Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 31st October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, on sticking with this issue, because it is fundamental. I say to the Government that a duty of care is so important and should be so central to every piece of our financial services industry that we should not let the perfect—having a general duty of care—be the enemy of the good, which is the opportunity to put a specific duty of care in this Bill. I hope the Government will consider that.

I have the privilege to be on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. As we sought to strengthen the framework of regulation and to expose a lot of misdirection within the financial services industry, I think everybody, not only on the committee but far more broadly, agreed that the key problem lay in culture. We have turned to the banking and financial services industries and asked them through various bodies to improve their culture, but surely we also have a responsibility to drive that with every piece of legislation that comes our way. Duty of care reflects that whole-culture approach: the underlying, underpinning approach that we expect our financial services to take, where the interests of the customer are at the centre. It is not that the financial services should not be able to make profits—of course, that is the business they are in—but it should never be at the expense of that central interest of the client or customer.

I urge the Government to take seriously this opportunity in an area where there has been extraordinary abuse. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for example; others talked about whiplash and issues around holiday sickness. In issue after issue, we have seen a complete failure in the culture of the bodies that provide such services. We should tackle that issue head on and not be afraid to use language that is clearly around that duty of care—not considering it too soft or too difficult—so that it becomes a general habit. I hope we will not rely just on general duties of care, because those can sometimes be imperfect, but will make sure that in every piece of financial services legislation this issue is underscored. In that, this legislation could be a leader.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, we have added our name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, which takes us back to regulatory principles and the duty of care.

The noble Lord is right to have removed the “where appropriate” qualification from his earlier amendment. The amendment deals with the regulation of claims management, although this is seen as an opportunity to debate the wider calls for a duty of care across the financial services piece.

On the narrower point, we acknowledge that in Committee the Minister gave assurances about the FCA consulting on the design of new rules for claims management companies and taking account of its statutory operational objectives, including an appropriate degree of protection for consumers. However, we note that there is no current alignment of the objectives of the CMRU and the FCA, and there seems to be no certainty about where this process will end up.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Tuesday 24th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 17. Together, these amendments revisit the issue that we raised in Committee concerning the SFGB’s role in financial inclusion and add as a specific objective of the body contributing,

“to the reduction and elimination of financial exclusion”,

particularly for vulnerable people. Our amendments spring in particular, as will be recognised, from the House of Lords Select Committee report on financial exclusion, which regrettably has still to receive the Government’s response. I would press the Minister on when this might be forthcoming, but can anticipate that the answer will be some variation of “soon”, “in the near future”, “imminently”, or perhaps even “before Christmas”.

The amendments raise two particular issues: where are we as a country on financial inclusion and financial exclusion; and what, if any, should be the role of the SFGB in addressing these challenges? Dealing with the latter first, we argue that it should be included in the strategic function of the new body and that it should have as one of its objectives contributing to the reduction—or elimination, although we accept that that is perhaps overly ambitious at the moment—of financial exclusion, especially for vulnerable persons. We should stress that this does not seek to have the SFGB usurp the role of the FCA or the Treasury in these matters—a point made by the Minister on our original amendments—but to support financial inclusion and help reduce financial exclusion.

As defined by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Young, financial inclusion is about individuals and businesses having access to useful and affordable financial products and services that meet their needs. If the single financial guidance body does not have a role in addressing these matters through its money guidance function or improving the financial capability of members of the public, then what is its purpose? Will the Government be clear on this issue and say precisely what role they believe the single body should play in promoting financial inclusion and combatting financial exclusion? What is the Government’s view on that?

The need for a strategy to improve financial inclusion in the UK was a key recommendation of the Select Committee. We have already acknowledged the importance of appointing a Minister for financial inclusion and the need to engage across government to lead, co-ordinate and monitor a strategy. We accept that leadership on this might reside primarily outside the SFGB, but to suggest that it does not have a role seems perverse. If financial inclusion is about access to financial services, capacity to manage financial transactions and avoiding problem debt, then financial exclusion would clearly cover circumstances when this is not the case. That more should be done to advance financial inclusion can hardly be in doubt. Promoting financial inclusion was a key recommendation of the Financial Inclusion Taskforce, whose mission was to increase access to banking, improve access to affordable credit, savings and insurance, and improve access to appropriate money advice. It undertook monitoring of financial inclusion initiatives as well as regular research. Unfortunately, the taskforce fell by the wayside when abolished under the coalition Government and thus left a gap. We hope that that gap can be filled with the help of the single financial guidance body.

There are a raft of statistics that identify the levels of financial exclusion in the UK, those at risk of being financially excluded and those at risk of facing significant barriers to engagement in modern society. Some 13.5 million people live in low-income households or in poverty, and 1.7 million adults do not have a bank account. One-third of people over the age of 80 have never used a cash machine or prefer to avoid them; 3.8 million UK households do not have any internet; and 40% of the working-age population have less than £100 in savings. The vulnerable or potentially vulnerable are not a fixed or homogeneous group, but a common characteristic is often poverty—simply not having enough money—and having to transact on the most expensive terms.

The Select Committee outlined some of the particular circumstances that made various groups vulnerable: those with identity verification issues, such as ex-offenders; those with mental health challenges, where financial exclusion can have a variety of negative consequences; and the disabled, where often reasonable adjustments are inadequate. We have very serious issues to confront.

We could debate these important issues all day, but I am aware that we have a further amendment coming up in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which might be a formulation on which the Government can offer a measure of support. It certainly has our support. In the meantime, I beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I was glad to add my name to Amendment 8, moved by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton. Amendment 17 is almost the other side of the coin.

I think that most Members of this House, including those in the Government, feel that financial inclusion is sufficiently important that it should be expressed through most of the financial bodies that we create. The noble Lord laid out very well the depth of the problem; others on the committee may speak to that in a moment.

It would be helpful to have clarification under the Bill, in part because we have genuine confusion. I am pretty sure that Ministers have all been under the impression that this matter is wrapped up and dealt with in the context of the powers, responsibilities and objectives of the FCA but, having talked to the FCA, they will now be aware that it has a very constrained role in this area and does not provide capacity to deal with the problem—for example, filling in gaps—that most people assume that it has.

Part of our problem, of course, is that we never consolidate financial legislation, so there is genuine confusion over who does what and assumptions that particular issues are taken care of when they are not. Financial inclusion is one of those that has fallen right through the holes, due to the mismatch of a whole variety of different pieces of legislation. This is an opportunity to provide for a body to consider these issues centrally to everything that it does. What it does is very relevant to that process. That is obviously not a complete answer to the problem of financial inclusion—that involves many others—but we have to make a start somewhere. It should now become a regular habit for financial inclusion to be addressed in each piece of financial legislation.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will add just a brief comment in this area, as the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, has really made the case. A few years ago, when I was dealing much more with banking institutions, one of them very proudly showed me its pack for schools. All that I came away with was that its logo and colours were all over everything. Had this been presented to an adult, they would have regarded it as a sales pitch rather than an educational tool. That was rather worrying. We are moving into an era where there is huge disruption of all the traditional players. On a personal basis, many of the people making decisions to save or borrow will be looking at many of the new disrupters—the challengers, the peer-to-peers, the digital bodies and whatever else. If we are looking towards the handful of major high-street players to be the providers of financial education, particularly to the young, they will not be introducing that world, which they very much regard as threatening. Yet that is the world of the future that our youngsters will have to deal with. The Government have to be very cautious about how they use providers as a delivery instrument for this education.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, for his contribution to this debate. It is a pity that there were not more people in the Chamber to hear the powerful case that he made.

Actually, I do not think that the Minister has responded yet—my apologies.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 13th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I was a member of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which looked at the duty of care issue. In the end, the commission made the decision not to pursue the matter and to empower the FCA to take up regulation and play a role. I thought at the time that was not a good decision but the argument was very much based on the idea that the remit of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was to do with banking, and that the new banking standards body would tackle many of these culture issues, of which duty of care is obviously an inherent part. Looking at the work of that banking standards body, I do not think most of us think it has followed that direction. I do not see any significant change in pressure from the various bodies, whether applied to banks or financial institutions, to make them become much more conscious of the needs of their customers, especially vulnerable ones.

I have never understood why the industry has resisted this duty. Frankly, it is akin to constraints on mis-selling as behaving in the wrong way towards any individual, providing them with an inappropriate service and not giving them adequate support to understand whether that is the service they need surely falls into that mis-selling category. Expanding the powers of the FCA to allow it to provide a more general approach through the mechanism of duty of care would make the FCA’s job on issues such as mis-selling significantly easier. Therefore, I hope very much that the Government will take this on board. Frankly, the long-grass decision is very frustrating. Whenever I hear that an important piece of legislation is being postponed because we have the Brexit Bill, I begin to wonder whether we recognise appropriately the needs of the country.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, this is an important amendment and we should congratulate the noble Lord on its introduction. It goes to the heart of what the regulation of claims management companies should be about, although I think we recognise that it is a surrogate for a broader duty of care issue. It is understood that there will anyway be a consultation around the regulatory principles that the FCA should adopt. Others have commented on the timing of that. Perhaps the Minister will let us have his view on whether the current timescale attached to that is appropriate.

The issue takes us back in part to our debates on earlier sections of the Bill, and to the current position of the FCA and the CMRU. As the Brady report sets out, the primary objectives of the CMRU are protecting and promoting the interests of consumers, protecting and promoting the public interest and improving standards of competence and conduct of authorised persons. This is quite different from the operational objectives of the FCA, which are to secure appropriate protection for consumers, protect and enhance the integrity of the UK financial system and promote effective competition in the interests of consumers.

Some of the “ideal organisational objectives” for claims management regulation proposed by the Brady review co-mingled some of this but included empowering consumers to choose a value-for-money service as well as maintaining adequate and effective access to justice.

