, where they can prove the need for an exception, will go for two years. There may be specific individual cases where that is important or it may be for a specific geographical reason. I hope it will not be an excuse for those parts of the country that have serious problems with the availability of affordable rented housing to go for two years, with lifetime tenancies being offered much further away by other authorities. I see my noble friend the Minister shaking her head and I am sure that that is not the Government’s intention.
Because I believe in both cases that there is still movement in our understanding of the regulations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Libya
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, it may be convenient to now repeat a Statement made in another place by the Prime Minister on the situation in Libya. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on Libya.
When we met here on that Friday in March, Gaddafi's tanks bore down on Benghazi. His air force had already begun strikes against his people there, and his army had smashed through Zawiyah with grave loss of life.
Gaddafi had vowed to hunt down his own people like rats, using the full might of his armed forces, backed up by mercenaries. I did not think that Britain could stand by as Gaddafi slaughtered his people. Nor could we allow a failed pariah state festering on Europe's southern border, with the potential to threaten our own security.
The Libyan Opposition and the Arab League both called for NATO to protect the civilian population, so together with the US and France, we secured agreement for UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973. With this clear legal mandate, this House voted by a majority of 544 in favour of military action. Today the Libyan people have taken their country back.
I am grateful for the support that all sides of this House have given throughout the past six months and I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the incredible dedication and professionalism of our pilots, sailors and ground crew and everyone in our Armed Forces involved in this mission. But we should also pay tribute to the bravery and resilience of the Libyan people themselves. This has been their revolution and none of it would have happened without them.
Ordinary Libyans from all walks of life came together and rose up against Gaddafi, from the villages of the Nafusa mountains to the tower blocks of Misurata, the alleyways of Zawiyah and the streets of Benghazi, the Libyan people fought with incredible courage. Many paid with their lives. Others have been seriously injured and the struggle is not over. They still face forces loyal to a dictator who last week threatened to turn Libya “into a hell”.
The long work of building a new Libya is just beginning. But what is clear is that the future of Libya belongs to its people. The task of the international community now is to support them as they build that future. That means helping to finish the job, ensuring security, addressing the immediate humanitarian needs and supporting the longer-term process of reconstruction and political transition.
Let me address each in turn. First, finishing the job. Britain has been at the forefront of the military operation to protect the Libyan people. Our aircraft have made 2,400 sorties across Libya carrying out one fifth of all NATO airstrikes, against some 900 targets in Gaddafi's war machine. Our warships have supported this effort, helping enforce the UN arms embargo, and bringing aid to those in need.
At its peak, some 2,300 British service men and women were deployed on Operation ELLAMY, with 36 aircraft including 16 Tornados, six Typhoons, five attack helicopters, tankers and specialist surveillance aircraft and helicopters. Those were supported over the course of the operation by eight warships and a hunter-killer submarine. But the job is not over. As we stand, the Free Libya Forces have liberated Tripoli and control Libya's key population centres, but pro-Gaddafi forces still pose a threat and in particular control the towns of Bani Walid, Sirte, and Sebha in the south.
The National Transitional Council has been working to negotiate a peaceful outcome, but its leaders have explicitly requested that NATO continues its operations to protect civilians until that is achieved. Over the weekend, RAF Tornados struck eight military command and control installations south-west of Waddan and nine weapons and ammunition stores near Sirte.
For as long as Gaddafi remains at large, the safety and security of the Libyan people remains under threat. So let me be clear. We will not let up until the job is done. First, Britain and its NATO allies will continue to implement UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973 for as long as we are needed to protect civilian life. Those thinking that NATO will somehow pull out or pull back must think again. We are ready to extend the NATO mandate for as long as is necessary.
Secondly, we will support the Libyan people in bringing Gaddafi to justice. This is a man whose crimes are becoming ever more apparent every day and who is wanted by the International Criminal Court. There must be no bolt-hole; no pampered hiding place from justice. He must face the consequences of his actions, under international and Libyan law.
Turning to security, the early signs have been encouraging. There has been some disorder, but it has been focused on symbols of the former regime. The National Transitional Council is moving to stand down fighters from outside Tripoli. The police are returning to the streets, and the council leaders have been clear and consistent in cautioning against disorder and against reprisals.
Britain and its international partners are helping too, working closely with the National Transitional Council in securing chemical weapons sites and supporting mine clearance in Misurata, Benghazi and other affected areas.
On the humanitarian situation, Britain has played a leading role from the outset. The priorities are health, water, food and fuel. On health, our humanitarian partners report that hospitals and clinics in Tripoli are now functioning well, with staff returning to work. Britain is providing additional support through the ICRC, including surgical teams and medicines to treat up to 5,000 war-wounded patients.
On water, substantial numbers of people in Tripoli are still without running water. However, UNICEF is procuring 11 million litres of bottled water, and the Libyan authorities are working to repair the water systems. The NTC reports that 100 wells are back online representing 20 per cent of capacity and there is already evidence of improved supplies.
Finally, on fuel, there remain significant shortages, but the situation is improving and the World Food Programme shipment is supporting the National Transitional Council with the procurement of 250,000 tonnes of fuel. The National Transitional Council will continue to lead the response to the humanitarian situation, working with the UN Humanitarian Coordinator and other humanitarian agencies.
Libya is a country of 6.5 million people. It is one of the richest in Africa. Its proven oil reserves are the ninth largest in the world. Libya is fully capable of paying for its own reconstruction. Of course there is a role for foreign advice, help and support but we do not want to see an army of foreign consultants driving around in 4x4s, giving the impression this is something being done to the Libyans, rather than done by them.
What the Libyans need above all is their frozen assets back. A week ago Britain got Security Council agreement to release £1 billion-worth of dinars back to the Central Bank of Libya, and RAF planes have already flown in hundreds of millions of dinars of Libyan banknotes. At the summit in Paris last Thursday, the international community committed to unfreezing $15 billion-worth of Libyan assets. For their part, vitally, we expect the new Libyan authorities to meet their pledge of ensuring transparent and accountable financial systems.
Next, I shall turn to political transition. Some people warned, as Gaddafi himself did, that the Libyan people could not be trusted with freedom—that without Gaddafi there would be chaos. What is emerging now, despite years of repression and the trauma of recent months, is immensely impressive and encouraging. In a far-reaching road map and constitutional declaration, the new authorities have set out a clear vision and process for a new democratic Libya.
This is not being imposed from above; it is being shaped by the Libyan people. At the Paris summit, Chairman Abdul Jalil spoke of his determination to build a society of tolerance and forgiveness, with respect for the rule of law. A national conference will bring together all the tribes, civil society, men and women, from east and west, united to shape the political transition. They are planning for a new constitution and elections within 20 months.
Britain is also in discussions in New York about a new UN Security Council resolution to reflect the new situation. The new Libyan authorities must now be able to represent their country at the United Nations, as they did last week at the Arab League. I also look forward to building a bilateral relationship with the new Libyan authority. We have close relations with the National Transitional Council through our mission in Benghazi. Today the UK’s special representative is deploying to Tripoli to re-establish our full diplomatic presence in that city.
Our relationship with the new Libya must of course deal with a series of problems from the past. On Megrahi, this is obviously a matter for the Scottish Executive, but I have made my position clear: I believe he should never have been sent back to Libya in the first place. On WPC Yvonne Fletcher, I want to see justice for her family. There is an ongoing police investigation, and the House will wish to know that Prime Minister Jibril has assured me of the new Libyan authority’s intention to co-operate fully.
Finally, significant accusations have been reported today that under the last Government relations between the British and Libyan security services became too close, particularly in 2003. It was because of accusations of potential complicity by the British security services in the mistreatment of detainees overseas, including rendition, that I took steps last July to sort this whole problem out. As the House will remember, we took steps to bring to an end the large number of court cases being brought against the Government by former inmates of Guantanamo. We have issued new guidance to security and intelligence service personnel on how to deal with detainees held by other countries.
We have also asked Sir Peter Gibson to examine issues around the detention and treatment of terrorist suspects overseas, and the inquiry has already said it will look at these latest accusations very carefully. My concern throughout has been not only to remove any stain on Britain’s reputation but also to deal with these accusations of malpractice so as to enable the security services to get on with the vital work they do. Because they cannot speak for themselves, let me put on record once again our enormous gratitude for all they do to keep our country safe.
The achievement of the Libyan people gives hope to those across the wider region who want a job, a voice and a stake in how their society is run. On Syria, Britain will continue to lead the argument for a UN resolution to build on the EU’s oil embargo which is now in place. The message to President Assad must be clear: he has lost all legitimacy and can no longer claim to lead Syria; the violence must end, and he must step aside for the good of his country.
It is the Libyan people who have liberated Libya. There was no foreign occupying army. This has been a Libyan-led process, assisted by the international community. Many cynics proclaimed stalemate and asserted that Gaddafi would never be defeated. The Libyan people proved them wrong. It was a unique set of circumstances and not something that we can or wish to repeat all over the world, but I have never accepted the argument that because you cannot do everything, you should not do anything.
