Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Gardner of Parkes and Lord Beecham

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

My Lords, I have brought this amendment back in exactly the same form it had in Committee because I thought the comments the Minister made then really deserved to be re-examined. This is an important issue that ordinary people care about very much. Everyone is very unhappy to find suddenly that something has been given retrospective permission without them having any idea that it was even up for reconsideration.

As the Minister said on that day in Committee:

“How we deal with unauthorised development is an important issue that concerns many people”.


I think that is right. He also said:

“It is important to note that retrospective planning applications must be determined in exactly the same way as any other application, that is, in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.—[Official Report, 6/2/17; col. GC 346.]


He then referred to what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said about this, which was also interesting. The Minister mentioned that if somebody has deliberately concealed the fact that they are doing development, as in the famous haystack case, they can be required to demolish the property.

What I found most disappointing in what the Minister said was that the local authority concerned does have an obligation to consult people—I put the part about consultation in my amendment because local authorities are not doing so. Certainly, in the cases where I have been affected by retrospective planning permission, the first thing I have known about it is when I received a note saying, “We have granted planning permission” for whatever disastrous thing it was near me. I have met so many other people who have been in the same situation. If there is an obligation to consult the same people whom you would have consulted before, why is it not being done for retrospective permission? It all smells a little bit. Is this because someone is trying to slip something through retrospectively and feels that they will get away without any consultation or having to attach any conditions? It bears looking at again.

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who mentioned the serving of enforcement notices. The Minister certainly picked up the point about enforcement proceedings, but I am not suggesting going any further on those issues.

I must reiterate that my interest is declared in the register; I should perhaps have said that at the beginning.

The Minister went on to say, regarding enforcement, that,

“there is already a double charge”.—[Official Report, 6/2/17; col. GC 347.]

I had not appreciated that there was already a double charge, but apparently that is the case only if you have an enforcement notice. There is no extra charge if you have simply not applied and come back to get your permission, and the local authority has not notified those people who should be consulted. Is that because there is corruption, or is it laziness on their part? It is very important to have some way of ensuring that—it really would be good. The Minister said that it would not be helpful to delay effective enforcement action. All of these things are true, but why are they not adhering to the letter of the law as it is? Why are ordinary people suffering? They are finding that, instead of being able to insist that some reasonable condition that would suit everyone in the locality be included in the planning consent, and the planning authority would consider whether it was a justifiable condition to attach, they are simply not being consulted and are getting word after it is all over and done with.

I suggested a penalty fee in that proposal because planning officers to whom I have spoken have said to me that, at the moment, there is no disincentive whatever to going retrospectively for permission. You can be brave and just have a go and you have nothing to lose because you have no disadvantage: if you find out that you have not got permission, you go for it then and it does not cost anything more; you might have saved yourself a lot of time, trouble and bother, and you have just gone ahead with what you wanted. On the idea of a penalty fee, the Minister said:

“It is a matter which I know previous Governments have considered and to some extent grappled with, but in the interests of fairness have decided not to take forward”.—[Official Report, 6/2/17; col. GC 347.]


In speaking to other amendments in Committee, the Minister said that he would be looking very seriously at various things for secondary regulation, as to what should or should not be regulated and what should or should not be considered. However, I believe that this is the sort of instance that should be looked into. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has said to me that this is more complicated than I imagine. I am sure, from his wisdom and knowledge, which is very great on these subjects, that I would accept that that probably is a fact, but it does not mean that it cannot be investigated and looked into. If, as I understood from the answers in Committee, there is going to be all this consideration of future regulations, then this merits being looked at much more closely. Rather than going on and on, because we have an awful lot to get through today, I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, this matter was debated briefly in Committee. I made the point then that I had a good deal of sympathy with the intentions of the noble Baroness’s amendment requiring a retrospective planning application, although it did not seem to me that the rest of her proposals—with all due respect—had been fully thought through in terms of how they might be applied.