While I support the noble Lord’s proposals, I quibble on the inclusion of “where appropriate”. Where is this not appropriate? Certainly, the proposed new subsection (1)(a) places a strong and proper focus on consumers, which we support. It addresses dealing with conflicts of interest, and although it is implicit in the noble Lord’s amendment, it seems desirable that transparency should feature in the requirements. However, the noble Lord has given us at least a starter for 10 on this important topic, and we look forward to the Minister’s reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I support the amendment. We all understand that the amendment has drafting problems, but the intent behind it is an important one: to avoid delay in taking action against pernicious behaviour by some of these companies.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I will be brief in a similar vein. We support the thrust and spirit of the amendment, which is to make progress on the cap before we get to the stage where PPI claims have all gone through the system. It would be a tragedy if people continued to lose significant amounts of money from claims management companies when there is a clear remedy available.

This also partly picks up the issue, which we touched on earlier, regarding SRA regulation being less rigorous than MoJ regulation of CMC activity. The noble Lord felt that that was not a problem, but as I understand it a thematic review of solicitors who undertake claims management activities has been commenced, with the intention of strengthening their approach to regulation on this activity. The noble Lord may be able to confirm that or help us, but it seems to be a clear worry of some whether being able to escape CMC regulation because a solicitor is on board—albeit that brings in a different form of regulation—is a fair way to proceed.

However, the substantive point is to have the opportunity to get that cap in place well before the PPI claims have run their course.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 6th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I am strongly in favour of this amendment, which picks up on an issue addressed earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. It is that the world we live in is far more complex than the one that provided the framework when these original bodies, which are now being brought into one, were set in place. We need that revision for this single body to encompass the whole of the arena of life as it is today.

The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, was very clear that for many people, the overwhelming majority of their wealth and assets is in their home, that using that as part of their support for their old age may well be a strategy they want to pursue, and that they cannot consider a pension without looking at that issue with the same kind of clarity and without looking at the situation as whole.

I have personal experience of this. I have an elderly family friend who is considering equity release or some similar way to use the wealth embedded in her home. I started to look at the various websites and at the products that are available. Noble Lords will be delighted to know that this is apparently the golden age of equity release, which is increasing at the rate of 28% per year. The websites are exceedingly seductive. The comparison sites compare one product to another, but none of them exposes the real issues of concern or the questions one should be asking about whether the product is appropriate. It is also easy to find a way to access that equity without being in a regulated environment. Recognising that, equity release is for some people entirely appropriate but for many it is entirely inappropriate, and advice is critical.

If people are not signposted and sent through a guidance mechanism to get that financial advice, it seems to me they are in very murky waters. It takes a very sophisticated financial expert to work their way through this. It makes pensions look simple, and I hope very much that the Government will take on board and make use of this excellent amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, this is an interesting amendment. I believe that it is possible for the noble Baroness to achieve what she wants under the terms of the Bill as it stands, but that is not entirely clear and not quite for the reasons set down in the amendment. The amendment says:

“As part of its pensions guidance function, the single financial guidance body must provide”,


et cetera. Clause 2(4) says that the “pensions guidance function” under Clause 2(1)(a) is,

“to provide, to members of the public, information and guidance on matters relating to occupational and personal pensions”.

I do not think that equity release falls within that definition. There is a separate issue as to whether it would fall within Clause 3, which says:

“As part of its pensions guidance function, the single financial guidance body must provide information and guidance”,


et cetera, but that is to do with,

“flexible benefits that may be provided to the member or survivor”.

It seems to me, on a straightforward reading of the Bill, that it would not be possible to use the pensions guidance function strand of the new body, but there seems absolutely no reason why the money guidance function could not be used for that purpose. That would be a potential quarrel I would have. The Minister may say that interpretation is too restrictive and not right, but I do not think it would preclude the noble Baroness achieving what she wants. It seems to me the money guidance function should enable guidance to be provided on assets including on equity release.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, raised the question of whether the FCA regulates all these schemes. I am advised that it probably does not, but obviously there is an issue there and perhaps the Minister would respond to that. We can support the thrust of this, because I think it achieves what the noble Baroness wants, but not quite, as I understand it, in the terms of the amendment, because of the other functions in the Bill.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 19th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, we support the amendments in this group. I start from the assumption that they are remedying a momentary lapse in the energy of the team that was drafting the Bill, because I cannot believe that the Government are not fully signed up to the principles that advice should be free at the point of use, and also both independent and impartial. So I, too, suggest that these amendments are surely uncontroversial and are useful to the Bill to make sure that the point is not lost, as they remedy those moments when long hours of work and not enough coffee made it difficult to remember every single issue that had to be grasped in the general drafting of a Bill of this complexity.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, it may come as no surprise that we on the Front Bench support my noble friend Lady Drake, for all the reasons that she and others mentioned this evening. Certainly, if advice was not free at the point of use, it would undermine the function and could create conflicts of interest, as my noble friend said. Issues around independence and impartiality are absolutely crucial. I am delighted to hear that HMRC had to cough up for a fridge—it is not a usual occurrence and I congratulate my noble friend on engineering that.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, that we entirely agree with the point about the self-employed. We have tabled an amendment on that later in the Bill and I hope that we will be able to make common cause on that as well.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 19th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I very much support the amendments moved and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and the pressure they create on the Government to come up with some coherent answers to the very significant questions which have been posed. We are great supporters of the dashboard, as is, I suspect, almost everybody in this House who is engaged in pensions, savings and investment issues. However, I also spend quite a bit of time now trying to understand where artificial intelligence is taking us. The first question that is always asked is: who controls the data? Secondly, who controls the best analytics to be able to turn the data into a marketing opportunity?

The data will clearly become dominated very quickly by a limited number of companies. That in itself will become a mechanism that limits options for individuals and makes it extremely difficult for them to compare the options that they could source from a variety of providers. It tends to tie them back to a single, dominant provider. The Government surely have an interest in preventing the development of either those quasi- cartel or monopolistic structures, but early intervention is needed to make that possible. Who controls the dashboard will be an issue of real significance and there is a strong argument that it cannot be one of the commercial players, in whose interests it would always be to manage that dashboard to the advantage of their own proprietary products. I hope that the Minister will engage with this opportunity, because events are taking over in this area and government has a relatively limited scope in which to intervene to shape the framework.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, briefly, I support my noble friend Lady Drake and the powerful case she has made for the public service dashboard. I will also speak to the proposal that pension guidance functions should include the state pension.

Decisions around receipt of the state pension are not necessarily a straightforward matter. As we know only too well, there has been some confusion over the age at which some—particularly women—reach state pension age and are entitled to access their pension. Reaching state pension age does not of course necessitate giving up employment. Deferring the state pension can generate a higher rate of pension and therefore possibly tax, albeit no longer with a lump sum. But deferral will not earn an income uplift in weeks where certain benefits might be in payment, for example for carer’s allowance. The deferral increase is not inheritable. There are transitional rules for those reaching state pension age before 6 April 2016. As entitlement depends on a person’s national insurance record, paid or credited, there may be decisions about the appropriateness of buying extra years. These are just some of the intricacies surrounding the state pension.

It is accepted that the Pension Service will provide details, including forecasts of entitlement, but should these matters not be considered in the round, particularly with the person’s broader retirement planning? After all, for many people the state pension will constitute their biggest single risk-free income source for the rest of their lives. In their response to the final SFGB consultation, on page 10, the Government stated:

“the government believes people would benefit from access to joined up information and guidance to help them develop the financial capability they need”.

Surely an understanding of what might flow from the state pension system is as important as an understanding of choices around pension pots. Indeed, given the recognition that the service should be directed at those most in need, are they not likely to be those for whom the state pension represents a significant part of their income?

My noble friend Lady Drake made, as ever, a powerful case for the pensions dashboard, and in collecting together details of all of a person’s pension pots it is important that it should include the state pension. To be clear, we do not argue for SFGB to replace the Pension Service but for it to be able to feed its choices into how it might fit together with other pension opportunities.

Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I echo the objections just raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. It is quite inexplicable that “retrospective” does not mean that the new regime will be recalculated from the date that people were able to access their pension pots. It seems equally unfair for people to have paid an inappropriate exit fee a year ago as it is for them to pay an inappropriate exit fee a year from now. Has the Minister considered how this will tend to inhibit decision-making by families until the new regulations are revealed? Instead of making the best decision for the family, there will be great pressure to delay that decision until the rules are clearer and, presumably, the exit fees are removed.

The amount of money involved in this process cannot be substantial but to the individual family that has been impacted, it is certainly significant. I really do not understand the Government’s thinking on this issue.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his early warning of this amendment, for facilitating the meeting with officials and for addressing at that meeting some of the incisive and expert questions posed by my noble friend Lady Drake. As we have heard, the new clause places a requirement on the FCA to make rules to prohibit or cap certain early exit charges in regulated schemes which act as a deterrent to people accessing their pensions under the new pension freedoms. So far as it goes, this should be supported.

As the Minister’s letter of 16 March sets out,

“after the reforms took effect last April, it has become increasingly clear that early exit charges were preventing some people from accessing their pension flexibly under the freedoms”.

This was substantiated by the government consultation and evidence-gathering by the FCA and the Pensions Regulator. This process identified a number of weaknesses in the application of the freedoms policy: not just the early exit charges but a lack of clarity in the process for transferring pension savings and uncertainty around the need for financial advice when making transfers involving safeguarded benefits.

Although early exit charges are not an issue for the majority of those eligible to access freedoms, the Government have concluded that significant numbers of eligible individuals face charges which in absolute or relative terms present a “real barrier” to early access. This begs the obvious question of why this matter was not addressed as a fundamental component of the design of pensions flexibility in the first place. Why has it seemingly come as such a surprise to the Government that these early exit charges exist and could act as a deterrent? This is symptomatic of the rushed nature of the introduction of this policy more generally, which lacked the consultation and consensus-building that have typically characterised good pensions policy development.