Removing Gaddafi from power was a major achievement. Although the work is not yet done, the Libyan people can be proud of what they have achieved and we can be proud of what we have done to help them. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister. I wish to begin by paying tribute to the courage of the Libyan people. They knew the price that might be paid if they rose up against Gaddafi to claim a better future, and yet they found the courage to do so and to win through. We salute their bravery and their sacrifice.
Change in Libya would not have come about without action by the international community. If we had not acted, we could have spent the recent months wringing our hands over slaughter in Benghazi, as we did after Bosnia. This time the international community did not stand by; it acted through and with the authority of the United Nations. Once again, it was to our brave British service men and women that we turned. As always, they have risen to the challenge. They represent the best of our country and we owe them a debt of gratitude.
I also wish to commend the Prime Minister and the British Government for the role that they have played. The initiative of pressing for UN Resolutions 1970 and 1973 made the action to protect civilians possible. It was a risk but it was the right thing to do. We supported it at the time and we support it now.
I have a number of questions about the security situation, economic stabilisation, the political settlement now required and some of the wider lessons, but first I must say that I agree with the noble Lord that the Gibson inquiry must get to the bottom of the allegations about the involvement of the security services in rendition to Libya. No part of the British state should ever be complicit in torture.
Let me turn to the security situation. UN Resolution 1973 was clear that the NATO mission was for the protection of civilians. Can the noble Lord update us on the security situation in Bani Walid, Sirte and other towns in which there is still fighting? In the light of the security situation, what continuing action does the Leader of the House believe is necessary from NATO, and can he tell the House how the Government will make the difficult judgment about when the NATO mission will be complete and the role of our forces will be concluded? Given the symbolic and substantive importance of the National Transitional Council establishing itself as the government in Tripoli, do the Government have some sense from the Paris conference as to when this may happen?
Turning to the reconstruction of Libya, the whole House will agree that it must be Libyan-led and owned. We know that for civilians across the country the situation remains difficult. I welcome the extra assistance that the Government have announced to help provide medicine and food and to reunite families who have been affected by the fighting. The noble Lord will agree that the role of the UN is very important in co-ordinating this help. Can he say what discussions have taken place with the UN special envoy and how prepared the UN is to provide the necessary help to the Libyan people? I note that Britain is in discussions in New York about a new UN Security Council resolution to reflect the new situation and I welcome that.
Libya’s oil wealth offers huge potential for the Libyan people. The legitimacy of this popular uprising was based around the fact that the Libyans themselves were clearly in the lead. This must also be true in relation to their oil resources. Does the noble Lord agree that we should learn the lessons of previous post-conflict periods and ensure that the role of private companies working in Libya is to operate transparently and in a way that clearly benefits the Libyan people?
On the politics, I join the noble Lord the Leader in welcoming the NTC’s commitment to establishing a new constitution and holding elections within 18 months. Of course it is right that the leadership of the Gaddafi regime must face justice, whether through the International Criminal Court or the Libyan courts but we have learnt from past conflicts the need for a broad-based, inclusive political process of reconciliation. Will the Leader share with the House the Government’s understanding of how the NTC will seek to achieve these goals? We know that democracy takes root not just through the formal process of the ballot box but through a strong, vibrant civil society and free press. Will he say what specific plans there are for direct relationships between Libya and organisations such as the BBC World Service, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and the British Council?
Finally, perhaps I may ask about the wider lessons of this conflict for Britain and the international community. The Arab spring was clearly not envisaged at the time of the strategic defence and security review, which has meant a call on some resources which were due to be scrapped. In the interests of transparency and good government, I suggest that it might be responsible to have another look at the SDSR in the events of Libya and the Arab spring. For the international community as a whole, the lesson is of the effectiveness that it can have when it comes together through the United Nations and speaks with one voice. No two situations are the same. Does the noble Lord agree that we should, for example, in Syria use all the non-military means that we can to prevent the kind of slaughter that we are seeing there? It is a matter of regret that the UN has not been more effective when it comes to Syria but I welcome the recent further sanctions imposed by the European Union and I wonder what further steps the Government think can be taken.
The Arab spring has seen the overthrow of authoritarian regimes in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. We must be on the side of those who are fighting to enjoy the basic political, social and economic rights that we take for granted. We should take pride in the role that we have played in protecting the Libyan people as they claim this better future and we should now help the Libyan people as they enter the next phase of moving from popular revolt to stable, democratic government.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition for an immensely supportive, positive and constructive reply to the Prime Minister’s Statement. I very much agree with what she said at the end of her speech. We should take great pride in the role that we and NATO have played, and that, of course, of the Libyan people themselves who have taken on this appalling dictator and are—if I can put it in such terms—winning, but who are also aware of the tremendous challenges that will unfold in the months and years ahead.
I also very much welcome the noble Baroness’s tribute to the people of Libya and commendation of the Prime Minister. I very much welcome her support. She asked a question about the Gibson inquiry. I think she said that the Gibson inquiry should try to get to the bottom of the accusations that have been made. I entirely agree, which is why I am delighted that the inquiry has said that it will look at these allegations as part of its wider investigation. We must await the outcome of that. The current security situation is fast moving and ever changing but obviously there are still hotspots in Libya that we hope will be dealt with in the days ahead.
As regards NATO, the NATO Secretary-General and the Prime Minister have both made clear that there will be no cessation of military operations until we can be assured that our responsibilities under UNSCR 1973 have been fulfilled. The British Armed Forces will continue to make a significant contribution to that mission. There have been discussions with the United Nations special envoy. The UN special envoy, Ian Martin, is in place. We believe that the UN mission should focus very much on what the Libyans want and not on what we think they want or should have. I gather that that was very clear from listening to them at the Paris conference last week. On oil, of course we should learn the lessons of previous conflicts, as we will undoubtedly and inevitably do from this conflict.
How will the NTC achieve the goals it has set out as it moves towards a more democratic government? We and many others will be with it every step of the way. There are already close contacts between the British Government and the NTC but there is no point in trying to second-guess the process. We have learnt in recent months throughout this process that the NTC always rises to the challenge. It is very effective and there is no reason why it should not continue to do so.
The noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition also asked a question about the building up of civil society and democracy, and what plans there are to help Libya with the British Council, the BBC World Service, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and so on. She is right that we have these tremendous assets, which have good international reputations. However, it is hard to see what role they can play until the security situation is considerably better. But there will be a medium- and a long-term role for these organisations.
The one slightly negative note mentioned by the noble Baroness was that of the SDSR and whether we should review this in the light of Libya and the Arab spring. I do not blame the noble Baroness for raising it at all. We believe that the case for what we are doing in the SDSR has been proved. The Tornado decision was right. The Typhoon has come of age. Of course, as I have said, as in any conflict of this kind, there will be a review, an examination of what happened, a lessons-learnt exercise, which will be led by Sir Peter Ricketts. This will include many aspects of the campaign of the past few months.
I hope that I have covered the ground that the noble Baroness covered. If I have missed anything out I will of course write to her. In conclusion, there is nothing easy in these kinds of conflicts, particularly between political parties. I very much welcome the non-partisan nature of the noble Baroness’s response and the support that has existed across both Houses on what has been an extremely difficult situation for the people of Libya.
Earl Attlee
May I remind the House of the benefit of short questions, so that my noble friend the Leader of the House can answer as many noble Lords as possible?
Lord Gilbert
I, too, congratulate our forces on the extreme accuracy of the missions in which they are engaged; the extent to which there have been very few casualties reported among civilians in Libya; and the fact that, as far as I can understand the situation, there have been no casualties on our own side, something for which I am sure we are all very grateful. That is a tribute not only to our pilots but to the weapons they have been using.
I am a little uncomfortable with this constant reference to NATO. In point of fact, it has been certain members of NATO that have been doing what needed to be done in the past few weeks. One or two members of NATO simply have not shown up, and we all know who they are. Can I get an assurance from the Government that they will inquire of the German Government about the actual meaning of certain remarks made by Mr Westerwelle in the very recent past? Do those remarks represent the considered opinion of the German Government? Can we get from the German Government a clear indication of how they will view future NATO activities? I hope that it will not be on the lines according to which they have failed to show up in the past few weeks. Finally, can we have an assurance that even though the UN resolution sets a date for the end of NATO activities, which I believe is some time later this month, that date will not be regarded as a limiting factor?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, in reflecting on how relatively few casualties there have been in Libya, although no doubt we will discover more about that over the course of the next few weeks. But it is a remarkable thing that there have been no British casualties at all, and the pilots and others who have played such an immensely important part should be commended.