In particular, subsection (2) in the amendment is unnecessary, because if there was a planning application then, of course, fees would have to be paid. There is also a real problem with subsection (3)—I think I said this to her in Committee as well—which prescribes the payment of an additional charge without giving any indication of how that might be calculated. I suggested that the matter could have gone forward on the basis that that would be determined by secondary legislation, but that has not appeared in this amendment. For those reasons, I am afraid that we cannot support the noble Baroness’s amendment, although I suspect that she will not divide the House in any event. While her intention is very good, the means of carrying it through do not quite meet what is required.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Gardner of Parkes and Lord Beecham

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Thursday 23rd February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness as an ordinary working Peer. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment. I am not quite sure what the position is in relation to Amendment 38 and whether the noble Baroness intends to move it.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

I do not.

[Lord Beecham]

In that case, I will simply commend these amendments.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Gardner of Parkes and Lord Beecham

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, the House is indeed fortunate to have such an expert in parliamentary procedure as the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. I have listened to him and learned a great deal in a very short time; I am sure that other noble Lords will feel the same. It is interesting that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has effectively confirmed that he approves the noble Lord’s approach to dealing with these matters. Otherwise, Parliament in effect will be being asked once again to sign a blank cheque covering matters of considerable importance and complexity which will simply proceed under ministerial fiat. That cannot be healthy, given the nature and importance of the topic we are discussing.

I hope that the Minister, who has today written to some Members of the House about aspects of this matter—I am sure that the document will be in the Library as well, although somewhat belatedly—will acknowledge that the noble Lord has made a very powerful case for adopting a more conventional procedure than that of delegating determinative powers which will be exercised without any oversight at all. Nothing in what the noble Lord suggested would substantially obstruct the carrying out of the Government’s policy; they would just have to explain and seek parliamentary approval in what is, after all, a pretty normal way. I hope that the Government will react positively to the amendment. If, having regard to apparently moving circumstances as reflected in her letter, the noble Baroness is unable to accept the amendment today, if she could undertake to come back on it at Third Reading, that might suffice. Otherwise, I suspect that the noble Lord will be tempted to test the opinion of the House. In that event, the Opposition will certainly support him.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, have served on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for at least two sessions of three years each. What concerns me is the word “regulations”. Does it mean that this will be another regulation that will come to us in a pre-formed state and we will not have any opportunity to consider its implications? I find it very worrying that we are doing more and more by secondary legislation and less by primary legislation, and I should like the Minister to cover that point in her reply.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Gardner of Parkes and Lord Beecham

Thursday 17th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment is self-explanatory, and people in this House have heard me speak before on the issue of sinking funds. It was drawn to my attention particularly by people who bought their council flats in the days of Margaret Thatcher. No sinking funds were set aside at all and, if you are a tenant in a local authority block, you do not have to pay for sudden repairs. However, the case I quote to the House is of a woman who has an income of £10,000 a year and received a bill, this year, for £12,000 for her part of the roof repairs. When I followed this up with the housing association that owns the property, it said the problem is that there are 26 people in exactly the same position. To avoid this, from the day that you own a leasehold, you should really be part of a sinking fund so that you do not suddenly find yourself threatened with losing your home altogether because you cannot find the money. What happens if she does lose her home? The local authority has to pick it up again, so it seems that the fund is necessary.

It is also very necessary and important that a sinking fund exists in private blocks. We do not have one in the block that I own a flat in and, some years ago, someone suggested that we have a voluntary scheme. The scheme came into force and we all put our money in, and it was great because it paid for all the repairs for the year—some minor and some less minor. Then, a new tenant bought a leasehold in the block and said, “I don’t want to pay a sinking fund; there is nothing in the lease about it”. They had to give us all back our money, whereupon, years later, we will be faced with another giant bill for a new boiler system or new central heating or something.