It might be argued that before the introduction of the FCA cap—to be in place before the end of March 2017, as we have heard—there has been no detriment because by definition exit fees could not have been a deterrent to the 400,000 times that pension pots have been accessed to date. But it seems that exit fees could be a deterrent, making it less likely, weighed against other factors, that someone would access their pension pot, without these fees being an absolute bar. That is why, as my noble friend has argued, we consider that any capping should be applied not only to existing as well as new contracts but to pensions accessed from the start of the pension freedoms regime in 2015, a point supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Monday 9th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, we can support the creation of a regime for mayoral development orders, which we see as being uncontroversial. We are certainly supportive of proposals that can improve the delivery of new housing in London, and we note that London Councils and the GLA have expressed support for MDOs.

From discussion in Committee in the Commons, it has been confirmed today that such orders have to be initiated by the London boroughs themselves, and a particular benefit will be supporting the development of complex cross-boundary situations. Can the Minister say a little more about the extent to which they might be used within a particular boundary and not on a cross-border basis? It is presumed that we will not get the underpinning regulations by the end of this Parliament, unless the Minister can tell us otherwise. We note that the negative procedure is to be adopted. Perhaps the Minister might say when they are expected to be ready.

On housing numbers for London, what the Minister said in the other place has been confirmed today: there is an annual shortfall in capacity of between 7,000 and 20,000 homes. It was less than clear from the exchanges at the other end the contribution that MDOs might make in addressing that shortfall. I think the proposition was that they might speed things up, but whether they will have broader impact will be interesting to hear.

A further point, for which there was no satisfactory answer, was how MDOs can contribute to more affordable housing. Can the Minister confirm that Section 106 agreements will not operate for MDOs? If that is not the case, how will MDOs impact on the obligation to provide affordable housing? If this is the case, how will it be assured that the provision of affordable housing will be forthcoming, and what is the mechanism? It would be helpful to have clarity on that point. Nothwithstanding that, as I have said, we do not oppose the new clauses and will support them.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, there is indeed a broad consensus across this range of issues. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked whether these orders could be used within a local authority rather than just across boundaries. Indeed they can, and of course local development orders are already available to local authorities, but they may wish to tap into the additional capacity and capability that is available in the mayor’s office for particularly complex projects. There may be occasions when that happens, and our expectation is that it will be primarily for the kind of sites that are complex enough to cross boundaries. Obviously, that happens quite often in London. Secondary legislation will appear in due course—a phrase with which I am afraid the House is probably very familiar—but at this point I think we can say with some confidence that that will be in the next Parliament.

I share the noble Lord’s understanding of Section 106, and he will be aware that the voice of local authorities is very powerful on this issue in shaping the kinds of development that they see as appropriate for their communities. It is not the mayor imposing a vision on local authorities, but rather local authorities looking to use the capacity that is on offer from the mayor in order to move developments forward proactively. Its primary purpose in all the discussions with London Councils and others has been to emphasise the importance of accelerating new housing development across the city.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, in discussing these amendments I shall include Amendments 28 and 36. These amendments deal with the Government’s public sector land programme, which has successfully released land for almost 98,000 new homes to date. We fully expect to meet our 100,000 homes target by March this year. Looking ahead to the next Parliament, we have an even more ambitious target, which aims to deliver land for a further 150,000 homes. This programme will be led by the Homes and Communities Agency and the Greater London Authority, and will mean transferring a significant amount of government land into their ownership.

Clause 28 will ensure that future purchasers of land owned by the Homes and Communities Agency, the Greater London Authority and the mayoral development corporations will be able to develop and use land without being affected by easements and other rights and restrictions. Clause 28 will bring the position of purchasers of land from the HCA, the GLA and the MDCs into line with those presently enjoyed by purchasers from local authorities and other public bodies involved in regeneration and development. This in turn will enable us to increase the attractiveness of surplus public sector land to developers, thus ensuring that we can facilitate the development of much needed new homes and support economic growth by removing obstacles to development while achieving best value for the taxpayer.

I want to be clear, however, that where the HCA or the GLA currently retains the freehold in the land and leases that land to developers, the powers to override third-party rights and restrictions are already exercisable on that land under existing legislation. There has to date been a degree of uncertainty on this point, which I understand has resulted in delays to certain developments in London. Amendment 13 seeks to provide an assurance that where the HCA or the GLA retains the freehold of land, the powers to override third-party rights and restrictions in land already apply under existing legislation, and we are happy to provide that clarity.

I turn now to Amendments 14, 28 and 36. Perhaps I may move on to the related matter of the Greater London Authority’s powers to incur expenditure on the transport elements of housing and regeneration projects. This important issue was raised in the other place during Committee and the Government promised to look urgently at the legislative options available to address it. We concluded that it was necessary to make a minor change to the GLA Act 1999 and have therefore made the proposed amendment.

Amendment 14 removes a prohibition in Section 31 of the GLA Act 1999 that prevents the GLA incurring expenditure on anything that may be done by its functional body, Transport for London. We are making this change to the GLA Act because the GLA has said that TfL’s powers are wide-ranging and therefore preclude the GLA from incurring expenditure on anything transport-related when undertaking housing or regeneration projects.

The prohibition excludes the GLA from incurring expenditure on projects that the GLA has been responsible for since 1 April 2012 when it took on the roles, land and contracts of the former London Development Agency and the Homes and Communities Agency in London. Without this amendment, around 50 projects worth over £200 million would have to stop. This includes work which the GLA has been funding with the London borough councils to revitalise high streets, including in Deptford, Bromley and Cricklewood. It also affects new initiatives to deliver new homes such as housing zones and at Barking Riverside.

Amendment 36 allows for the clause to come into effect on the day the Bill receives Royal Assent and that it will apply in relation to expenditure incurred by the GLA before as well as after the coming into force of the new clause. This is because it was clearly the intention of Parliament that the GLA should have equivalent powers to the former London Development Agency and the Homes and Communities Agency, following the Localism Act 2011. Amendment 28 limits the geographical extent to England and Wales.

Making these changes to the GLA Act 1999 is therefore essential to ensure that the GLA can deliver new homes and jobs for London. I beg to move that this House accepts these Commons amendments.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we consider these amendments uncontroversial and are happy to support them. We particularly see the thrust of Amendment 14 and the need to change what is clearly an unintended provision in the 1999 Act. It is indeed perverse if because of the existing powers the GLA is precluded from incurring expenditure on anything transport-related, such as transport-related projects to deliver housing, jobs and growth in London. That cannot be right, which is why we support the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 23. In discussing Amendment 23, I will also include Amendments 34, 40 and 48. The Board of Public Works Loan Commissioners, commonly known as the Public Works Loan Board or PWLB, is a statutory body that dates back to the Public Works Loan Act 1875. It comprises 12 loan commissioners appointed by the Crown to administer making loans to local authorities. The commissioners are independent of government and unpaid by law. Under Section 4 of the National Loans Act 1968, the PWLB currently has a statutory lending limit of £70 billion. The current level of debt amounts to £64 billion. The original role of the loan commissioners was to approve and issue central government loans to certain categories of permitted borrowers. Under the 1875 Act and subsequent legislation, the commissioners have the power to refuse a loan on the basis of lack of security, and to appoint a secretary who can hold security and to whom the powers of the commissioners can be delegated. The commissioners are also required to issue an annual report to Parliament setting out details of loans advanced by the PWLB.

However, since 2004 decisions on borrowing have been fully devolved to local authorities under the prudential regime. As part of the local authorities’ self-regulated regime, local authorities are free to finance capital projects by borrowing without requiring government consent, provided they can afford to service their debts out of their revenues. This means that the decision-making functions of the PWLB commissioners are essentially obsolete. Local authorities are responsible for their own decisions on whether to borrow and how much. Further, the day-to-day operations of providing loans are now carried out by the Debt Management Office—the DMO—which is an executive agency of HM Treasury.

The commissioners’ functions and powers are delegated to the secretary of the PWLB, who is a civil servant at the DMO. The highly regarded prudential regime means there is no scope nowadays for the commissioners to exercise influence or discretion over lending to local authorities. The Government are therefore considering whether to abolish the Public Works Loan Board while ensuring that permitted borrowers, mainly local authorities, will continue to be able to access central government loans in the same way as now.

The purpose of including the PWLB in Schedule 1 to the Public Bodies Act 2011, which is what these amendments achieve, is to confer on the Government the power to make an order under the Public Bodies Act that would abolish the PWLB and transfer its functions to an eligible person, as defined in the Public Bodies Act. Let me assure noble Lords that the abolition of the PWLB, and the succession arrangements, will be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny under the Public Bodies Act process. This proposal is purely about governance reform. The PWLB abolition will not impact on the prudential regime or local authorities’ existing loans with the PWLB, and local authorities will be able to undertake new borrowing from the successor body, as now, at rates that offer good value for money. Interest rates will continue to be a policy matter for HM Treasury.

Following the commencement of the provisions in this clause, the Government plan to publish a consultation document providing details of their proposals for abolition and succession, as required under the Public Bodies Act. After taking into account responses from the consultation, both Houses will have the opportunity to scrutinise the draft legislation, which will of course be accompanied by the explanatory document, as required by Section 11 of the PBA. Abolition of the PWLB would remove bureaucracy and align the accountability for lending to local authorities with DMO’s existing responsibilities for day-to-day operational management. This is in line with the Government’s wider efficiency and modernisation agenda.

I am conscious that these amendments are so uncontroversial that this may be the last moment that I am on my feet in a discussion on the Infrastructure Bill. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my noble friends Lady Verma and Lord Ahmad, who have been stalwart in leading significant parts of the Bill. I thank your Lordships all across the House. The Bill has involved many different departments; individuals with different specialisation and Peers who have followed different issues have had to co-ordinate and manage across the complexities. They have done so brilliantly. I think we have collectively improved the Bill. It has also involved working closely with the other place. This is also an opportunity for me to say particular thanks to the Bill team, which has had to deal with some of the most extraordinary complexity in managing this whole process. Frankly, I think it has done it brilliantly.

I will of course wish to respond if issues are raised by any other Members of the House, but I did not want to lose the opportunity to say thank you, since I am aware that the amendments I am moving are so technical and uncontroversial that this may be my last time to speak. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I am bound to say that when I saw references to the Public Works Loan Board being abolished a sense of nostalgia swept over me. It took me back to my first finance committee meeting of Luton Borough Council in 1976—noble Lords will remember that in those days if you turned up with a briefcase you were put on the finance committee straight away—and to the regular reports of the borough treasurer thereafter. Little did one realise that we were then in the comparative twilight of the commissioners’ existence.