The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, could not resist having a little dig at our NATO partners. I can tell him that the Germans were of course at the Paris conference, where they played their full part. They are full members of NATO and they will no doubt on other occasions wish to play a different part. As a former Minister in the Ministry of Defence, the noble Lord will have his own views on what different members of NATO do and how they involve themselves. Of course, as part of a review, there will be discussions with our NATO partners and allies from time to time. We very much hope that we will not need to have an event like this again, but history demonstrates that we probably will, and we will continue to act in unity.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, Britain must be very proud of its humanitarian action that has brought about this political change in Libya, but I have a concern in relation to recent revelations about the relationship between the security services here and in Libya. Is the Leader of the House satisfied that Sir Peter Gibson has adequate powers to conduct this inquiry, given that it is on a non-statutory basis? Would it not be better to look at whether he should be given adequate powers so that witnesses could be summoned both from this country and from abroad to come to a conclusion? Otherwise, people will lack confidence in the inquiry.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, we have every confidence in the Gibson inquiry. The scope of the inquiry has been carefully drawn up to keep it manageable and to ensure that it can meet the Prime Minister’s requirement for it to report within a year. The inquiry will look at the policies of the UK intelligence agencies on working with other countries holding detainees, including allegations relating to torture, improper treatment and rendition. I do not think that the Gibson inquiry itself has asked for extra powers, and we feel happy and are confident that it will be able to achieve its task.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House will accept that, on the face of it, it would appear that the main objectives of Resolutions 1970 and 1973 are very near to being achieved in the sense that organised resistance on behalf of Colonel Gaddafi is now limited to a very few specific areas. Nevertheless, as the Leader of the House put it, it may well be technically correct to say that those resolutions will still have a relevance unless and until Gaddafi is killed, is captured or flees the country. That may take a very long time. In order, therefore, that there should be no dubiety as to the status of international organisations in this context, will he give an assurance that Her Majesty’s Government, sooner rather than later, will seek and support a resolution of the Security Council to enable the sinews of life to be provided immediately for the people of Libya and, indeed, so that the physical reconstruction and matters of governance can be put in place as soon as possible?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I think I can put the noble Lord’s mind at rest by saying that the British Government are already discussing within the United Nations resolutions that will do exactly what the noble Lord has suggested. He is also right about UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973. Last week at the Paris conference, we collectively reiterated our commitment to continue to protect civilians in Libya in accordance with those Security Council resolutions, which I think is entirely appropriate.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, we have not yet heard from a Conservative Peer. We have plenty of time.
Lord Naseby
My Lords, the noble Lord has made it clear that there have been very few casualties from NATO’s operations, and that is to be enormously welcomed. Does he accept nevertheless that when it comes to assessing the activities overall, the number of civilians who have died on both sides—whether from rebel forces moving forward or from Gaddafi’s forces trying to defend—must be considerable, and it would be appropriate at some point in time for an estimate to be made of what those figures are?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I would not want the House to think that we were minimising the reporting of the number of casualties on the Libyan side. The wording that both the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, and I have used is that there have been relatively few casualties compared to many other conflicts of this kind. In fact, the UK Government through DfID are now providing urgent humanitarian support into Tripoli, including medical help, food and other basic supplies. A key component of that is to provide surgical teams and medicines for the treatment of up to 5,000 war-wounded patients and to boost local medical staff’s expertise in war surgery techniques.
Lord Desai
My Lords, the noble Lord said that the need in Libya was to establish a democracy, and that is quite rightly the challenge. Could he suggest, through the Prime Minister, that the Commonwealth has a lot of experience in a diversity of multi-ethnic and multi-tribal situations? Perhaps the Commonwealth could provide the kind of support that Libya needs right now.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, has come up with a good and sensible suggestion. I understand from my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford that this idea has been raised by others too, and that it is being studied to see what experience we can bring from the Commonwealth in order to help the people and the transitional Government.
Lord King of Bridgwater
My Lords, in relation to that last point, there is a very clear emphasis in the Statement that this is now increasingly a matter for the Libyan people to resolve. We must be extremely careful not to suggest that we are going to teach them how to do things, no matter how wise the advice that may come from other quarters. In that respect, if one looks at the unhappy situation now in Iraq, one can see that merely getting rid of a bad dictator is not the end of the problem at all. The challenge that is now faced by the new Libyan Administration, who I think have impressed many of us by their clarity and integrity at the present time, is absolutely enormous. If one considers that one of the core sources of the Arab spring has been the terrible shortage of jobs and unemployment in those territories, the challenge that a new Libyan Government will face—they are facing this in Egypt and in other territories now—is very daunting indeed. Money would at least help. In that connection, what is the situation at the moment with regard to the oil plants and refineries? Having said in the Statement what a rich country Libya potentially is, can the noble Lord say how soon those are likely to be able to come into fruitful use and benefit the Libyan economy?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I agree very much with what my noble friend said, which is why the support coming from the United Kingdom is support and not a lecture on how to do things. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, was saying in his question, “Here is a model—take it”; it is very much a matter of co-operation and advice when the Libyan people need it. But it is their show and my noble friend was right to raise that.
We of course welcome the plan for the formation of an inclusive interim Government. We have noted that the NTC’s constitutional declaration provides a clear plan for conducting the political transition in the spirit of unifying the Libyan people and reconciling those who have been on both sides in the current conflict. We have given a commitment to support the Libyan-led transition and the rebuilding process to establish a democratic, independent and united Libya. We will do everything we can to help the Libyan people achieve those goals, but it must come from them.
My noble friend was right also to mention money, because, as I pointed out in the Statement, Libya is a rich country. I gather that the damage to the oilfields, gas pipelines and refineries is relatively small, and there is no reason why the oil and gas should not be flowing in the refineries again very soon.
Lord Borrie
My Lords, as the Prime Minister’s Statement referred to the possibility of trials by the international court and within Libya itself, can the Leader of the House give us some optimism that the legal profession in Libya—people appropriate to be judges et cetera—is up to mark? I mention that because Hitler, we would all recall, was in power for only 12 years, yet there was huge difficulty in finding people who were sufficiently objective to take on trials in Germany after the war. Gaddafi has been in power in Libya for some 40 years. As far as I know, in recent years there has been nobody with great experience or of sufficiently independent judicial mind to bring to the fore matters of a judicial nature. Can we be in any degree optimistic on this score?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I understand entirely the point that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, makes, but I rather echo the words of my noble friend Lord King: it is for the Libyan people to determine their own future. Therefore, what happens to Gaddafi and how they do it is ultimately a question for them. I cannot answer the noble Lord’s question on the legal qualifications of the Libyan judiciary, but that must be a decision for the Libyan people. As far as the International Criminal Court is concerned, we want Saif Gaddafi and Abdullah al-Senussi to face justice, but how and when that happens will also be a decision for Libya.
Lord Burnett
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that great credit goes to the Libyan people and the Free Libya forces for their bravery and steadfastness. I also join him in paying tribute to the professionalism and dedication of our pilots, sailors and the ground crew. I hope that he will also acknowledge the exceptionally important work done by the courageous members of our Armed Forces who have been serving in Libya and assisting the Free Libya forces, and the staff of our permanent joint headquarters under the command of Air Marshal Sir Stuart Peach.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I join my noble friend in commending all those whom he mentioned for their professionalism and for the service that they have provided.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I apologise for not having been in my place at the start of the Statement. I also declare an interest as a former member of an international panel of advisers to the development board of Libya, which was chaired by Dr Jibril, who was one of the first to defect.
A moment or two ago, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, raised a point about the rule of law. The Law Society was already engaged in talks with the Libyan Government, at their request, about the rule of law and establishing various norms of judicial proceedings. The British Council was also fully engaged on a number of issues, including the development of women. The Welsh universities were engaged with the Libyans—I am talking about those on the side of people such as Dr Jibril who were trying to develop such mechanisms. The Westminster Foundation for Democracy was engaged. John Moores University was engaged on health and the Crown Agents on tackling corruption. The Leader of the House said that re-engagement was not necessarily appropriate yet because of the security situation, but I understand from the Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office that the Foreign Office is engaging in reconnection on all those issues in which people like me were heavily involved before Colonel Gaddafi lost his head. The concern now is that we should have proper re-engagement on all those levels at which a start was being made on getting to the guts of developing a new society. Are the British Government encouraging that? Will there be re-engagement of the European Union on the association agreement negotiations which were not only under way but going quite well and involved discussions on human rights? There was a lot going on, and there is a lot to pick up again. We were absolutely engaged on those issues. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to reassure us that we will get back in there on those issues.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the noble Baroness brings a wealth of experience and knowledge to her questions. She has demonstrated how much good work has already been done, and there is absolutely no reason why it should not continue, though there is an immediate security problem to overcome.
There is no reason that I can think of why proper re-engagement on all these areas should not continue with the NTC and, ultimately, under a new Government over the course of time. That is very much what the British Government will seek to support.
I cannot comment on the EU but, again, I cannot see a good reason why those agreements should not be made with a new Government when they are established.
Earl Attlee
We have had four Labour questioners and only two Conservatives.