It really is so much better if people have a sinking fund for repairs, and it is important that this should be a possibility for people in local authority housing and people who have a right to manage, even if their lease does not have provision for a sinking fund. My aim is to put in a clause that would enable people to decide that by a majority. If a majority want it, it should come into force, and it should not be the case that it can be withdrawn at a later date, which was what threw our system into complete chaos, it having been done on a voluntary basis. I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I sometimes think that the noble Baroness’s title is not really adequate: “Baroness Gardner of Leaseholds” would have been better than Baroness Gardner of Parks. She is an expert in these matters and deeply committed to improving the situation of leaseholders, and on that she is to be congratulated. It is fair to say that the aspirations in these amendments are to be welcomed. However, I have some difficulties with the drafting.

In Amendment 84E there is a reference to:

“The buyer of a leasehold in a shared residential building”.

However, not every owner is a buyer—they may inherit or be given the property, and so “buyer” is not the right term. That also applies to subsection (4) of the amendment’s proposed new clause. It is also not clear in proposed new subsection (1) how the requirement is to be made. Normally, of course, provision is made within the lease. The implication here is that, somehow, legislation should overtake the provisions in an existing lease, which I think is a somewhat difficult concept. Furthermore, proposed new subsection (3) says that:

“The sums to be deposited and the timetable for their deposit shall be determined by those holding rights in the shared building”,

but it does not indicate how many of the leaseholders would be required—I suspect that a majority is what is intended, as it is in subsection (1) of the new clause proposed in Amendment 84F. That needs to be tidied up.

Having said that, there will be a chance, if I may say so respectfully, to improve the wording of the amendment before we get to Report. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to this and possibly work with the noble Baroness in coming to an agreed position. She has highlighted a significant issue that is having adverse consequences for many occupiers of leasehold properties; at any rate, those with common parts. Perhaps the Minister will undertake to look at that with her and others to see whether the Government might bring forward an amendment to meet the objectives set out here but, as I said, unfortunately with drafting that may not achieve them.

Localism Bill

Debate between Baroness Gardner of Parkes and Lord Beecham

Monday 17th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, I should like to clarify that I am not speaking about what I would call a repeat amendment, where someone is coming back for another planning application; I am speaking purely about cases where someone has built premises in contravention of the planning permission they have been granted.

This has happened to me in both London and the country. I supported the application in the country, only to find that an extra metre and a half had been built on a wall, cutting off totally our view of the village green, which was a very pretty part of the place. When I rang the council to ask why nothing had happened about this, they said, “Oh, we gave him retrospective permission for it”. The same happened in London, where I actually phoned the council during the construction and said that it was not being built according to plan. “Oh of course it is”, they said. Eighteen months later the council came back and said, “You’re quite right, it was not. However, we felt that as people had already moved into it, we should give them retrospective permission”.

This is quite unfair to people who have a right of legitimate comment on the original planning application but have no idea when the council is considering a whitewash for something that should not be. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I would have thought that this amendment is unnecessary. If an application for retrospective consent is a fresh application, it would, or should, be notified to those occupiers—not necessarily those who objected before, who might be living anywhere. However, surely it should be treated as an application de novo, and therefore the normal processes would apply. So those affected on a retrospective application would receive notice. I should think, unless the Minister disagrees, that the amendment is otiose.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is right on this. I thank my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for bringing this forward. It is important that we get this absolutely clear. This word retrospective largely means that something happened for which there was no permission. Someone spots it and says, “Look here, you’d better put in a planning application”. That’s the position. In all instances where there is a change, there are requirements in place for local planning authorities to publicise and consult on those applications—that is, the retrospective ones. This is true when a new revised planning application is submitted, and where the holder of a planning permission wishes to delete or vary one or more of the conditions to which their existing planning permission is subject. The Government therefore believe that this amendment is a solution to a problem that does not exist. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw it.

Localism Bill

Debate between Baroness Gardner of Parkes and Lord Beecham

Monday 10th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, I am so pleased that we have actually reached one of my amendments. I flew back from Sydney yesterday specifically to be here for it but I felt sure that another 25 would have popped in ahead of me again. Fortunately, that has not happened.