The most recent Annual Report and Accounts, in describing the functions of the commissioners, says that they derive from legislation of 1875 and 1968, which has been referred to. However, the report also says that the PWLB’s existence can be traced back to 1793. It became established on a permanent basis in 1817. It is asserted that changes over time have made the PWLB less relevant, to the point where it is suggested that its purpose is redundant. As we have heard, its functions and powers have been delegated to the Debt Management Office. A significant development was the prudential borrowing regime introduced under the previous Labour Government, which obviated the need for local authorities to go through a credit approval process. In fact, the prudential borrowing regime has proved to be a major success and has demonstrated that local authorities act responsibly and prudently when it comes to exercising borrowing powers. The proposition is to include the PWLB in Schedule 1 to the Public Bodies Act 2011 so that the Government can use powers under that Act to abolish it and transfer its functions to an eligible person. It seems as though any necessary consultations are to take place under the PBA processes—presumably about “how” to abolish it, not “if”.

My colleagues in another place have already challenged the Government on why the consultation promised last July has not taken place. They have also reasonably sought to clarify what residual functions the PWLB undertakes. The foreword to the 2013-14 Annual Report and Accounts described the functions of the commissioners as being,

“to consider loan applications from local authorities and other prescribed bodies and, where loans are made, to collect the repayments”.

As a practical matter, as we know, these responsibilities have been delegated to the secretary—effectively the accounting officer. The PWLB borrows from the National Loans Fund to fund its loans. All interest and loan repayments are paid over to the National Loans Fund. Commissioners are prepared to lend to an authority up to the available capacity in its prudential borrowing limit.

It seems to us that although the functions have been delegated to others the PWLB’s nominal powers are surely not insignificant. At 31 March 2014 it held loans of approximately £63.7 billion, with corresponding liabilities of the same amount. Its powers to facilitate borrowing and manage loans must be significant, even though delegated. As my honourable friend Roberta Blackman-Woods MP stated in another place, we all,

“want assurance that there is good oversight”—

and transparency—

“of local government borrowing”.—[Official Report, Commons, Infrastructure Bill Committee, 13/1/15 col. 333.]

Perhaps the Minister would take the opportunity to say how she considers that this will be provided under any new arrangements. Having said all that, we certainly will not oppose these amendments.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, the consultation that will come under the Public Bodies Act is obviously an important step in the process to allow for full discussion of the kinds of issues that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has discussed today. At the moment the commissioners simply meet on an annual basis. They note the loans issued and review the annual report prepared by the officials. I think this House would agree that sometimes it is important to recognise reality and make sure that the formal arrangements match the actuality. We hope that this is a step in that direction.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on her extended role during the course of this Bill and indirectly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tope—for the GLA to perform the role of disposal agency in London—on the face of it makes very good sense. As the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Jenkin, said, the HCA’s objects simply do not run in Greater London as a result of the Localism Act 2011, and without a change you would have to retain the arrangements where transfers are made indirectly.

I took the opportunity to raise the matter with the Bill team, who have sent me a helpful note, which, if I may, I will just read from:

“I have been advised that under the Localism Act 2011, the GLA has responsibility for the HCA functions in London and the HCA does not have a remit to operate. The HCA has powers to operate in London but to do so would require delegated authority from the mayor. Under existing legislation, central Governments can transfer their land directly to the GLA; arm’s length bodies can also presently do so but would have to transfer the land to the parent department first”.

That is the inefficiency we are trying to tackle with this provision. The note goes on:

“DCLG are working with the GLA to determine what offer the GLA would be able to make to departments regarding land transfer. This will include whether statutory transfer is the most appropriate mechanism or whether an alternative approach is preferable”.

Could the noble Baroness just unpick that expression a little? Whatever arrangements are to be entered into, it does not seem to me to preclude supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tope.

We have had a helpful briefing from the Mayor of London, which raised a number of points. The point about the GLA having to hold its land in a taxable subsidiary company would appear to have been addressed by government amendments, but there was also a point about transfers of land from the GLA, a mayoral development corporation or the HCA hitherto not having been able to pass on the override of third-party easements. This means that such owner-developers could be pursued for remedies by the previous owners and beneficiaries of such rights. Given that Clause 22(10) is to operate only where land is disposed of after the provision comes into force, how does the Minister see this point being addressed?

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to stand here in the place of my noble friend Lady Stowell. I join the congratulations to her on her new role and apologise for the disappointment of noble Lords who were looking forward to debating these issues with her today. I will have to do for today’s purposes.

The public sector land programme aims to speed up the disposal of land and put disused land back into use for much needed homes. The current public sector land programme has identified land with capacity to deliver 100,000 new homes by March 2015. At the end of March 2014, it had released land capable of delivering more than 76,000 homes. As we move forward with the programme, we are aiming to reduce the bureaucracy involved in transferring land to the HCA and to speed up delivery of much needed homes and economic development.

The GLA has a pivotal role in delivering housing and economic growth in the capital, as my noble friend Lord Tope illustrated, and we are working with it to consider how its expertise can best be utilised in the disposal of surplus government land. In some cases, this may mean transferring sites from central government bodies to the GLA. Although the original clause, which is the one currently in the Bill, did not mention the Greater London Authority, we agree that there may be some benefit to exploring whether it should be included in the clause. There is an existing transfer process, but this might smooth the process of transferring sites from arm’s-length bodies to the GLA. There would need to be an agreement between the Government and the GLA that this is the best delivery mechanism for individual sites and the one that provides best value to the taxpayer.

One alternative, for example, would be to purchase land directly from the Government or their ALBs. All this needs further discussion and exploration with the various parties, and we need to work through whether there are stamp duty implications or other factors. Some resolution will be required before we can come to a definite decision on that process. We have been working closely with the GLA on the land disposal programme, as we will continue to do, so that we can work out how surplus public land can be better used to support housing and economic growth, alongside finding efficiency savings. We recognise what the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, makes clear that there are complexities in all this. We do not have set levels of affordable housing. That has to be for the local authority. It is best placed and will undoubtedly use its planning processes, which of course apply to any development, to make the relevant determinations. He is right that there are complexities that we have to iron out and work our way through. I just want to alert the Committee and to say that we are sympathetic to the underlying direction of this amendment, but there is work to be done to know whether this is the most effective way to achieve what I think everyone here is attempting to achieve.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Will the Minister expand on what she said because I am not quite following? I can see that there may, in differing circumstances, be details to work out as to how particular parcels of land are put together and how they end up for the benefit of housing in London. But this amendment would simply include the possibility of the GLA being the beneficiary of a Secretary of State’s scheme. The Secretary of State does not have to enter into a scheme under these provisions in all circumstances. I am struggling to see why the amendment could not be accepted. It would not be mandatory. It would just be one route. If it is not picked up in this Bill, I wonder when it will be picked up by another local Bill coming down the path. I am struggling to see the logic in not making this adjustment.

[Baroness Kramer]

I say to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that I will go back to the department and ask whether we can share any of that without disrupting the process of negotiation. I am sure that we would be willing to share those thoughts. This goes beyond my direct area of expertise and I would not want to mislead the noble Lord by taking him in a wrong direction. We will try to provide that clarification. The one thing that everyone here would be concerned about is making sure that it does not disrupt a negotiation process that would come to the conclusion that we are all seeking; that is, the efficient transfer of land to make sure that housing is made available at the earliest possible date.

I will be happy to work with your Lordships. The department is working with the GLA to consider whether these amendments would be beneficial or whether a somewhat different form is needed to deliver that public sector land programme in London. With that assurance, I hope that my noble friend Lord Tope will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, first, I am sure that no discourtesy was intended to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, over the timing of the letter that was sent. I cannot quite explain the sequence but I know that, in trying to co-ordinate the numerous questions that came to us following Second Reading, we tried to make sure that we had covered everybody’s questions and answered them fully, which may have delayed putting our responses in the post by a day or so. Therefore, I apologise if she was concerned by that.

The public sector land programme is about bringing disused land currently owned by central government back into better economic use, not about selling or building on community assets enjoyed by local communities. It is a continuation of our current programme, where we are on track to dispose of disused land with capacity for 100,000 homes. This clause is not about new policy, but merely the introduction of efficiency into the mechanism.

Surplus land can and already does transfer to the Homes and Communities Agency, but the process is more bureaucratic than is necessary. This clause is simply about increasing the rate of delivery by accelerating internal government procedures. The proposed amendments would actually slow down the process by adding further bureaucracy. For that reason, we would resist this amendment because our goal is to increase efficiency in this process, not to slow it down further.

On the issue of surplus land, it is important that land can transfer to, for example, the HCA while it is still in operational use but a decision has been clearly made that it will no longer be needed beyond a certain point. The HCA would then be able to start remediation works and marketing in parallel with the wind-down of operational activity. This minimises bureaucracy and ensures that we are making best use of our land at all times. Questions have arisen about the word “surplus”. There is not a definition in that sense because property-owning departments and arm’s-length bodies are expected to review their landholdings regularly to identify potential for rationalising their estates. When a landholding is no longer required by government, it is not just surplus to our requirements and there is no hard-and-fast definition of surplus beyond this because it varies so greatly from department to department and use to use. It is for individual departments to decide why they no longer require a piece of land.

I assure your Lordships that it is not possible for the Homes and Communities Agency to transfer land from other public bodies without the consent and co-operation of the transferring department. The transfer is direct but all statutory transfer schemes to the HCA must be signed by a Minister of the Crown or a delegated representative. Therefore, only land that the transferring public body has identified as surplus to its requirements will be transferred. This is standard government business and the noble Baroness will have been very used to this process when her party was in government. There is nothing new or different about the way in which it is being handled.