Baroness Morris of Bolton
My Lords, I welcome the Statement repeated by my noble friend the Leader of the House and also his replies to the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition and to the noble Baroness, Lady Symons. They are important because the Libyan people feel close to the British at the moment. I chair the Conservative Middle East Council. Our director, Leo Docherty, and my deputy and honourable friend, Adam Holloway MP, have just spent the past five days in Tripoli. They are flying the union jack and Qatari flags at the moment in Martyr Square and asking when the Prime Minister might visit. The Prime Minister undoubtedly made an impact when he visited Tahrir Square after the revolution in Egypt. If he could visit Libya as soon as possible, he would have a very warm welcome from the Libyan people.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I commend the work that my noble friend does in the Middle East Council. I am delighted to hear that some of her colleagues have been in Tripoli in the course of the last five days. The whole House will understand that, for entirely obvious reasons, I could not possibly comment on when or if the Prime Minister is planning a visit to Tripoli. I also agree with my noble friend that the links between the people of Libya and the people of this country are close, should be closer and no doubt will become closer over the course of the next few months and years.
Localism Bill
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“Tenancy strategies
(1) A local housing authority in England working with registered providers of social housing in its area, residents, and other stakeholders shall consider appropriate responses to relevant tenancy issues locally.
(2) A local housing authority must publish information detailing the approach taken locally to tenancy issues in any manner it considers appropriate.
(3) This information may include how the local housing authority, registered providers and partners will work together in relation to—
(a) the kinds of tenancies they grant,(b) the circumstances in which they will grant a tenancy of a particular kind,(c) where they grant tenancies for a certain term, the lengths of the terms,(d) the circumstances in which they will grant a further tenancy on the coming to an end of an existing tenancy, and(e) any other issues as determined appropriate by the local housing authority.(4) The powers in this section may be exercised by a single local housing authority or by two or more local authorities acting jointly.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Kennedy is having a well earned rest. He has passed the easy stuff to me.
In moving Amendment 23, I shall also speak to Amendment 24, which is consequential. Amendment 23 addresses the issue of tenancy strategies and seeks to replace the provisions in the Bill with an alternative formulation. It provides that the local housing authority in England, working with registered providers of social housing in its area, residents and other stakeholders, shall consider appropriate responses to relevant tenancy issues. The local housing authority must publish information detailing the approach taken locally to tenancy issues in any manner that it considers appropriate. The information may include how the local housing authority, registered providers and partners will work together in relation to a range of tenancy issues. The powers may be exercised by a single local housing authority or two or more local authorities acting jointly.
We have no objection in principle to tenancy strategies but consider the formulation in the Bill as it stands to be misplaced and too prescriptive. This was debated in the other place, so the issues are not new, just unresolved. Noble Lords will recognise that the amendment has been provided by the LGA and the National Housing Federation. The fundamental concern with how the Bill is drafted is that it reflects a centrist approach that of itself will do little to support better housing outcomes locally. Our amendment is an encouragement for co-operative working in developing strategies that reflect views not only of the local housing authority and registered providers of social housing but of residents and other stakeholders. The amendment could very much go with the grain of how councils are already working across the country with local landlords to identify and meet housing need. This work requires a good understanding of the local housing market, including new supply, the private rented sector, social housing, the impact of the new homes bonus and affordable rent—many of the issues debated earlier.
We have been presented with case studies that underline excellent work that is ongoing. I shall refer to two. There is the case of Hackney, where the Better Homes Partnership brings together a wide range of partners, including housing providers, community and voluntary representatives, to identify support and steer the delivery of Hackney’s long-term strategic objectives as set out in its sustainable community strategy. The partnership board is co-chaired by the deputy mayor and the chief executive of Hackney Homes, and the board has a housing management and housing investment subgroup that focused on strategic issues affecting Hackney’s people and places, such as antisocial behaviour, overcrowding, investment challenges and opportunities and the design and sustainability of new homes.
Shropshire Council’s housing strategy identifies housing needs and sets out how the council will meet them through an action plan agreed with internal and external partners. There is a clear focus on strengthening partnership with both registered social landlords and the private sector, and the council’s affordable housing allocation has been developed in consultation with tenants, applicants, housing associations and other stakeholders. The council is currently in discussion with registered providers regarding the development of its strategic tenancy policy.
The amendment would facilitate working across single local authority boundaries, as we have just instanced, and the development of local tenancy forums. Further, as the LGA points out, the timing of policy in Clause 137 is not well thought through. It requires the commencement of strategies that start in April 2012 but, given that the affordable rents model commenced in April 2011, that seems to be a bit late. I do not believe that we are apart on the need for strategic tenancy strategies, nor, I suspect, on the vision of how they might be developed. We suggest, though, that unfortunately once again the Secretary of State cannot let go and trust local councils and communities to deliver as they see fit. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I recognise that the amendment is founded on the concerns that the creation of tenancy strategies would enable local authorities to dictate to the housing associations in the area—exactly what the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said. I reassure the House that that cannot and will not be the case.
A housing association has to be aware of the strategy and take it into account as a relevant consideration when deciding what its own tenancy policy should be, but each individual landlord will be able to decide for himself—or itself, as far as the association is concerned— how it will use the new flexibilities that the new provisions in the Bill offer. We discussed that on the previous amendment.
Concerns in other quarters that a tenancy strategy represents the imposition of a heavy and centralist burden are, we believe, unfounded. All we are seeking to do is ensure that local policies on tenure are developed collaboratively and transparently, and that the tenancy strategy provides a simple framework for that to happen.
A tenancy strategy is not going to be difficult or burdensome to produce. There is no requirement for it to be in a specific format or to be of a particular length, and there is no barrier to local authorities working jointly with social landlords to produce one. I believe that we have struck the right balance between encouraging joint working and maintaining an individual landlord’s freedom to decide how they will use their new flexibilities, and that this is done in a light-touch way.
Clause 139 adds tenure to the matters on which the Secretary of State has the power to direct the social housing regulator regarding the standards that it has set. This power is key to the delivery of our proposals on tenure reform. The revised tenancy standard, to which I have already referred, will determine the detail of the additional freedoms on tenancies available to landlords and protections available to tenants, so it is right that the Government are able to give a direction on tenancy standards to the regulator. The Government’s power to direct the regulator is limited to a very few key areas, and it has always been acknowledged, including by the current regulator, that tenure is fundamentally a matter of government policy.
It is important to remember that the overall effect of the changes that we are making to the standards will actually be to reduce the level of regulation to which social landlords are subject and increase their flexibility. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that response and be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and her explanation of the Government’s position. She says that she is interested in and focused on a light-touch approach. I would, if anything, describe ours as slightly lighter and less centric, but we shall not argue about this. It is an issue that we have aired tonight and in another place. It is important that there is genuine flexibility in these arrangements, and that there are opportunities for full engagement across the piece locally when these strategies are being developed—not only by local housing authorities and providers but by representatives of tenants and the community more widely. That is the particularly important thing that we sought to probe in this amendment. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Shipley
“(3A) In carrying out the review, the reviewing officer shall presume that a new flexible tenancy for a term at least equivalent to the current or previous fixed term should be granted to the tenant unless the contrary is shown to be in accordance with the authority’s policies, in the interests of good housing management and compliant with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
Lord Shipley
My Lords, this amendment is designed to create a presumption that flexible tenancies should be renewed on expiry unless good reasons are shown to the contrary. The reviewing officer should proceed on the basis of the presumption that a new flexible tenancy for a term at least equivalent to the current or previous fixed term should be granted to the tenant unless the contrary is shown to be in accordance with the authority’s policies, in the interests of good housing management and compliant with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That is, the decision should take account of the tenant’s right to respect for his or her home, or his or her private and family life.
The removal of security of tenure will result in a great deal more uncertainty for tenants where it occurs. They will be aware of the looming threat of possibly losing their homes towards the end of a fixed-term tenancy. While the presumption in favour of renewal would not remove this worry, it would at least ensure that tenants are on a more secure footing and help to ensure that landlords undertake a thorough and rigorous process when reviewing tenancies.
As the legislation stands, the process that tenants will have to undergo when their flexible tenancies come to the end of the fixed term is weighted almost entirely in favour of the landlord. The amendment would help to ensure that when this process is being undertaken there is greater protection and clarity for tenants towards the end of their tenancy. Many of those tenants will be particularly vulnerable. We can do this by placing the onus on the landlord to justify refusing to extend the tenancy, rather than expecting the tenant to undergo a potentially complicated reapplication process. This will be preferable, since many tenants will be unaware of what factors are relevant to the authority’s decision and may find it difficult to advocate their case for renewal of a tenancy or struggle to provide proof of need. Further, a presumption in favour of renewal would make it harder for landlords to adopt practices or make decisions that may discriminate against certain tenants, such as those who have made complaints about the perceived failures of the landlord.