This amendment comes about because at the moment, councils have no authority to do anything to maintain standards of appearance—and buildings at all—and this can be very bad for other residents adjoining. The home that I sold in 1977 to very rich people, who now have vast resources in this country, was done up at that time and has not been touched since. It is really quite sad to go past and see the gutters falling off and the stucco all in pieces. People in that street told me that they have repeatedly asked if something could be done about it, and the council has said that no, it has no powers to even request this. These people have taken petitions up to the owners of that house, but nothing has happened. When I asked the council, it said that it has powers if something is unsafe and going to fall down, or if it is a listed building—although even if it is a listed building, it cannot ask for it to be maintained; it can only prevent it from actually falling down when it gets to that point. I was surprised that the council says that it has no powers in this respect.

It should not be a case of demanding that people keep a place in immaculate condition. I know of a similar case in Montpelier Square, where local residents get very distressed by this. It is worth thinking about having an enabling power for councils. I hope that it would be needed. I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness, and welcome her on her return from her homeland. I trust she has not been suffering from jet lag; I will not detain her too long.

I am not sure that the amendment is necessarily the right way to deal with this. My understanding is that in conservation areas there are provisions under the Town and Country Planning Acts for steps to be taken to maintain properties of this kind. It is not without interest that in Edinburgh recently there have apparently been problems with requirements being imposed on local residents by the local authority—who appear to have powers similar to those advanced in this amendment—which have caused some controversy. Apparently large sums of money have had to be laid out on improving or maintaining properties, and some of those who are benefiting from those expenditures have been connected with the decision-making process. That would not be applicable if the amendment were carried, and one would hope that it would not occur. Nevertheless, it is difficult to define exactly what standards would be required.

There is, however, a more general point which applies to this and the other amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, and that is the general by-law-making powers of local government. This is something I took up with the previous Administration, and some modifications were made about that issue. It might be worth the Government looking at the extent to which councils are free to make by-laws as opposed to having to have everything approved by individual departments. Alongside that, perhaps the Government could look at the question of consent regimes generally, which is something again that I have been attempting to pursue for a number of years, including in some recent Written Questions.

The noble Baroness has touched on an issue, perhaps almost inadvertently, that is worth considering: the capacity of local authorities to make particular provisions for their areas without necessarily having to have everything approved by central government. I do not know how the Minister will respond; I suspect that he will acknowledge the good intentions but say that perhaps it is not appropriate for this Bill, and I certainly would not press him to go further than that. However, I ask the Government to take back the issues of by-law-making powers and consent regimes generally, not for the purposes of this Bill, but as part of a localist agenda.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for introducing her amendment and welcome her back to Britain. Local authorities already have extensive powers to take action where a property is dangerous or having an adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood. I see no need for additional powers. Under the Housing Act 2004, local authorities can tackle poor conditions across all residential properties. If a property is found to contain serious hazards, the local authority can instruct its owner to undertake any works necessary to ensure that it is safe. Inspections and any subsequent enforcement to address the disrepair can be triggered by complaints to the local authority.

Local authorities have a key role to play in identifying empty properties in their areas, and in developing strategies to bring them back into effective use. We encourage local authorities to work with owners to persuade them of the benefits of bringing their property back into use. However, where it is clear that owners are not prepared to co-operate with efforts to get their property occupied through agreement, local authorities have enforcement powers to deal with them. Further powers available to local authorities to tackle disrepair and poor maintenance include those in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Where properties have an adverse impact on the amenity of the area, local authorities can require that they are tidied up, repainted and, where necessary, rebuilt. I hope this will satisfy the noble Baroness and that those who are concerned will have more luck in getting their local authorities to pursue the powers that they have.

I take on board the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, on the by-law issue. I confirm that the Government will look into that further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, this amendment came to me because someone who lives near me in central London phoned me and said, “I don’t know what to do. I can’t open the windows on this swelteringly hot day because all the people who are working on the local building site are sitting along the garages below my residence, and the smoke is so intense that I can’t open the window. I am going to die of the heat”. She did not die of the heat; nevertheless, I rang the local council. It was not something I had ever thought about before. I said, “What can you do about it?”. The council said, “We can do nothing. We get these issues all the time, particularly with restaurants and bars. Lots of people now congregate outside them because they can’t smoke inside”. If anyone happens to live within reach of the smoke, it is absolutely deadly for them. It would be helpful if the council could make this a planning issue.