As I said, the clause is about accelerating internal government processes to transfer surplus land so that it can be disposed of more quickly and effectively for appropriate development. It does not override existing planning policy or community rights. The Government fully appreciate the importance of amenity land to both nature and our communities. Common land is central to our national heritage and we value it for agriculture, recreation, nature conservation, landscape and its historical and archaeological significance.

Public rights of way in the country are the primary means by which people access the countryside and engage in outdoor recreation, which in turn promotes improved health and well-being, as well as sustainable transport. Our amendment will not affect public rights of way. Normal planning procedures will apply to protect open spaces and other amenity land. The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that open space should not be built on unless it is surplus to requirements, can be replaced or the benefits outweigh the loss. Planning policies should also protect and enhance public rights of way and access. Where the Homes and Communities Agency owns such land, it seeks to transfer it to the local authority or other community group to continue to manage the land for the community. It is also worth noting that the Homes and Communities Agency often facilitates the creation of new open spaces, allotments and amenity land, which over time become an important asset to the community.

I will talk more directly about the public forest estate in response to the amendments that address this and which are intended to prevent the transfer of land from the public forest estate to the Homes and Communities Agency. We made clear our policy on the public forests at Second Reading and again in the letter that we provided to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. The forest estate is not for sale and we will not transfer the public forest estate to the Homes and Communities Agency.

The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, asked about future Governments. Future Governments have always been able to make their own decisions, and this Parliament could not prevent their doing so. We can give an absolute assurance about the position that this Government take. Were she in government, she would have to make that decision on a democratic basis for herself.

In my published response to the Parliamentary Question from the noble Baroness relating to Clause 21, I said:

“Clause 21 of the Infrastructure Bill is completely unconnected to the Government’s stated policy to establish a new public body to hold the Public Forest Estate”.—[Official Report, 30/6/14; col. WA 214.]

The Government have no intention of transferring land from the new body to the Homes and Communities Agency, as the public forest estate is currently in use and not declared surplus. As such, the powers will not be used in relation to this body and will therefore have no effect on it.

I also refer to our forestry and woodland policy statement, published in January 2013, which built on the recommendations made by the independent panel on forestry, chaired by the then Bishop of Liverpool. It confirmed that the PFE will continue to benefit from public ownership. Nothing has changed. We remain committed to this and are continuing to work closely with stakeholders.

I believe that we shall have a discussion on the group that begins with Amendment 91A which will address some of the issues of easements. Just for the purposes of the issues that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, third-party purchasers will be able to override easements in any land sold by the HCA, the GLA and the MDCs, the mayoral development corporations. That has always been clear from this legislation.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I apologise for intervening on the Minister but I wonder if we can clear that up, as it is before us. Did she say that third-party purchasers can override those easements?

[Baroness Kramer]

I think that a better way to express it is that where they have been overridden by the HCA, the GLA and the MDC, they are sold, as it were, with the override in place. I believe that that is correct; I will write to the noble Lord if it is not, but that is my understanding of the situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am grateful; that is helpful. It is what I understood the position to be likely to be—that third party purchasers could not create those overrides.

[Baroness Kramer]

That was the issue at dispute. My understanding is that they cannot create. I am now looking for some clarification on this so that I can come back to the noble Lord with a more correct answer. I just have a note that says, “If Clause 22 goes ahead, they will”. I believe that we are going to address that under Amendment 91A, in which case I may be able to give the noble Lord a more substantive answer shortly. If not, I will ensure that he gets complete clarification on this issue.

On the tax issues that the noble Lord raised, tax provision to produce a tax-neutral result will be made in secondary legislation under new Section 53B. Again, we can provide more detail on that than I have at my fingertips at this moment.

To return to the heart of Amendments 85B, 86, 87, 88 and 89, we believe that the necessary safeguards are in place to ensure that land transfers only when agreed by the Secretary of State and when the transferring department has deemed the land to be surplus to its requirements. The clause sits within the wider planning framework, which offers sufficient safeguards to protect any open spaces or other amenity land. For that reason we will resist these amendments, and I hope that what I have said provides some assurance.

On the Edward I freemining rights, we will indeed follow up in writing. I confess that that is beyond my general knowledge of these issues, so this may be the most helpful way to provide that information to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed response. I accept that there are some points on which we shall have some follow-up, particularly on easements. On matters of tax, the particular point I sought to probe was: at the point when the land goes from the HCA—or the GLA, if that is what it is—to a private sector developer, what is the basis on which it acquires that land? Is the developer thereby getting a tax break? Is the value of its land uplifted or is it reduced somehow? I do not expect the Minister to deal with that in detail today but I would be grateful if there could be some follow-up on it. We accept the assurance that there will be procedures in place to make sure that the owning department will have to sign off on any transfer and that it would only be surplus, as the Minister described.

[Baroness Kramer]

Perhaps I might make a small correction for the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, because I want to be absolutely clear on this point. It would be a Secretary of State, a Minister or somebody delegated. Because the Government act as a whole, I cannot guarantee to him that the owning department would necessarily provide that signature but I will look for clarification.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am grateful and perhaps we could have some follow-up on that as well, if necessary. I also accept that the different approaches to when land is identified as surplus mean that it may be difficult to have an all-embracing definition in the Bill.

However, that leaves two issues around the forest estate, which my noble friend Lady Royall spoke about with a great passion, as indeed did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. Given the generality of the assurances that the Minister has given, is there not the possibility that we could at least have something specific in the Bill in relation to the public forest estate, as an example of where it simply will not be transferred? That would ease the genuine concerns of many who are not happy about the broadness of this clause as it is drafted. Could that, at least, not be included in the Bill? We accept that there are issues around surplus and the processes of transfer.

[Baroness Kramer]

I apologise for bobbing up constantly but the noble Lord will understand that I am trying to catch information as rapidly as I can to ensure that we do not leave him with an inaccurate picture. In terms of that sign-off to which I referred a few moments ago, if the land is surplus, it is the Minister for the DCLG who provides the signature in all cases. It is important that I share that, rather than leaving the noble Lord misinformed on this issue.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

We need to think about that. Is it the Minister for the DCLG in all cases, wherever the land was originally owned or used and whichever department it was?

[Baroness Kramer]

That is the understanding that has just been passed to me.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am grateful for that. It is news to me but it is helpful to have it. I should like to press again on the issue of the public forest estate and why that cannot be specifically included as an exemption from the operation of these clauses. I am sure the Minister will recognise that that would ease the very real concerns that have been raised. She may say that those concerns are unnecessary, given the assurances that have been provided, but notwithstanding that, there would be clarity and certainty in the Bill. What is wrong with that?

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I feel that at this point we have given real clarity on this issue. As I say, this mechanism simply makes more efficient a process that is currently in place. The assurances that stood yesterday and stand today are the assurances that will stand tomorrow, and it seems to us that those are clear and unequivocal. We therefore cannot see what is gained by putting this into the Bill.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we have reached the stage where it is necessary to withdraw the amendment but I cannot believe that we will not return to this matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, this is a straightforward amendment that would require the regulations specifying public bodies to be subject to the affirmative procedure. These provisions are focused on identifying which public bodies’ assets can be the subject of a scheme for transfer to the HCA. In other amendments, we have just discussed the sensitivity around these schemes, which should be clear. The affirmative procedure is still limited but it seems to us that it should apply, at the very least on the first use.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I gather from general conversation that there are many arm’s-length bodies—certainly several hundred of them. A process whereby adding them or subtracting them from a list would require affirmative actions in your Lordships’ House and the other place seems excessive, frankly, when the whole purpose of this is to speed up the process of land disposal and ensure that appropriate developments can happen quickly. Maximising the release of surplus public sector land is critical to support our ambition to reduce the deficit and, even more importantly, increase the number of homes being built.

We are already releasing surplus public sector land under the current public sector land programme, and have an ambition to dispose of land with the capacity to build 100,000 homes. The language in the Bill lets us do that better and faster, getting much needed land developed quickly. We already utilise the expertise of the HCA to remediate and market surplus land, and it will continue to play an important role in speeding up development. The purpose of the clause is to eliminate needless bureaucracy and get surplus developable land to the HCA quickly.

An amendment specifying that the regulations about bodies transferring land to the HCA would have to pass through the affirmative procedure would merely slow that whole process down again and defeat the whole point of what we are attempting to do. We are cutting out a middleman, and it is important to resist various attempts to slow this process back down again. Needing a debate in both Houses every time a new set of regulations was made or when names were added to a list would have the effect, frankly, of wasting parliamentary time. There is a process in place that allows for objections to be made if concerns are sparked by any particular change.

The proposed programme is not a one-time programme but a continuing one, and new sites can be identified by departments and arm’s-length bodies. The transfer could come from an arm’s-length body that currently either does not exist or is not on the list because it has not at present identified land to transfer. We really do not want to exclude land because those names are not on the list—we want to make sure that development can happen. This amendment is at odds with the aims of the Bill, and for that reason we ask that the amendment be withdrawn and that it be accepted that these regulations should remain subject to the negative procedure.

As I say, when there are genuine concerns about a body specified in the regulations, the negative resolution procedure allows a challenge to be made and a debate to take place, in either House. The regulations can be challenged and dealt with in that way. In our view, the negative procedure is proportionate and in line with our policy aim to accelerate the pace of land disposal and to remove bureaucracy. I therefore ask that this amendment be withdrawn.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I think I am convinced. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, maximising the release of surplus public sector land is critical to supporting the Government’s ambitions to reduce the deficit, increase the number of houses being built and help to drive economic growth.

We have introduced Clause 22 to speed up the process of land disposal and ensure that appropriate development can happen quickly. The ability to remediate and sell surplus public sector land is critical to the supply of much needed new homes. I think this is going to address the question raised a few moments ago: our clause will bring the powers of purchasers of land from the HCA, the GLA and the MDCs into line with those presently enjoyed by purchasers of land from local authorities and other public bodies involved in regeneration and development, such as urban development corporations, when overriding easements. This now picks up the issue that I stumbled upon a few minutes ago.