Finally, there is one further issue to do with guarding against bureaucratic failure. The administration of a brand new bureaucratic system of housing assessments across local authorities is likely to be a significant undertaking and could well lead to mistakes being made. As a result, it is vital that tenants have basic protections written into the legislation that will provide for default renewal of the tenancy if landlords either fail to carry out a lawful review or are unable to justify a negative decision. Bureaucratic failings already cause a great deal of hardship to people on low incomes, such as when mistakes occur in determining housing benefit claims or when registered providers fail to issue an assured tenancy following a successful probation period. No one should face the possibility of losing their home as a result of a bureaucratic failing. The amendment would help to prevent this happening. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Kennedy has added his name to this amendment. I support everything that the noble Lord said in moving the amendment. I have nothing further to add. I do not propose to move Amendment 33, which is grouped with this amendment, when we come to it.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, as I said in Committee, Amendment 28 is not necessary. The review already ensures that a decision by the landlord not to renew the tenancy must be fair and in line with the landlord’s published tenancy policy. Should the reviewing officer decide that the decision is not in line with the landlord’s policy, the landlord will need to reconsider his decision. Where a landlord seeks possession of a tenant’s property despite a review concluding that he was not acting in line with his own policy, the court will refuse to grant possession, as the Bill makes clear. Amendment 33 will not be moved. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is minded to withdraw Amendment 28.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I hope that what she has described will happen. I am sure that it will. We need to ensure that people who are worried about a successive tenancy have little cause to fear that the landlord might decide not to grant a further tenancy. On the assumption that the measure will provide what we are trying to achieve, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham
My Lords, this amendment relates to the position of tenants under the new flexible tenancies who seek to improve their property with the consent of the landlord. There is, of course, existing provision for this to happen; this matter is dealt with fairly routinely. The local authority or social landlord does not have an obligation to consent to an improvement. That is still within their remit to determine. However, under the Bill, the tenant will no longer be able to apply for consent or secure compensation for such improvements if he has a flexible tenancy.
It does not seem to me sensible to deter tenants who wish to improve their property from carrying out that improvement as long as the authority is prepared to agree to it. That case was strengthened today by the meeting—this has been referred to on more than one occasion—which the noble Baroness convened this morning with her right honourable friend the Minister for Housing. The latter was clear—indeed, the noble Baroness echoed his thoughts earlier today—that only in a minority of cases would a two-year flexible tenancy be granted, and that he did not expect to see many of those. He was bullish—that characteristic has earned him some notoriety—about the extent to which short flexible tenancies were unlikely to be granted, and said that most would be longer. I think he anticipated that 10 years or longer would be par for the course, in which case it is surely not sensible to put any difficulties in the way of tenants improving a property. Such improvements would still be subject to the consent of the local authority. I cannot see any reason why that option should not remain open and why a property should remain unimproved by the tenant when there is a real possibility that he might carry out such works for the benefit of future tenants as well as himself.
This is not in any sense a political or ideological amendment. It is simply a practical one that seeks to retain the present position, in the hope that people will be encouraged to improve their properties without the difficulty that Clause 142 would put in their way. I hope that the Minister, if she cannot affirm tonight that the Government are prepared to accept the amendment, will take the issue back and have a serious look at it, because I cannot see who gains from the clause as it stands. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I can probably reassure the noble Lord about this. While the amendment would provide flexible tenants with the same statutory rights as traditional secure tenants to improve their properties with the written consent of their landlord, and be compensated for those improvements on leaving the property, our proposals provide flexible tenants with many of the same rights as other secure tenants—for example, a right to exchange their home with another tenant or a right to succession for a spouse or partner.
However, the right to make improvements is, we feel, less appropriate for a tenancy that may be for five or 10 years than it is for a traditional secure tenancy, where a tenant may be in the same property for the rest of their life. That does not mean that tenants on flexible tenancies cannot make improvements to their house or, indeed, be compensated for them. What it does mean is that it will be for the landlord to decide what improvements the tenants can make, and that that would be included in the tenancy agreement. If the tenants are there for a full term, a whole lifetime or more, they can do what they like. Effectively, they can improve their property and the landlord would compensate them subsequently. However, in shorter tenancies, landlords must delineate what they will allow tenants to do; then there is nothing to stop them being compensated for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, looks more puzzled than cross—which he sometimes looks. Perhaps he may not be willing to withdraw the amendment, but I invite him to do so.
Lord Beecham
I am sure that I never look cross when I look at the noble Baroness. I accept her assurances, which I shall perhaps investigate further. For the time being, I am prepared to accept those assurances and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Wilkins
“( ) The Secretary of State must publish directions to the social housing regulator requiring the regulator to set standards on the provision of succession rights in express terms of secure tenancies.”
Baroness Wilkins
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 30 and 31 concerning the Bill’s removal of automatic succession rights for relatives of those living in local authority properties and the Government’s introduction of express terms of tenancy. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the Government make it explicit how and when these express terms of tenancies should be given to people other than spouses and civil partners to succeed a tenancy. The learning disability organisation Mencap is concerned that, as the Bill stands, it potentially weakens the position of disabled people who live with their parents or relatives in succeeding a tenancy. It also undermines the position of carers who have had to give up their own homes to look after a parent or relative. This issue was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in the truncated hours of the Committee stage, and he would have moved these amendments today had he been able to be present. He of course supports them and is grateful to the Minister for meeting him to discuss his concerns.
The right of succession is especially important for some of society’s most vulnerable groups—especially for disabled people who have lived with and been supported by their parents well on into their adult lives. According to current figures, between 50 per cent and 55 per cent of people with a learning disability still live with their parents. Their right to the home where they have lived all their lives is currently protected when their parents pass away. The Bill removes that security.
While the Government’s move to introduce express terms of tenancy is partially welcome, it does not go far enough in protecting the interests of disabled people. It is left to the discretion of housing providers and local authorities, which may well restrict the number of tenancies with an express provision because the position is not clear cut as it is now, so that such tenancies become rarer over time. Furthermore, tenancy agreements could be drafted and agreed at a time when there is no likelihood that an express term in the tenancy agreement will be needed. However, family circumstances can change drastically, and then a carer or a disabled son or daughter could be at risk of losing the security of their home if the housing provider is unwilling to change the terms of the tenancy agreement.
The amendments would ensure that regulations were in place to outline under which circumstances and to which groups of people an express term of the tenancy should give a right to succession. Hopefully, it would be clearer that disabled people, including those with a learning disability, living with parents and relatives who have given up their home to care for a disabled relative would be entitled to a succession to the tenancy. Unless the Secretary of State sets out directions for a standard for succession rights beyond a spouse or a civil partner, the default position of housing providers could undermine the long-term interests of disabled people. That could be one of the unintended consequences of the Bill. I hope that the Government will support the amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, I have every sympathy with the amendment, as it deals with an important issue, but I am concerned about one thing. I am all for people who have given up their homes to care for someone else to have a right of further occupation somewhere, but where a property has been specifically adapted for a disabled person, I would be much happier to see another disabled person able to use that accommodation. It should not be naturally guaranteed that the person who was there simply as a carer should then take over a property that might be eminently suited to another disabled person. I wonder whether that issue needs to be considered under the amendment.
Lord Wigley
I support the noble Baroness’s amendment. I do so declaring an interest as vice-president of Mencap Wales and having discussed these matters with the noble Lord, Lord Rix. This issue is of considerable concern to those who campaign for and work with people with disabilities—particularly learning disabilities. The insecurity that can be caused by the uncertainty arising from changes in legislation can undermine such people even more than those who are able-bodied but who none the less have a valid case for security of tenure. There is considerable concern and dismay in the world of disability about the changes. I hope that the Minister can give assurances that can put those people’s minds at rest. The last thing that we would want to do from this Chamber is to perpetuate or worsen the insecurity felt by those vulnerable people.
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I have worked for the past 30 years with adults with learning disabilities and their families, and I am also the parent of a young man with a learning disability. A particular interest of mine has been how adults with learning disabilities cope when their parents die. Many in the past have had to cope not only with the death of a parent but the loss of their home. Although the possibility was there under the previous Housing Act for the succession to continue, appropriate arrangements had often not been made. Arrangements to support people to stay in their home are now available and it would be very sad if succession rights were weakened at a time when support arrangements to enable people to remain in their familiar family home when their parents die are improving. I agree with the sentiments expressed by previous speakers and suggest that such a vulnerable group needs that security—as do parents, who anticipate that their adult children now have a life expectancy similar to that of the rest of the population. They need assurance that their security of tenure is provided for. That would be a huge comfort to such families.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I confess that I was puzzled by these amendments until my noble friend patiently explained them to me. She completely persuaded me and that persuasion has been reinforced by the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. It seems that we are dealing here with two potentially vulnerable groups of people—those who may themselves suffer from an incapacity or disability and those who care for them—and it would be sensible to give some assurance and security to both those groups in the context of the provisions of the Bill.
The amendments suggest that the Secretary of State should publish directions to the social housing regulator. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, is a fair one and needs to be taken into consideration. It could well form part of the directions that might be given to the social housing regulator in terms of the standards that would be set so that, where a carer remained in a property, an alternative offer of accommodation would have to be made. I should have thought that that would meet the noble Baroness’s point.