Last month, I read in the paper that Australia proposes to bring in completely smoke-free streets. I did not hear anything about that while I was there; no one mentioned it. It is obviously of more interest to the press here than it is to people there. That is a bit extreme. My amendment is fairly short and simple but I have had the most intolerant e-mails and letters from people, saying that I am a fascist who is trying to ruin their lives and take away their right to a bit of healthy smoking whenever they feel like it. It is obviously a very emotive issue—quite unnecessarily so. I am not suggesting anything wholesale. However, I am suggesting that people should have the right to live in their homes and open their windows without finding themselves so adversely affected. I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, again, one sympathises with the motivation behind this amendment. Quite apart from the particular case to which the noble Baroness referred, it is not a particularly attractive sight to see people hanging about smoking in the street. However, the only grounds on which orders could be made would relate to the impact of that smoking on health.

Enclosed areas are of course covered by the existing legislation, and, as I understand it, there is power to designate areas other than enclosed areas, if, in the authority’s opinion, there is significant risk that without designation persons in the area would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke—areas where, although they are outdoors, there is a concentration of people or of prevailing structures around the area that might lead to people being exposed to the smoke. If that is indeed the case, as it appears to be under the Health Act 2006, there does not appear to be any need for the amendment. I would encourage local authorities to look at that Act. No doubt the Minister in replying will have more information about that.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, again I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. Indeed, I have great sympathy for the amendment as it seems to me that the place immediately after the no-smoke zone ends is the problem territory, whether it is outside a public building, or wherever it may be.

The amendment would give local authorities an explicit power to make by-laws designating areas as smoke-free. The Health Act 2006 makes provision for the prohibition of smoking in enclosed public places and workspaces. It came into force in England on 1 July 2007. Section 4 of the Act provides regulation-making powers for the Secretary of State for Health to make further regulations—for England—designating as smoke-free any place or description of place that is not smoke-free under the Act. This could cover outdoor places. Therefore, if the evidence on the harms of exposure to second-hand smoke becomes more robust, and the Government’s preference for voluntary local action to extend smoke-free places where there is a clear need is shown not to be working, the Government can consider using Section 4 of the Health Act 2006 at a later date. I would say that, at the moment, the Government do not intend to make use of these powers. However, I know that colleagues in the Department of Health welcome the debate on this important issue and will continue to monitor developments and the evidence.

While we are sympathetic to local authorities making by-laws that preserve public health, our preference is to see local authorities promote the benefits of environments free from second-hand smoke on a voluntary basis. Creating smoke-free areas through legislation gives rise to complex issues, which I know that colleagues at the Department of Health would want time to consider carefully, and I do not think this is something we should be dealing with at this late stage of this Bill. As such, I am afraid that I cannot support the amendment and trust that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

I am delighted by the policy statement but I have one question that I hope the Minister will be able to answer. In relation to panel membership, I notice that the statement of policy specifies:

“The relevant representative body will put forward nominations in respect of its members”,

of persons with sectoral experience, to the Minister. What opportunities will there be for bodies such as the Greater London Authority which are not part of a representative organisation to make nominations to the Minister in respect of panel membership? I would be grateful if he could answer that question, which probably relates to Amendment 195ZAJ but I find it so difficult when I look at all those amendments to know exactly which one it relates to.