The ability to override easements is often necessary to the development of a site. It is in the wider public interest that we support development that brings much needed homes and jobs. We have tabled this amendment to ensure that the power can be used as intended by the Greater London Authority. The bulk of GLA land is held and managed by GLA Land and Property. We need to ensure that it is able to use the powers as intended, which is what the amendment will do. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I think that I am happy with this. Do I understand that it relates just to dealing with the GLA problem and its need to operate through a taxable subsidiary?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation. I think that I have got it but I want to make absolutely sure. This amendment deals with the GLA situation but outside that, in the example being pursued by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, if there is a disposal to a third party by the HCA with planning permission and all the constraints presumably being in the contract, can the third party purchaser in those circumstances take the benefit of overrides that have been provided by the HCA or a local authority but not create new overrides itself? That is the particular issue that I am trying to get clarity on.

[Baroness Kramer]

Perhaps I might write to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on that issue because I think that I am getting myself caught up in circles, which is not an appropriate way to give him the answers that he needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I shall reply first to the comment from my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding that the Minister did not meet stakeholders. That was during the consultation period. I think that Ministers often make the decision that they should not distort a consultation by meeting with some particular parties and not others. Meetings have subsequently been put into the diary with both Mr Lester and BIS. As I say, this was a matter of propriety during a period of consultation, as many noble Lords will recognise was necessary.

We have a problem with the local land charge system. At present, each of the 348 local authorities in England and Wales maintains its own local register, and they are kept in a variety of formats. Some are digital but do not use the same digital systems, while many are still paper-based. The fees for searching the register vary from £3 to £96. Since the rule applying here is that the local land charge service should be provided on a cost-recovery basis over a three-year period, it is quite hard to understand why there is that discrepancy and range of difference in pricing. Some of the services respond in a day or so; some take more than 20 days. That has led to the buyer of a property or someone remortgaging a property—who is, in all honesty, probably not that conscious of who their local authority happens to be—not being able to rely on an efficient service in every part of the country. It is, in a sense, a genuine postcode lottery if you are sitting in the position of the person trying to buy a property or seeking to remortgage one. I suggest that we have a serious problem there.

To give the Committee an example, Camden Council is taking 38 days to process searches. You can imagine what that is doing in a process where house prices move while people are trying to get mortgage approvals and are often in chains of buyers. It is clearly jeopardising people’s ability to buy a house. We have had other reports—

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I apologise; did the Minister say that it was 38 days for Camden?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer]

Yes.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Was that the local land charge search or the CON29 search?

[Baroness Kramer]

My understanding is that it is the local land charge search, not the CON29 search, but we have had reports of problems of varying degrees in Scunthorpe, Erewash, Exeter and Sutton. It is not confined to one particular local authority. Users of this service have said in surveys that only 24% of local land charge search results are returned within a day and only 50% within two to five days. I thought that I had some of the numerous responses from people who use the service and thought it was an incredibly good idea to start trying to centralise it and provide some degree of consistency; if I find them later, I will quote them.

I should point out that the Land Registry’s performance for a similar range of preliminary searches and copy register and copy document services is that over 95% were returned within one day. The Land Registry, in its central form, is exceedingly efficient. It has a flat fee of £3 and most queries are dealt with instantly by online access. I now have the number that I was looking for. I am told that 63% of users were supportive of trying to rationalise and centralise this system. We are living in the 21st century and people expect to be able to access information in the most efficient way, and that supports the property market. If we want to increase the availability of housing, surely that has to be a service that we look at seriously, making sure that it is as efficient as it can be.

In this day and age, it is crucial that public services are available online. The DVLA now processes driving licence applications online, and I see no one calling for us to change that to a system in which in each local community there is a separate application for a driver’s licence through the local authority. It is time for the local land charges system to be modernised and made fit for purpose in a digital era. A single digital register held by a single provider will reduce overheads and eliminate regional variations in the speed, format and costs of the local land charges service. The solution will improve turnaround times to mere minutes and improve data accessibility for the property sector. By reducing overheads, in effect we will make sure that there is a lower fee for the customer, and the standardised process means that the fee will not change based on location.

The poll that I cited a moment ago, conducted by Ipsos MORI, showed that 63% of customers found the Land Registry proposal “appealing” or “very appealing”. Customers want to benefit from a standardised service. They want faster turnaround times, reduced running costs and lower fees. These proposals will make it quicker and easier for people to buy a property, remortgage their home and even, in many cases, start up a business.

The Land Registry has a proven track record in providing digitised information to the public. I say that to provide reassurance that this is a body capable of putting together the system that we require of it. It safeguards almost 24 million registered titles, has a customer satisfaction rate of 98% and already processes around 22 million applications electronically annually. It has extensive experience of digitising registers and a central position in the conveyancing process, as the single largest source of property information. That is why it makes it right for this body to take over the local land charges service.

History shows that this kind of step change to a modern, standardised service, with the benefits that brings to the public, simply cannot happen if the service remains split between 348 local authorities. It will require a single digital register held by a single provider to get that reduction in overheads and eliminate the endless variations in the format—never mind in the costs—of the local land charges service. We of course accept that there is a role for local knowledge; that must be maintained. Therefore, local authorities will continue to be responsible for collecting and updating all the information in the register.

Your Lordships have asked whether we are removing a valuable source of revenue for local authorities by, as it were, leaving with them an element of cost. We are in detailed discussions because we are concerned that local authorities should not bear an undue burden by providing the input that only local knowledge can provide. Local authorities would be responsible for collecting and updating the information in the register, and obviously that should not be an undue burden on them. However, if they came to us and said, “But we’re losing a source of revenue”, we would point out that the rules have made it absolutely clear that this is not meant to be a revenue-raising service; it is a cost-recovery service. Therefore, the argument that there is a loss of revenue really does not hold water, as surplus revenue is not the purpose of the current pricing system.

Some noble Lords asked about CON29 searches. I can explain that the Land Registry is examining the feasibility and developing the policy of providing CON29. However, it is important to be clear that for a property transaction, customers already go to the Land Registry for searches, so providing local land charges searches through the Land Registry portal does not add another step for them. Over time, the CON29 searches may be added to those channels but our intention is to do that in a responsible way, as an incremental phased approach. The Land Registry is well placed to bring about the benefits envisaged. For a property transaction, customers already go to the Land Registry and, as I said, it has a proven track record. While local authorities are focused on a whole range of activities, property information and serving the conveyancing market is the sole purpose of the Land Registry and its specialised expertise.

The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, raised the question of whether this is a step towards privatisation. Noble Lords will be aware that a consultation on the ownership structure of the Land Registry was begun in January and completed in March, and the Government have provided their consultation and see no reason to change the current ownership arrangements. I want to be clear on that point. The process we are proposing here—to bring new efficiency into the Land Registry system—is part of moving into the efficiency of the 21st century by taking advantage of digital technology, which has not historically been available but which is available today for the benefit of the user. Noble Lords will be aware that to some degree a whole industry has grown up which negotiates the current search process for individuals who want to buy properties, because they currently find that process so cumbersome and complex. Surely transferring that to an online system, which the ordinary user can use with ease and clarity, is the direction in which we absolutely have to go.

Noble Lords made a number of comments about the off-payroll breach. Adequate response has been given to those comments in the various letters that have been provided. However, the sort of determination to go to a centralised and digitised Land Registry system is not the work of one individual or a particular chief executive of the Land Registry, but part of a much broader process of bringing real efficiency into government. The new world of digitisation offers us all kinds of opportunities. We have to use them when they are available and when we can carry them out effectively. Therefore this is not the whim or ambition of one individual but a consistent pattern that one finds throughout government to improve implementation, delivery and efficiency.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, raised the question of potential job losses at local authorities. I should point out that on average just over two people work on this at a local level, but many of them carry out other roles and will have some continuing role in providing the input data. The consequences from a job perspective therefore cannot be ruled out absolutely but are unlikely to be dramatic in the circumstances. I do not think that anybody in this Room, under any circumstances, would wish us to preserve inefficiency to protect jobs. However, in this instance, the consequences are not likely to be significant.

I believe that I have covered most of the issues that have been raised. If I have not, I will be glad to follow up and do so in writing. This clause is an important move forward that will assist people who are attempting to purchase property, to get a mortgage and to remortgage property. That group deserves to get the best service that we can provide it with. I therefore hope that your Lordships will agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I am disappointed but not surprised by the position taken. I was not sure whether she was clear that there is going to be no change to the Land Registry’s model during the course of this Parliament. The press release that we had yesterday just says that no decision has been taken to change the Land Registry’s model; that means that it could be changed next month, the month after or indeed tomorrow. I wonder if she might just clarify that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, Clause 24 gives wider powers to the Land Registry to enable it to play a greater role in the property sector. The Government’s goal is to make the conveyancing process quicker, cheaper and easier to complete. As we have said before, the Land Registry is the single largest source of property information. It has a proven track record of digitisation of registers, 98% customer satisfaction and a record of reducing fees, with almost 22 million applications processed electronically last year. Most importantly, it sits at the heart of the conveyancing process.

At present, the Land Registry is limited in the services it can offer, not by what is in the public interest but by its statutory powers. This clause corrects that. Giving wider powers to the Land Registry will enable it to provide a range of property information services for businesses and citizens, helping to manage records, keep track of markets and identify business opportunities. The needs of the customers and stakeholders of the Land Registry are constantly changing, and allowing it to meet those changing needs must surely benefit both the property market and the overall economy.

The Land Registry’s ability to engage in new services is not a new concept. The Land Registration Act 2002 already enables it to provide consultancy and advisory services related to the registration of land. It is already using those powers to provide services such as international consultancy on land registration and a range of add-value services relating to land registration information. The new services would be provided on a cost-recovery basis, and the Land Registry would consider undertaking new services and activities only where that could bring savings, efficiencies and other benefits to the property market. This is part of the current move to make sure that we maximise the benefit of the information that is available within government entities in order to benefit residents and, in the case of the Land Registry, particularly those involved in property arrangements.