I hope that the Government will respond positively to the amendment—if not tonight, then perhaps at Third Reading. I cannot see that it would in any way violate the thrust of the Government’s policy. I believe from the Mencap briefing that some 500,000 to 600,000 people are living with parents or carers. Presumably they would not all be eligible for security of tenure but a significant number would be, and it is right that, given the problems that they are already confronting, they should not have the added problem of feeling insecure about their future. They are an important group in the community, and the community as a whole must take responsibility for ensuring their continued security and comfort.
I hope that the noble Baroness will respond positively—if not definitively tonight, then at Third Reading. I understand that there have been discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I assume that a potential way forward would be agreed with him and I hope that we might see that way forward, if not tonight then at Third Reading. The Opposition would certainly warmly support that.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I hope that we will not have to return to this at Third Reading, as I trust that I shall be able to reassure the House on these matters. I did indeed have the opportunity to talk to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, about his concerns, as well as to people at Mencap. I think that we largely reassured him, although there were one or two areas about which I know he was not content. However, we covered quite a lot of ground.
I am immensely sympathetic to this whole problem. People who have children with learning difficulties, or anyone who looks after someone with an illness, a disability or a mental illness, have enough problems to worry about without being concerned about what will subsequently happen to the person they are caring for.
Our proposals in the Bill will enable decisions about succession to be made on a case-by-case basis. I am sure that noble Lords will be aware that at the moment carers have no right to succeed to a tenancy, even if they have given up their home. There is absolutely nothing that gives them any rights to take on the property. They can succeed only as a spouse or a family member and only in certain circumstances. Therefore, we are trying to make succession easier by giving social landlords the power to give rights as they see fit. This is important. It will be left to landlords to decide to whom they give succession rights. They can, and, I imagine, will, decide that someone who gives up a property to care for a tenant will be entitled to such a succession. Under the provisions, they can also grant succession rights to an adult child with a learning disability living with their parents when either of those parents is unable to maintain where they are. We already require landlords to publish their policies setting out the circumstances in which they will use the new flexibilities that they will have around succession, and the tenancy standard will also require them to set out their policies on how they take into account the needs of vulnerable households. That is what we are talking about today—people with needs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, spoke about the need for flexibility to recover property that had been adapted. We absolutely agree with that. Landlords can already do that and can recover property adapted for disabled people. The only thing that they must do is house the successor elsewhere. If a tenancy is granted to a carer—a successor—and the property is completely unsuitable, they must be offered an alternative. The provisions are there. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, may worry because we are not categorically saying that that is what will happen. What we are saying categorically is that, within the terms that we think could be adopted, landlords must now take account of the position of people who are in the property and that it does not necessarily have to be a spouse who takes the tenancy of it. The people we would worry about are those who have given up their homes or who are caring for other people without having somewhere else to go.
I hope that, with those reassurances, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I thank her for moving it on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Rix.
Baroness Wilkins
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and am most grateful to everybody who supported the amendments. I fear that it is still left to the discretion of the landlord and still leaves a feeling of insecurity. I would like to read the record and discuss it with the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who may want to return to the issue on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham
“(2A) In that Part of that Schedule, in Ground 16 (vesting of tenancy in member of previous tenant’s family other than his or her spouse or civil partner)—
(a) at the beginning of the first unnumbered paragraph for “The accommodation afforded by the dwelling-house” substitute “The dwelling-house is in Wales, the accommodation afforded by it”,(b) in the first unnumbered paragraph—(i) in paragraph (a) after “tenancy)” insert “or 90 (devolution of term certain)”, and(ii) in paragraph (b) for “the date of the previous tenant’s death” substitute “the relevant date”, and(c) after the first unnumbered paragraph insert—“For this purpose “the relevant date” is—(a) the date of the previous tenant’s death, or(b) if the court so directs, the date on which, in the opinion of the court, the landlord (or, in the case of joint landlords, any one of them) became aware of the previous tenant’s death.””
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, these are government Amendments 32, 34, 35 and 36. When someone who is not a spouse or partner succeeds to a local authority property which is larger than they reasonably need, the landlord can move them to a more suitably sized property between six and 12 months after the death of the original tenant.
A government amendment tabled in Committee in response to a suggestion put forward by the Opposition dealt with the problem of a successor tenant withholding news of the death of the tenant from the landlord until after the recovery window had closed, thereby preventing the landlord reclaiming the property. It did this by enabling a court to decide whether the window is deemed to have opened six months after the original tenant died or six months after the landlord became aware of the death. However, the amendment in Committee applied only to cases in England. The Welsh Assembly Government have asked that this provision apply also to local authority tenancies in Wales. This new amendment ensures that that is the case.
Government Amendments 34, 35 and 36 are minor and technical and ensure that certain provisions apply only to England and not also to Wales, in line with our original policy intention. I beg to move.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I intervene briefly to ask about the implications for Wales. I am grateful to the Minister for indicating that she has taken up the view supported by the National Assembly. That is very good and moves things forward. With regard to Amendment 36, the Explanatory Notes, to which I referred in Committee and which refer to the original Bill presented to us, suggested that the clause on repairing obligations in leases of seven years or more was applicable to both England and Wales. Was that incorrect or have things changed during the passage of the Bill? My question is parallel to another that I asked. On that occasion, the Minister said that the clause was intended to cover possibilities that might arise in future. I would be grateful, when she has had an opportunity to get advice, if she would clarify the position so that we in Wales know where we stand on the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I will speak briefly, subject to anything that arises from the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. Obviously we support the amendments. I take the opportunity to thank the noble Baroness and her team for the volume of correspondence that we have had, which has explained the government amendments and the position on amendments that were withdrawn. I will not comment on timeliness—I understand that we have had a further missive during the course of our proceedings today—but it is generally helpful to have things set down in correspondence in the way in which they have been.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, for that. A prodigious amount of work went on during the Recess. We were very conscious that, with the withdrawal of all the amendments at the end of the previous stage, it was important that noble Lords understood what we had done. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that we made this correction in line with the Welsh Assembly's wishes that the repairing obligation change would not apply to Wales.
Baroness Hanham
“(aa) the dwelling-house is in England,”
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
“Orders for possession: cases in which Ground 8 is not available
(1) Section 7 (orders for possession) of the Housing Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3) for “subsections (5A) and (6)” substitute “subsections (5A), (6) and (6A)”.
(3) In subsection (4) for “subsections (5A) and (6)” substitute “subsections (5A), (6) and (6A)”.
(4) After subsection (6) insert—
“(6A) If the court is satisfied—(a) that Ground 8 in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to this Act is established; and either(b) that some rent is in arrears as a consequence of a delay or failure in the payment of relevant housing benefit, or(c) the landlord is a private registered provider of social housing,it shall not make an order for possession unless it considers it reasonable to do so.”(5) After subsection (7) insert—
“(8) In subsection (6A) above—(a) “relevant housing benefit” means—(i) any rent allowance or rent rebate to which the tenant was entitled in respect of the rent under the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006; or(ii) any payment on account of any such entitlement awarded under Regulation 93 of those Regulations;(b) references to delay or failure in the payment of relevant housing benefit do not include such delay or failure as is referable to any wilful act or omission of the tenant.””
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, the proposed new clause amends ground 8 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988. At present, private landlords and housing associations can use ground 8 to seek possession of accommodation let on an assured tenancy where a tenant has arrears equal to more than two months' rent. The important point is that, unlike other rent arrears grounds for possession, ground 8 is mandatory: only in this instance does the court have no discretion to decide whether it is reasonable to make an order for possession. The amendment to ground 8 is designed to give discretion to the courts in cases where housing benefit issues are outstanding. I am sure that many noble Lords have seen such examples. The court can decide to adjourn the case or suspend an order for possession. This will help to ensure that tenants are not evicted from their homes because of non-payment of, or delay in the payment of, housing benefit.
The amendment would also prevent housing associations and other private registered providers of social housing using ground 8. The reason for this reform is that it is not appropriate for social landlords to seek to deprive the court of its discretion by mandating that it must make an outright order for possession, whatever the circumstances of the case. The Minister will know that most housing associations choose not to use ground 8, but some do. Local authorities do not have a mandatory ground for possession based on rent arrears. There is no need or justification for a mandatory arrears ground where social tenancies are concerned.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, makes a very interesting case. I do not propose to follow him into the detail of ground 8, but I shall comment on the fact that we are going through a period of some upheaval in relation to housing benefit, which brings a particular poignancy to the point which he raises. If we look at what is on the cards, we know that local housing allowance rates are now set at the 30th percentile of local market rents. We know that a cap on the local housing allowance rate has been introduced. We know that under the Welfare Reform Bill, local housing allowances are going to be uprated by CPI in future rather than by reference to what is happening to rents. We know that there is an increase in the non-dependant deduction, and we know that there are changes to the shared room rate as well. Each of those things creates some challenges in the administration of housing benefit.