[Lord Beecham]

I join other noble Lords in warmly congratulating the noble Earl on the manner in which this matter has now been put back on track. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, said that most of us would not have wished to have started from here, but where we are ending owes very much to the thoroughness, attention to detail and decisiveness of the noble Earl—qualities in which he emulates his distinguished grandfather. It is some 49 years since I had the pleasure of meeting the noble Earl’s grandfather and he made a significant impression on me, young as I was at that time. The noble Earl is doing so again today, not merely on me but on all Members of your Lordships' House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, the noble Lord has drawn attention to a significant problem with commercial property but the same principle can apply to residential property, particularly in the private rented sector. There are a significant number of homes left empty—it runs into some hundreds of thousands. In urban areas in particular it is very often private rented properties that are left unoccupied. They are as much a blight on the local neighbourhood as empty commercial properties and of course the demand for accommodation is considerable. Just recently walking around the ward I represent I noticed a number of properties that have been empty for some years. They are not in particularly good condition but not sufficiently dangerous to allow the local authority to take steps. It would certainly be an incentive for landlords to let those properties and bring them into use for the benefit of the whole area if a similar principle were adopted for residential properties as the noble Lord proposes for commercial properties. I hope the Government will look sympathetically on that aspect of it and endorse the noble Lord’s amendment.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, I am slightly concerned by this amendment as I think there is an international problem occurring of people buying things online to such an extent—I heard this in Australia while I was there and I believe it is the same everywhere—that people are closing up small shops because there is simply no way they can afford to compete with online purchases. I do not know what will happen in these instances. What will local authorities do? Will the people who own the shops be encouraged to convert them into residential accommodation or would it be considered very damaging to the whole high street suddenly to find that instead of shops in continuity in a row suddenly two or three were houses? In the past there were lots of little shops that were once houses. Would we be prepared to see the reverse of that happening?

I think it is a very complicated issue, and, if the landlord simply cannot get a tenant now, what does he do? Does he allow the property to fall down? I do not know what the answer is, particularly with the shop premises.

Localism Bill

Debate between Baroness Gardner of Parkes and Lord Beecham

Monday 12th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, I am very impressed with the way the amendment was moved and by the universal support that there seems to be in the House on this. I do not want to be a wet blanket but I am slightly concerned about the sweeping powers that will be given to the Minister, and I should like to feel satisfied that the super-affirmative resolution that was referred to will come into force and work. It is very important, particularly as over the years we will get changes of government. The provision is universally approved of, and when I hear my noble friend Lord Jenkin, who has vast experience in this field, favouring it, then I can do nothing but agree.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord McKenzie on moving the amendment, working very hard to ensure that it is in an acceptable form and persuading the Minister that it represents the right policy. I must congratulate the Minister and the Government on making the most significant concession, if you will, that we have had so far in terms of the Bill. This is the most localist part of the entire Bill, and the Minister and her colleagues deserve to be congratulated on that. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, also should be congratulated. We have had an almost biblical experience tonight. The voice was the voice of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, but the words were the words of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley—however, they were none the less persuasive for that.

Incidentally, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has done well to be in Manchester today. Were he travelling down by the east coast main line this afternoon he would not get here. I understand that winds have blown down trees on the east coast line and things are massively disrupted. Perhaps one day somebody will do something about the rail network and make sure that these incidents are less apt to cause damage.

However, I must say in reference to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that it was my pleasure to work with him, up to a point, when he chaired the Inner City Partnership committee as Secretary of State in Newcastle and Gateshead in the 1980s. I was then the leader of the council, a position that I relinquished—not before time, many people thought—some 17 years ago. It would have been helpful to have had the kind of powers conferred by this amendment—assuming it is passed, as I take it it will be—on local government.

As some of your Lordships will be aware, I am not an enthusiast for elected mayors by any means. I am therefore glad that the original restriction has been abandoned because it seems to me important that councils with the more conventional model of leader and executive should have this opportunity. Indeed, they have earned this opportunity. I refer particularly to the leader of Manchester City Council and his authority, which has blazed a trail in terms of urban regeneration and activities, not just for its authority but as one of the leading authorities in the Greater Manchester area of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, which now has parliamentary authority for a unique structure so far in terms of English local government.

Certainly the conferment of these wider powers is very welcome, particularly as I fear that some of the other changes in government policy will have an adverse effect on what everybody intends to happen, which is that the economic prosperity of these areas should be reinforced and, we hope, expanded.