I also want to make it clear that this is not a necessary mechanism for the digitisation that we have been discussing or for providing services to taxpayers. The process that we have been describing—the core change here—is not dependent on any sort of commercial model, but we think it is rational to permit these additional powers. Given the breadth and depth of its expertise, the Government want to allow the Land Registry to broaden its activities to provide that kind of additional information as part of the infrastructure which others in the property market can then build on and innovate from. This is relatively straightforward and very much in keeping with the whole direction in which access to information, transparency and various kinds of support are now being provided by many parts of government. It recognises that the Land Registry is very much at the heart of conveyancing and central to the whole property industry, and that therefore it has the potential to benefit the sector by expanding the services that it offers, based on needs as they arise and as they change.

Therefore, there is no sinister motive behind this. As I said, it is very much in keeping with modern practice. It is very important that this clause stands part of the Bill so that we can gain the greatest benefits for the property market, for the economy and for the many members of our communities who use that market.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I thank the Minister for her reply but perhaps I may just be clear. Does she consider that what is set down in Clause 24 is sufficient for the Land Registry to commence some of these services, having done its internal assessment? Obviously it is not going to embark on something which it believes will make a profit. Where does that leave the comment in the Government’s response that the Land Registry,

“would consider undertaking new services and activities only where it could bring savings, efficiencies and other benefits … An assessment would be made on market need and LR would engage with stakeholders and, where appropriate, consult on any significant initiatives”?

In a sense, is the Minister saying that these provisions are subject to that response?

[Baroness Kramer]

Is this a question about whether we are intending to change the commercial model of the Land Registry? Clearly we are not. If that is an answer to the question asked by noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, then I can give that assurance. I think that I made it clear in describing the kinds of services that the Land Registry would seek to offer that those services would be in response to market need. Obviously that requires extensive engagement with the various stakeholders and others who would use the services. It seems to me that that is the kind of partnership relationship, as one could almost call it, that there would be. The Land Registry would therefore consult on any major change precisely because its goal is to make sure that it provides the most appropriate kind of response.

The sorts of factors that would be considered before a new service was introduced would include things such as the impact on the property market, any competition issues, and capability and capacity issues. At this point in time, it is difficult to detail those proposals because we are in a dynamic environment. Therefore, this is essentially an enabling provision but, I think, an entirely appropriate one.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I thank the Minister for that. I do not want to make a meal of this but perhaps I may ask for a final clarification. Are we saying that these services are distinct from any change in the Land Registry’s model—that there might be a change in the Land Registry’s model but these services would still go ahead on some basis or another—or that there would be no change to the model and these services might still be commenced?

[Baroness Kramer]

Perhaps I can be clear. The whole issue of the model, by which I assume the noble Lord means ownership, is an entirely separate question. The two are not interlinked.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I take the model to be in the sense of not only the corporate structure but the separation of the office of the chief registrar and what was termed in the consultation as a delivery company.

[Baroness Kramer]

I have an assurance that they are not linked.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer]

There will be a response to the consultation, but it is not the intention of the Government to provide for that in the Bill or, as far as I know, in any future legislation.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

If it is not the intention to seek privatisation by this mechanism, can the Minister confirm that it is not the Government’s intention to seek it in any other legislative arrangement?

[Baroness Kramer]

I certainly have no knowledge of any other intentions. As I said, there will be a proper response to the consultation. That may be helpful in clarifying any remaining questions for the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie.

I confirm that the Government are committed to England’s public forest estate and national parks remaining secure in public ownership for the people who enjoy them and the businesses that depend on them. The measure that we discussed for the HCA is about transferring surplus land from government agencies. The public forest estate and our national parks are in use; they are therefore not surplus and none will therefore be transferred to the Homes and Communities Agency. This measure does not apply to them.

Localism Bill

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, we have just been through a very important debate that has taken a good two hours. I sense that the House is absolutely exhausted, so I will try to be very brief in moving Amendment 118. I will speak also to Amendment 118ZA. Since the latter is the smaller, I will address it very quickly now.

This arose because my colleague and expert lawyer, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, looked at the Bill and realised that there was a serious question in the wording of Clause 38(7), which refers to business rate supplements and makes various amendments. It says:

“The amendments made by this section do not apply in relation to a BRS imposed before the date this section comes into force”.

That is an important date because on one side of the date of raising a business rate supplement there is in many cases no requirement for a ballot, and various other conditions are different, and on the other side of that benchmark the conditions are entirely different. It is absolutely necessary that any authority affected by business rate supplement rules knows when that date occurs. I apologise if we have made a mistake, but neither the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, nor I can find any definition to determine when “this section comes into force”. This is an attempt to do that by replacing those words with the word “enacted”. It seems that if this clause should pass and become part of the Bill in its final form there has to be some clarity from the Government. This is a technical issue but it could lead to an awful lot of confusion and litigation if it is not clarified.

Amendment 118 covers the issue of tax increment financing. I will take a moment or two to explain what tax increment financing is. I am sure many Members of this House are very aware of it but there might be one or two who are not. I will then explain why I have raised this in this Bill and at this point. Tax increment financing was first used in the 1950s by California and is now part of the framework statutes of every state of the United States bar Arkansas, as well as of various continental countries, in various forms. Essentially it is a mechanism that recognises that where regeneration takes place or where there is new infrastructure, land values consequently rise. Therefore, business rates associated with that increase in land values are attributable to the existence of the project. In effect, it allows the relevant local authority or other body to borrow against that predicted increase in the business rates that results from the construction and existence of the project.

In this country we have a great problem in building infrastructure. People often use the example of the London Tube system and the Jubilee line. We get the cost upfront—in the case of the Jubilee line, about £3.5 billion—but there is a huge benefit at the far end when the project is complete. The increase in benefit to landowners around the various stations on the Jubilee line is estimated at about £13 billion. In other words, huge value is created, but we rarely find any mechanism to let us capture that value in order to get the financing to build the project in the first place. This happens on a small scale as well as a large scale. Knowing the cash that is coming out at the end, are we going to take the steps to allow us to find a mechanism to tap that in order to get the project built?

In the United States, this is not often used on large-scale projects. It is used typically on small, local regeneration projects in blighted areas, but it need not be limited to that application. The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, announced in September 2010 that the coalition would at some point allow local authorities to use tax increment financing to finance infrastructure projects. In a sense, this is a probing amendment to find out where on earth we are in this process. I speak partly as a Londoner because I know that so many infrastructure projects are necessary in this city, but it has to apply to the whole of the country.

This issue is relevant because of the various new clauses in the Bill that apply to the business rate supplement. I am conscious that a review is under way of local government revenue-raising powers and that tax increment financing is likely to be discussed as part of that. However, a problem arises from Clause 38 because of the new constraints that are applied to local authorities in raising business rate supplements— notably that a ballot is now necessary for every business rate supplement. Under the existing rules, no ballot is necessary if the business rate supplement provides less than one-third of the total cost of the project.

Crossrail was passed through a special hybrid Bill but the business rate supplement plays a significant part in the financing for it. Had all the businesses in London that are covered by this rate been balloted, they would not have passed the business rate supplement because many of them do not benefit from the existence of Crossrail. I am sure that this will be true on a small scale as well. It will become very difficult to achieve a business rate supplement when many businesses will look at the project that is very beneficial to the community but say that it does not benefit them directly. The joy about tax increment financing, if that were to be the basis on which businesses were balloted, is that you pay it only if you have benefited. You will pay a tax increment levy only if you have seen the increase in property values that comes because the project has been created. That, presumably, is something that businesses capture through rent or through the sale of property or in various other ways, but it is in their interest to make sure that the project happens.

That is why I have raised the matter in this context, although there is a more general Bill to come. It seemed to me that if we were going to see in this Bill new difficulties for using business rate supplements, we at least ought to have some discussion of mechanisms that would be put in place to give confidence to local authorities that they could proceed with infrastructure projects, regeneration and other necessary developments. They would then have some assurance that mechanisms would be coming their way that would allow them to achieve that. At a time when we talk about the importance of economic growth, infrastructure is perhaps more important than ever, so there is an urgency in clarifying this issue. That is why I have brought forward the amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we understand why the smaller of the amendments has been introduced tonight. Doubtless the Minister will be able to give satisfaction on the date that these provisions enter into force for the reasons the noble Baroness has outlined. We also understand better now why she has attached tax increment financing to these provisions. As she said, a ballot is now required in all circumstances, whatever the level of funding, and there may be difficulties in securing that in the future.

Tax increment financing is about raising more money upfront by committing revenues which would not have arisen but for the project going ahead. We accept and support the importance of focusing at this time on tax increment financing when capital resources for local authorities are especially tight and the private-sector nervousness about the state of the economy means fund raising is extremely difficult. The noble Baroness will be aware that the previous Government set up a working party to examine this and an enlarged group has been working with the coalition Government. What I am not sure about is the grafting of these provisions on to the Business Rate Supplements Act 2009, which is about levying a supplement on the NNDR. It involves consultation arrangements and a ballot of those existing ratepayers affected. In concept, TIF is about ring-fencing additional business rates and almost hypothecating those to fund a borrowing arrangement. The current position is set out in the local growth document which the Government issued recently. That talks about introducing new borrowing powers to allow tax increment financing. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister what the mechanism is for those borrowing powers to be introduced to facilitate tax increment financing. I do not think grafting it on to the Business Rate Supplements Act provisions will be the right way to achieve it. It looks as though the Government already are focused on changes to borrowing arrangements which will facilitate it and obviously, subject to the detail of that, it is a principle and a project which we would support because it is important to get this source of funding under way at the current time.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Monday 28th February 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 3 and to speak to Amendments 8 and 9. The purpose of this group of amendments is to probe a little the boundaries of the national insurance contributions holiday. As I think we made clear at Second Reading, we see merit in the scheme as an incentive to encourage employment by new businesses but wonder whether the parameters of the scheme are driving a bureaucracy that will considerably lessen its impact.