Moreover, we are on the cusp of having something called universal benefit, and all the housing benefits will eventually be paid through that process but at a time when the Government are seeking to uncouple the administration of housing benefit from council tax benefit. The practicalities of that present a real challenge, because we know that lots of councils will have contracted out those joint arrangements and how you unpick and administer them is a really challenging issue—quite apart from the issue of whether they are going to be direct payments or how the payment of housing support is going to flow through. We know what the Government’s answer is going to be because we have read it in the book that was presented to us, and I doubt that that has changed over the weeks since that appeared. The point made by the noble Lord seems to me to be especially relevant at this time because of this great upheaval around housing benefit.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I would like to ask a question about this amendment, which I am not entirely clear about. I have been told recently by people who have had court possession orders and eviction notices served on them that that does not really put them out of anything until the bailiffs come in. What is the position if the court grants a possession order but the bailiffs have not been instructed? I understand that there is usually quite a time lag between those two events and that the housing benefit comes through in that time, particularly when it has been delayed. How would that work in relation to those two different procedures?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I have all sorts of answers that were given in the letter, which I was absolutely satisfied covered everything that could possibly be raised. I am stuck on this position about the courts and will have to come back to noble Lords, because the response I have already given is that landlords must have the right to go for possession, particularly where there are rent arrears and particularly where those are long term. On the other hand, landlords are expected to use every possible means of supporting tenants to sustain their tenancies and to prevent unnecessary evictions. That should be a requirement on all social landlords within a revised tenancy standard. The expectation is that evictions should happen only as a very last resort.
There is a well established pre-action protocol on rent arrears and the data show a steady decline in evictions of housing association tenants in recent years. However, we believe that good practice in managing rent arrears should not exclude using mandatory grounds in limited circumstances—right at the end of the road when the landlord really had not been able to come to any satisfactory conclusion. Recent independent research suggests that mandatory grounds are used sparingly, in less than 5 per cent of total housing association evictions for rent arrears. That is not a very high percentage, and indicates that it is not being used as a blunt instrument and takes proper account of the particular circumstances of the case.
There are protocols and we expect landlords to abide by them. I do not think we want to remove the mandatory aspect of ground 8 from the legislation. Under the previous Government, a working group was convened to look at the issue in detail and it commissioned independent research through the Tenant Services Authority. However, there was absolutely no unanimity among external partners that abolishing ground 8 was necessary or desirable.
Having talked long enough, I have been able to get at least a partial reply to my ignorance about what happens in the courts. The grant of possession does not necessarily mean eviction. Landlords may need to apply to the court again for an eviction order and arrears could be resolved before that point, which should have been the situation in the case mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. If it is an arrear, time should be given for housing benefit to come through to prevent that eviction.
I think I understood the noble Lord to say that the courts felt that they had no alternative but to grant possession and to ensure eviction. I may have misunderstood him but I hope I have not. If that is the situation, I simply say again that no action should necessarily need to be taken immediately as a result of that court decision, particularly if it relates to money and it is felt that eviction is likely to come about. I am bound to say that in that scenario I would expect the landlords to have got to that situation before they apply for eviction, but there may be reasons why they have not.
We would resist removing ground 8, which leaves room for negotiation and should not have the effect of ensuring that tenants are automatically evicted as part of the court decision. If I have misunderstood anything that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has said, he is bound to let me know when he replies to the amendment. If necessary I will look at that position again, but I hope I have picked up the main points of his concerns. I very much hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her detailed reply both in writing and verbally. She has not misunderstood anything but she lives, as perhaps we all do, in this utopia where all landlords are good. I am afraid that in the world in which I live not all landlords are good, and I believe that there are a modest number who will use ground 8. I hope that only a modest number will do that, but there will be some who will. There should be nothing in legislation that removes the discretion of the court to do what is right. The matter of when the bailiffs move in was raised. Those who have had experience of the courts know that that is a varied situation because it often depends on whether the landlord has set the thing in motion to get early occupation of the property.
That is particularly important at this moment. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, talked about when benefits—universal benefits and the like—are paid. Those of us who have been local councillors—I have been a councillor for 25 years and still am—know that local authorities and social landlords use IT systems to deal with housing benefits. For years, my local authority used Pericles, which went dreadfully wrong. It is not an indictment of any landlord that they should use a system that goes wrong, because IT systems often do, but the fact is that, with the changeover to universal benefits, which has already been mentioned in this debate, there is a great probability that housing benefits arrears will be built up unintentionally because of a changeover in computer systems. In that case, there would be the danger of ground 8 evicting people without the courts having a chance even to postpone eviction. I would ask that my noble friend the Minister looks again at how many such cases there have been and whether there is a need to tweak this in the legislation.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Does the noble Lord agree that the issue is compounded because there will be a split of housing support, which is going via the universal credit, and council tax benefit, which is staying with local authorities? The noble Lord from his experience would know that often those systems run together and are contracted out jointly, although I do not know whether in this particular instance that is the case. Therefore, having to unpick those two systems, as well as having to build the universal credit, adds a particular dimension to the issue that he has raised.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
I thank the noble Lord for emphasising that point. In my view, during this volatile period there is a great danger of more notional housing arrears arising that would pose the danger of eviction. Good landlords, as my noble friend the Minister said, will be able to deal with it, and that is why I concurred with what she said. But can any noble Lord doubt that there will be some bad landlords? Some bad landlords may seek to use ground 8 knowing that the courts have no power to protect the tenant. Perhaps between now and Third Reading the Minister could look at that. Having said that, at this stage, which is always a mixture of Committee and Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Whitty
Lord Whitty
My Lords, in moving Amendment 38 I shall speak to the other amendments in the group. We have come to the housing revenue section of the Bill and my amendments would delete the lot. I suspect that if the Chief Whip were in her place she would say that I am using Committee procedures because potentially I am using a clause stand part Motion to get some clarification of the Government’s intentions. In other words, this is a probing amendment and I do not expect to seek a vote on it. Indeed, I think I probably support the general direction of government policy in this area. However, it is an area that was not discussed at all in Committee and is one in which, to my knowledge, in all the copious material that the Minister has provided for us, we have not had a comprehensive statement of the Government’s intention. Perhaps I missed it, but I have not seen a clear statement of where we are going on housing revenue.
Housing revenue means two different things. It means the allocation between housing authorities so that some are losers and some are winners in a national reallocation process that seems in part to be reproduced in these provisions, and it is a protection at the individual local authority level to ensure that rental and other income received for housing purposes is actually recycled for those purposes. That protection is not always quite adequate, but nevertheless it is part of the long-existing provision. On previous occasions when housing revenue stipulations have been significantly changed, there has been a whole Bill that has gone through a number of procedures. Here we are squeezing them into a very large Bill in which, to my mind at least—although again I should say that I may have missed it—the Government have not spelt out their intentions. The last Government made a start on this, and by and large I approved of the Minister’s approach, but I have not seen a similar comprehensive statement of where we wish to end up.
There are a lot of complicated provisions here, particularly in regard to the formal abolition of subsidy to the balance between what the Secretary of State allocates to different authorities. No new formula has been proposed, but neither is it clear that the old formula will still operate. One has to say that the old formula was pretty opaque and gave rise to some disgruntlement in a number of local authorities. The Government owe us a clear explanation of where we are going on the housing revenue account, and if it already exists I would be grateful for it. If not, I am happy for the noble Baroness to write to me in the interval between now and Third Reading, but I do not think that this House should let what could be a major strategic redirection on housing revenue provisions pass without comment.
Some of my colleagues have tabled detailed amendments, but my amendments are intended to give the Government an opportunity to explain what their strategy is. At least the position will then be clear so that by Third Reading we can decide whether we agree with it or not. Given the way I am trying to use these amendments, I hope that the noble Baroness will take them as they are intended, in a spirit of inquiry, and give us greater clarification. I beg to move.
Lord Best
My Lords, the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would leave out a whole series of clauses that relate to the housing revenue account. I have added my name to Amendment 46, which would leave out just one of those clauses. That implies that I am happy with the others, as indeed I am.
The housing revenue account is regarded in local government circles as well past its sell-by date and there is general acclaim for its abolition. It is a significant aspect of the localism agenda that financial responsibility for council housing is to be put back into the hands of councils. In place of pooled debt and pooled rents, each council involved will henceforth assume direct responsibility for housing debt according to its ability to repay it, and it will keep all the income from rents for managing and maintaining its own council stock. Efficiency gains on its rented account will go back into improved housing provision. These are helpful reforms, but they stop well short of giving councils the full financial independence that could enable proper asset management of their housing resources and harness significant prudential investment in new homes. These freedoms are enjoyed by even the smallest housing association.