I think that the Government erred in dismantling the regional structures, acknowledging that much of the work has to be at the sub-regional level, and therefore led by local authorities, in particular by the core cities. The disappearance, certainly in the north-east region of the Regional Development Agency has not been helpful. LEPs may be working in some places, but I do not think that they necessarily fill the gap. While I cannot speak for other parts of the country, certainly in the north-east I am bound to say with regret that an outbreak of parochialism, if not tribalism, is actually diminishing the capacity of what is a fairly compact region to deal with these issues. One hopes that the conferment of powers under this Bill will to a degree remedy that deficiency, but it is not axiomatic that authorities which are not so far being regarded as core cities will either seek these powers or use them in a collaborative way.

Later in the Bill we will talk about the duty to co-operate. It is a political duty rather than a legal one at the moment, so it remains to be seen how, in terms of planning, that duty can be strengthened. If the good intentions of this amendment are to be implemented, that will require a more constructive attitude on the part of some authorities than has been evident in the recent past. However, more than that is needed; it also requires a buy-in from a range of government departments and agencies. The Department for Communities and Local Government has set out its stall, but it remains to be seen whether other departments will, as it were, shop at that stall. There are some reasons to be concerned about that. One stems from the decision of the Government to abolish the regional offices and take back into Whitehall those civil servants up and down the country who became part of the dialogue between local areas and the Government in Whitehall. In my and others’ view, that local intelligence cannot simply be replaced by people sitting, in the case of Newcastle, in an office nearly 300 miles away, although the distances will differ. These people will not have a day-to-day acquaintance with the needs of an area or with local leaders, whether they be political or business leaders. In the north-east and no doubt elsewhere we found over many years that those who served in the Government offices became powerful and useful advocates for the regions and cities with the main departments in Whitehall. That, I think, is currently missing.

Beyond that, there is the question of what is happening to the community budgets. These are the replacement for the Total Place programme initiated at the suggestion of the Local Government Association, but adopted by the previous Government. The intention has been to pool resources across government departments and work to a common agenda which would differ according to each locality. That is the principle which has been piloted with some success. However, I have been making inquiries through Parliamentary Questions about the degree to which there has in fact been any buy-in by government departments to this agenda. It is totally unclear how much of the expenditure being authorised by departments at the local level has been applied to the concept of the community budgets. Apparently no one is even collating this information, let alone trying to ensure that departments are working with each other and their local partners on this programme. If that is the case for the policy that has been deployed until now, one has to wonder whether other departments will, in practice, fulfil the Government’s intentions—I repeat, I applaud them on adopting the policy set out in the amendment—in terms of the actual devolution of functions. If they are not prepared to co-operate and pool budgets in a joint way, will they seek to devolve functions to and through local government?

One can imagine a range of such functions, not least in the area in which my noble friend will have the good fortune to lead for the Opposition tomorrow and for some time hence, that of welfare reform. There are clear possibilities for much of the work being carried out in terms of employment, benefits and getting people from welfare into work to be done through local government and for responsibilities to be devolved in that respect. I hope that the Government will not simply wait for departments to come forward with proposals, but will positively promote the idea of piloting different approaches and services in authorities with a track record and whose capacity will in any event have to be recognised under the terms of the amendment.

It seems that this amendment has great potential for changing the way we respond to local needs and circumstances in a manner that reflects the strengths and opportunities as well as the weaknesses of a local and regional economy, and indeed those who make the decisions within it. But it needs to be driven across Whitehall. I do not know whether that would be a function of the Minister for Cities. Potentially it might be one, and I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is an unpaid adviser in that department. After spending many years in opposition and a few years in power in Newcastle, he is well qualified to assist the Minister, if that is the position. But again, this really does need to be driven from the top of Government, let alone by the Department for Communities and Local Government, however worthy it is in this respect. It is early days of course, and I do not know whether the Minister will be able to indicate whether there have been any discussions across the departments about how these matters might be progressed. Of course, we have only just had the amendment put before us so these are early days, but it would be reassuring if the Minister could say whether, at the very least, the Secretary of State would seek to work with Cabinet colleagues, the Local Government Association and perhaps a selection of the local authorities to explore in a coherent way how, while allowing for variation and experimentation, the intentions of this very worthy amendment could be implemented. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Localism Bill