We acknowledge that the wider the scheme is drawn, the further the resources have to go but the level of take-up referred to when this was debated in the other place suggests that the Government are falling far short of their anticipated take-up. Without praying in aid the report that is due to come more officially in due course, perhaps the Minister might give us some update on the take-up to date. The scheme has effectively been under way for something like nine months. Is the expectation that this incentive will still reach 400,000 businesses over the relevant period? By limiting the holiday to new businesses, the complexity of the legislation inevitably increases as it has to address the avoidance possibilities of people recasting an existing business as a new enterprise. We will come later to the validity of the excluded regions but we accept that if they are to be part of the scheme, the boundaries of the non-excluded regions must be secure.

The purpose of Amendment 3 is straightforward: to secure that,

“the principal place at which the new business is carried on … is not in any of the excluded regions”,

not only when it is started but “throughout the period when” the benefit of the holiday is being enjoyed. There is an argument that the requirement should be satisfied throughout the relevant period, but if that were imposed you would not be able to grant the holiday and the benefit of the cash flow until the end of that period.

Amendment 8 seeks to probe why six months has been chosen as the cut-off point in determining whether a business has effectively been recycled. The Minister might explain why that is considered a more appropriate period than, say, the 12 months that the amendment suggests. Perhaps he would also take the opportunity to expand on some of the terms in Clause 5. A business is not a new business for that clause’s purposes if a person has, within the defined period, carried on a,

“business consisting of the activities of which the business consists”.

That might be abundantly clear in many circumstances but not, we suggest, in others. Will a retail business—say, a grocery store—conducted in one part of a non-excluded area consist of the same activities previously carried on by that person if the business were a retail business in a different location selling the same type of products? What if the product range were different—children’s clothing, say—but trading were from the same location and, possibly, under the same name?

The purpose of Amendment 9 is to test whether there is any leakage of the benefit of the holiday where P genuinely starts a new business which is run alongside an existing business of P. In part, that depends on whether it is a single business or there are two or more separate businesses. Organising an expansion as a branch of an existing operation would presumably not be a new business; organising via a separate company or partnership could be. What, in the arrangements in the Bill, would prevent employees being employed by the new business with some recharge to the other businesses? Does Clause 6(1)(a) require employment wholly for the purpose of the new business?

I would not expect the Minister necessarily to respond in detail to all of these points this afternoon. They are raised to highlight the fact that focusing on new businesses and having excluded regions complicates matters—sometimes, I suggest, considerably. It certainly complicates the legislation, notwithstanding the general anti-avoidance provisions of Clause 10, which we thoroughly support. It will inevitably be the case that when boundaries to a scheme are set down, there are those who will seek to circumvent them. I am not sure whether the Government have been wise in offering so many of these opportunities.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I apologise if my newness to the institution shows in my bobbing up at the wrong time. I wish to make a couple of small comments on the amendments in this group, although my comments are less about the detail and more, in a sense, about questioning the underlying principle.

For all of us, the notion that new business can be stimulated to be a fountain of growth and of new jobs is obviously highly desirable, so an effective take-up of the programme would, I suspect, be met with pleasure on every side of the House. However, given the potential for a review period as we move through the Bill, might it not be good to keep in the back of one’s mind that even new jobs that come from existing businesses can be valuable, even if the take-up does not reach the targets of the initial programme? It strikes me that that would not be a failure, given that economies are volatile and take-up can take time but that jobs are beneficial even if they originate from business that is already under way. It might be important to ensure that this whole category of issues is critical in any review that might come one year after the initiation of the programme so that the Government can consider whether they would be wise to expand the categories in order to achieve the underlying intention of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group. As we discussed at Second Reading, and as was pursued in another place, we have concerns that the national insurance holiday is targeted by crude geographical area and not by any more objective assessment of need. These amendments variously look to remove Greater London, London, the south-east and the eastern region as excluded regions. As we have just discussed and as we shall discuss further under the next grouping, there are practical ramifications and administrative costs in excluding certain parts of the UK from the benefit of the holiday.

The Government’s chosen method of targeting is to look at those areas with the greatest reliance on public sector employment and to do that at regional level. Given that the RDAs are being abolished—that is about to be debated in another place—and that different economic groupings are being established through LEPs, can the Minister say on what basis the analysis has been undertaken at a regional level? We certainly acknowledge that the scale and speed of cuts in public spending will have devastating effects on unemployment, both public and private. If the basis of targeting is reliance on public sector employment, perhaps the Minister can say a little more about how this measure is determined.

For example, does the Minister accept that direct employment in the public sector is only part of the story? Parts of the private sector are as heavily reliant on public expenditure as perhaps those in the public sector that provide direct employment. That can be for a combination of reasons, including previous outsourcing of functions of central or local government and the reliance on public sector construction contracts. For instance, the Building Schools for the Future programme would have provided significant employment opportunities. For example, we know that the Government have been recruiting via agency companies in order to keep head counts down. Perhaps the Minister can say whether those arrangements are included as part of the public sector.

Another issue to consider is the extent to which spending cuts are borne fairly and proportionately across areas. In devising this policy, what analysis was undertaken of how spending cuts are being borne across the country? Have the Government sought to differentiate between front-line and other staff? We certainly accept that levels of public sector employment are one measure of vulnerability to spending cuts, but by taking a regional perspective the Government are averaging out high reliance on the public sector in some parts of the excluded regions. Debate in another place highlighted a number of constituencies in the excluded regions which were in the top 10 for public sector employment. These include Oxford East in the south-east, Lewisham East in London and Luton North in the eastern region. It was highlighted that Newham has a public sector employment rate of 33.6 per cent but is excluded from the holiday, whereas Macclesfield, with a rate of 11.8 per cent, is included. The Government’s approach does not recognise differences within regions and could be giving rise to significant deadweight costs. However, at a regional level, London has a higher employment rate than three regions which are not excluded. It is difficult to see the sense in that.

The east of England is the region that I know best. Currently, the east of England business start-up rate is below that of London, the south-east and some international comparator regions. The region requires a skills base that better meets the needs of regional businesses. It is also underperforming in terms of levels of GVA compared with London and the south-east and has a marked east-west split in economic performance. Workplace earnings vary acutely, with workers employed in Suffolk, Norfolk and Southend-on-Sea being the lowest paid in the region. Despite the region’s overall high employment rate, areas of high and persistent unemployment remain. This has a major impact on levels of deprivation and health inequalities. While some districts in the region are among the most prosperous in the country, 11 districts are rated among the most deprived in England.

The February labour market statistics are very worrying, particularly the 66,000 increase in the unemployment rate among 16 to 24 year-olds. It appears that the benefit of the holiday is simply not available to some of the worst affected areas. Two of the top 15 constituencies in the UK with the highest unemployment rates are denied—both Luton constituencies, ranked 168th and 269th, are excluded. A detailed analysis of deprivation data suggests the same picture. Some areas of greater affluence are included in the scheme ahead of others with greater levels of deprivation.

We accept that public sector employment is in some measure a proxy for vulnerability to spending cuts and that an incentive for private sector businesses can help. It is also accepted that if there are to be geographical exclusions and inclusions, the broader these are the less likelihood there is of displacement activity. However, the scale of the exclusions fundamentally calls into question the fairness of the policy as cast. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I rise to speak because I grew up and have spent much of my political life in Greater London. Like most Londoners, I would defend to the last any opportunity or benefit that might come to London. However, I recognise that if areas such as Greater London, the south-east and the eastern region—I know the latter region less well—were included in this scheme, they would suck up the overwhelming majority of funds that the Government could make available. At a time of great prosperity that might not matter, but at present those of us who live in the better-off regions have to be conscious of how seriously difficult life can be in other parts of the country, particularly those which are losing a significant number of public sector jobs and are dependent on those jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, to a certain extent the Minister has already pre-empted this and given us a response which will be, I think, that in a sense there is room for part-time workers within the headroom that the count of 10 will provide. Nevertheless, I will seek to pursue the argument.

The technical note issued by HMRC in August adds some clarification on the maximum number of qualifying employees. In particular it makes clear that employees earning below the secondary threshold—that is the start of national insurance obligations—still count towards the 10, even if they are part-time or casual employees. Even if there is no employer national insurance due and no benefit from the holiday, they still count against the number 10.

The purpose of this amendment, which I accept would need some tidying up to be acceptable, is to enable part-time employees to be aggregated when determining the first 10 employees of a new business. It may well be that individual part-time employees do not earn above the secondary threshold so that, irrespective of their employment, a holiday would not produce a benefit for the new business, but it may allow the eleventh or twelfth employee to be counted in and the employer to enjoy the benefit of the holiday. Clearly there would need to be rules about what counts as part-time, and who gets added to whom, as it were, to determine a full-time equivalent, and what happens if a part-timer leaves, but these should be capable of being drawn up fairly simply.

Part-time working has been an increasing phenomenon of the UK labour market in recent years, although it dipped slightly in the last quarter to December 2010. Over the last year, it has increased by some 8 per cent for men and over 1 per cent for women. Nearly three-quarters of those employed part-time are women. Job sharing, especially for women, is an increasing way of balancing caring responsibilities with work, and a removal of the default retirement age, which we thoroughly support, will lead possibly to older people working longer but on a part-time basis.

Taking on part-time workers in the early stages of a new business could help lower risk to the business and increase its survival rate. There is clearly a tension between this and having full-time employees who could generate a benefit from the national insurance holiday. Being able to aggregate part-time employees on this basis would go some way to ameliorating the tension between those two positions. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I want to speak particularly to this amendment because it is, in a sense, a real request. Part-time working and job sharing are really important. The Government have done a great deal to promote, indirectly, part-time work through, in effect, a pupil premium that now goes down to the age of two. This for many women means that there is a form of very attractive childcare available from the age of two, even for disadvantaged families, making part-time working far more feasible than it might have been in the past. The culture, however, needs to change, and it seems to me that this Bill, because it resists using the language of part-time work and job sharing, falls into that ongoing trap of not challenging the culture and pushing that change forward. Part-time work is often seen as a temporary accommodation, and as the lowest skilled work—that is not always true, but it is the general image—rather than as something that can be embedded permanently into the way that a company functions.