Amendment 46, in leaving out Clause 158, would remove the restriction on councils that want to borrow prudentially—knowing that they can repay what they borrow—for housing purposes. When councils move to a self-financing regime with the housing revenue account buyout on 1 April 2012, they will face new restrictions on borrowing for housing purposes—a new capping regime—despite the continued presence of the prudential code that has operated perfectly well since 2003. The chairman of the Local Government Group points out that it has demonstrated on many occasions that councils have a strong record of sound financial management and manage borrowing responsibly in accordance with the prudential code. He says that local government’s view is that these rules to which it adheres provide sufficient protection that councils will undertake only borrowing that is affordable, and that imposing a cap on councils’ ability to borrow for affordable housing will severely restrict their ability to invest in an increased number of affordable homes, which government wants to see. Paradoxically, housing associations are being encouraged at exactly the same time to borrow a lot more to replace the shortfall resulting from smaller grants. A lot of housing associations are borrowing more, but not councils, which must accord with the new cap. The Local Government Group says that it hopes that if government will not remove the new cap, Ministers will at least consider committing that local government will be properly consulted in determining the level at which the cap is to be set for each authority to allow some crucial further investment on a sustainable basis. I support the removal of the clause as proposed by Amendment 46.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I suppose that there are not many people who like to collect together at this hour to discuss local housing finance, but it falls to us to do it. We understand that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Whitty is probing in nature to try to gain an understanding of where the Government currently stand on this issue. If I have to be fair to the Government—I try not to be—I think that they have been quite active in putting out consultations; there is one due in November if my understanding about the final figures which will be debated with local government is correct. Of course, they have built on the prospectus that was issued in March last year under the previous Government.
As with the noble Lord, Lord Best, we support the thrust of most of these clauses except for Clause 158. They provide the framework for the self-financing scheme for local authority housing stock which will replace the existing housing revenue account subsidy system. As noble Lords have recognised, the current subsidy system is based on a range of assumptions about local authority housing stock, covering rental income, maintenance and management costs, costs of service in debt and of major repairs. An authority will either receive a subsidy from the notional calculation if it was in deficit or pay to the Exchequer amounts when the calculation showed a surplus.
When the current subsidy system started, no local authority was in surplus but, as I understand it, by 2008-09 the system overall had tipped into surplus with the aggregate of amounts paid to the Exchequer exceeding the aggregate of subsidy payments. The reforms reflected in these clauses were initiated by the last Labour Government. As my noble friend recognised, the current system had become a source of discontent for a variety of reasons, particularly because it is complex and lacks transparency, with changes from year to year making it difficult to plan effectively over the long term. We believe it is right to change that, which is why we support the thrust of these amendments.
The reform consulted on by the previous Government involved a devolved, self-financing system where there is no redistribution of revenues in return for a one-off allocation of debt to local authorities. This allocation would be based on each authority’s ability to service the debt and maintain its housing stock. In essence, this represents a deal between central government and local authorities. In return for allocating excess debts to local authorities, the latter will obtain greater spending power over the long term through retention of future rent increases. It represents a transfer of risk from the Government to local authorities.
My noble friend Lord Whitty will doubtless recall that the proposition for a self-financing regime proposed by the then Housing Minister, John Healey, included the one-off distribution and allocation of housing debt. All rents and receipts from the sales of housing and land in the HRA were to be obtained by the local authorities, with rental income to be based on current rental policy—that is, convergence with standard housing association rents by 2015-16. The housing stock would be valued using the 7 per cent discount rate. The latter component in particular—the 7 per cent discount—would have given local authorities headroom to be able to fund 10,000 new council homes each year.
Noble Lords will be aware that the principle of moving to a self-financing regime was overwhelmingly supported by local authorities. As these clauses make clear, the coalition Government are proceeding with the self-financing option and the basic method of debt allocation is to be as set out in the March 2010 prospectus—that is as I understand it but the Minister will tell me if I am wrong.
However, there are some differences and some major concerns, which are reflected in subsequent amendments. In particular, the discount rate to be used is 6.5 per cent not 7 per cent. This may seem a small difference but the effect is for central government to be some £1.2 million to the good and to remove much of the headroom that would have been in the system for building additional council housing. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, has said, the plan to cap the overall borrowing of each authority at a level linked to opening debt runs contrary to the spirit of localism and the self-financing concept.
We would argue that central government already have powers under the Local Government Act 2003. I should be grateful if the Minister could specifically deal with this. Section 3 of that Act talks about a local authority determining and keeping under review how much money it can afford to borrow. Section 4 gives the Secretary of State, by regulations for national, economic reasons, power to set limits in relation to the borrowing of money by local authorities. If that is on the statute book already, we do not need Clause 158. I agree with my noble friend and with the noble Lord, Lord Best, that that should not stand part of the Bill.
As for rents, retaining the approach of convergence with RSLs by 2015 is all very well, but the impact of changes to housing benefit, the urban benefit cap, the non-dependant reductions upratings and the 2013 room- size criteria for the working-age tenants create additional uncertainty and risk. Reversal of the plans for local authorities to retain all the receipts from right to buy should not be accepted, and we will debate that shortly.
Although my noble friend is right to challenge these provisions, we consider that it is right for the self-financing regime to proceed. However, as ever, the devil is in the detail and we look forward to an update from the Minister.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I thank the three noble Lords who have addressed this issue, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for the way in which he addressed the several deletions. I am told that reference to housing finance did not enter the ranks in Second Reading and that there were no amendments the like of that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in Committee. It is interesting that we have got to Report and the fundamentals are being raised by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
If the Minister will permit me to intervene, amendments were tabled in Committee dealing with Clause 158. The noble Lord, Lord Best, had one that we put our name to.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
Indeed, but there was not the wholesale abolition of the entirety of the clauses in the Bill on this whole issue of housing finance. I know that the amendment was moved in a probing way—I accept that—but it was not done at that point.
I understand the sense that there is a fundamental change here, and there is a need. I undertake that a document will be provided that sets out the change in simple terms. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is asking for. He is saying, “I can’t cope with all this lot—what’s it all about?”. So there is a need for a simple document explaining that change. However, if we accepted his amendment, we would be stuck with a discredited and underfunded system for financing council housing instead of moving to self-financing, which is the culmination of a long-held ambition held by local government for councils to take full responsibility for their rental income and the management of their housing assets for the benefit of their tenants. It has been overwhelmingly supported in two public consultations, was originally a Labour Party policy and enjoys broad cross-party support.
Under the current system, Whitehall makes a series of complex annual decisions about what councils should raise in rents and what they should spend on their homes. Government then redistributes income between councils with an increasingly large profit being made for the Exchequer in the last few years as the methodology assumes that rents are rising significantly faster than costs. The result is that councils have no certainty about future income and no ability to plan long term as well as insufficient funding to maintain their houses to a decent standard. Through the Localism Bill, we will replace that subsidy system with one in which councils keep their own rents, thereby providing a direct link between the rent that councils charge and the services that they deliver. Tenants will, therefore, be able to hold their landlord to account. Councils will on average have 14 per cent more to spend on their stock than under the current system. This increase in funding is to meet the real costs required for management, maintenance and major repairs as identified in independent research.
I have some notes here that refer to a later amendment, but it is perhaps appropriate to deal with points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best, about Clause 158. It is not a minor or technical part of these reforms, but instead is integral to protecting the Government’s central fiscal priority to bring public borrowing under control. I appreciate that many councils do not like that restriction, but our reforms must support national fiscal policy. Self-financing will give local authorities direct control over a large income stream, which could potentially be used to finance a large increase in public sector debt. Prudential borrowing rules have been effective to date in ensuring that local authority borrowing is affordable locally, but in the current fiscal context it must also be affordable nationally.
I am aware that the borrowing cap will place pressures on some councils in the early years of self-financing. These pressures, however, should be seen in the context of a deal that significantly increases funding for all council landlords at a time when other parts of the public sector are facing a very tight fiscal position.
I think that that covers the point that has been raised. It really is a case of the national position and the problems of the fiscal position affecting local authorities in terms of the restrictions that we have with our national economic situation. I hope, particularly on the basis that we will be able to produce a simple document of explanation, that this will be acceptable to the noble Lord to enable him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Before the Minister sits down, could he deal with the point about the existing powers that the Government have under the 2003 Act, for national economic reasons and by regulations, to limit borrowing by local authorities? Why do they need the additional provisions of Clause 158? Do they not have those powers, or why are those powers insufficient?
Lord Shutt of Greetland
I am afraid that I will have to write to the noble Lord about that. I do not have a firm answer as to why that should be the case, although it may well be that someone is sending me a document on that. It is suggested that the existing power in the Local Government Act 2003 allows central government to,
“by regulations set limits in relation to the borrowing of money by local authorities”,
in order to ensure that the local authority does not borrow more than it can afford. While this power provides powers to cap local authority debt, it links local caps to local affordability. Our concern is not that councils will act in ways that are imprudent locally but that on aggregate these borrowing decisions may be unaffordable nationally. That is the situation there. If that does not cover the point, though, as I indicated earlier, I will write.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his offer to explain all this to me in simple language. I now understand that this is all about self-financing, which I have supported in the past and therefore continue to support. It is just that, due to the way the clause reads, it seemed to me that the one-off payment was not the result of a deal but was by the unilateral decision of the Secretary of State. Maybe that is the way that it has to be expressed in legislation, but I am grateful for the offer of a paper clarifying that. I still think that the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best, need a fuller riposte, and maybe the Minister could come up with that as well. In the mean time, though, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.