Debate between Baroness Gardner of Parkes and Lord Beecham

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, even in your Lordships’ House there are not many of us who were around when these standards were laid down in 1935, as the noble Baroness has pointed out. Housing conditions in general have improved since those days, but she is quite right to draw attention to serious issues around overcrowding. They are not confined to London, although her figures show these issues are extremely problematic in the capital. She is also right to draw attention to the particular problems faced by some BME communities, many of whom have large families and find it difficult to secure accommodation which is adequate to house them.

I have every sympathy with the amendment. I note that the measurements are given in “old money”, when perhaps these days we should be looking at metric equivalents, but that is a trivial point. I am however somewhat at a loss as to how to respond to the Government’s response to the amendment. It seems to be based, to put it crudely, upon facile optimism about the effects of the measures that are being taken around the duties to deal with homelessness and, in particular, the use of flexible tenancies as a means by which, apparently by magic, accommodation of the appropriate size in the appropriate location will become available. The Minister for Housing assured us at a meeting a couple of days ago that he does not expect flexible tenancies to go much less than 10 years in duration, as opposed to the two years that was thought to be the benchmark. In his view—I hope he is correct—that will in fact constitute only a handful of cases. Given that, I cannot see how this measure is going to free up significant accommodation in general, let alone for this particular category.

It seems to us in the Opposition that the noble Baroness has touched on a key issue and the Government’s response thus far has not addressed it to any significant extent. Identifying the issue and improving the standards by which the question of overcrowding is to be judged does not in itself transform the situation, of course, but it would certainly allow housing authorities and the Government to have a better view of the reality of the situation.

I hope that the noble Baroness will not mind me quoting the example she gave in a conversation with me, of a recent case of a child sleeping in a bath which was deemed by the housing department to be acceptable because the child was in “a room”. It is extraordinary for this situation to be acceptable to a housing department in 2011. It could hardly have been acceptable in 1935. But statutorily it is acceptable, and she has other examples of that kind. This is extremely worrying and I am sure the Government would be horrified if there were found to be a significant number of such cases.

Strengthening the framework will allow a proper measurement to be taken of the degree to which this is an issue that needs to be addressed, and with a greater urgency than is likely to occur simply as a result of the other changes that the Government have made. I hope that the Minister will talk further with the noble Baroness to see how this can be improved and, beyond that, agree that this is an issue that should be pursued outside the context of this Bill as the Government look into housing policy generally.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, I am sympathetic to the idea of the need for action on this. I was very distressed this week to meet someone in a studio flat, or self-contained bedsit, who told me it is impossible for her to sleep. The private accommodation units where she resides are listed as being for one person, but immediately above her, accommodation of the same size is shared by five people. She finds it impossible to sleep, or even live there. She is trying to find somewhere to move to in any case, as her small accommodation is going up from £600 per month to £800 per month, but she works as a cleaner and is experiencing great difficulty.

What worries me is that this is an illegal overcrowding, from what the noble Baroness has said, and yet the tenants are frightened to do anything about it for fear of being put out. I asked her why she did not report it and she said she did not dare because she would be put out and would have nowhere, and until she could find somewhere to go to she could do nothing. This is what worries me about this amendment. It is marvellous to make all these proposals but where is the accommodation going to come from to house all these people?

I come from a very big family and we were fortunate enough to have a house, and space is not so limited in Australia, but if you have a big family would you not rather be somewhere safe and secure, even overcrowded, than nowhere at all? I am very concerned about the impact of being too precise about things. As I say, in theory it is absolutely marvellous but I would really like to know how it is going to work in practice.

Localism Bill

Debate between Baroness Gardner of Parkes and Lord Beecham

Monday 5th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.