Lord Beecham
Main Page: Lord Beecham (Labour - Life peer)
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I support Amendments 98 and 99 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. We are all familiar with some of the hair-raising examples of how many people have been found in some raided properties. Recently, in Newham, seven people were found in a windowless basement. Overall, there were 26 people in that three-bedroom house. In another recent raid, 47 people were found in a property intended for nine. This level of overcrowding goes beyond any notion of civilised accommodation. Issues such as affordability, illegal lettings, economic migrants and particularly the acute property issue in London all impact on these kinds of properties. That is why we on these Benches support the amendments.
When I worked for Shelter in 1985, we campaigned hard for the Housing Act, which covered some of this area. But clearly we now need to update the legislation, in particular because, even if the percentage of overcrowded accommodation has stayed reasonably static, the net amount is increasing because the private rented sector is increasing, and as the private rented sector grows, this becomes more of a problem. For those reasons we support the noble Baroness’s amendments.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I join others in welcoming the return of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, my old sparring partner in local government. Perhaps I should rephrase that and say “my long-standing sparring partner”. It is so good to see her back looking so well. We very much look forward to hearing her contribute, preferably being somewhat more critical of the Government she supports than she was constrained to be in previous years. It is so good to see her back.
In that vein, the Opposition are very sympathetic to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. We hope that the Government will look sympathetically upon them. I cannot see any great difficulty in them so doing. It would be reassuring to hear from the Minister that the Government are as inclined to pursue this issue as they kindly indicated they would do in regard to property guardians—an issue that I raised. The Government have undertaken to look into that problem. I hope that they will go a bit further and either accept the amendment as drafted or come back at Third Reading with different wording that achieves the same objective—because I think that the objective is widely shared across the House.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I remind the House that often we are talking about families. Some time ago, I accompanied a health visitor to a property in Waltham Forest. Five families were sharing a kitchen and bathroom facilities. Perhaps the property was not so overcrowded but it was very insalubrious as they were all sharing those facilities. The front door was wide open when we walked in. We visited a mother whose child was three or four weeks old. The mother was very isolated and desperate. So I remind your Lordships that we are also talking about families when we talk about these people.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 99ZA reflects an amendment that I moved in Committee. It received general approbation but I was advised by my noble friend the Minister to withdraw it so that it might have cosmetic surgery to make it slightly more attractive. I have now retabled it. In a nutshell, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which I think I put on the statute book, allows a tenants’ association made up of “qualifying tenants” to seek statutory recognition. Such recognition provides the tenants’ association with additional rights over and above those enjoyed by individual leaseholders, including the right to be consulted about the appointment of managing agents and to be notified of works proposed by the landlord and to receive copies of estimates.
It has become apparent that tenants’ associations are finding it increasingly difficult to attain the number of members they need before they can apply for statutory recognition. This is because of difficulties in contacting absent leaseholders: that is, leaseholders who are not resident in a block—for example, buy-to-let investors. The amendment addresses that problem by requiring a landlord to supply to the secretary of a tenants’ association information which would allow contact to be made with absent leaseholders for the purpose of increasing the association’s membership and thereby its chances of obtaining recognition. That needs to be subject to the leaseholders’ consent to comply with data protection.
Amendment 99A seeks to address an irregularity concerning consideration of the recovery of a landlord’s costs from leaseholders as administrative charges. As noble Lords heard in Committee, at present, where a lease allows a landlord to recover the costs of legal proceedings through the service charge, a court or tribunal can decide to restrict the amount that can be recovered in that way. Courts or tribunals do not have similar powers where recovery of the costs of proceedings as an administrative charge is permitted by the lease. This can lead to unfairness, as the leaseholder will have no choice but to pay the cost of proceedings as an administration charge, regardless of the proceedings. Arguably, this discourages leaseholders from exercising their right to challenge the amount of a service charge, particularly as landlords’ costs in those proceedings could well exceed the amount in dispute.
The amendment would enable the tribunal or court to consider, on application, whether it is reasonable for a landlord to recover all or part of the costs. That is not to say that a landlord should not be able to recover the costs, but, rather, that the tribunal or court should be able to consider whether it is reasonable for them to do so. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that such an irregularity should be corrected. Amendment 138B simply brings these two amendments into force. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, we on the Opposition Benches entirely endorse the proposals made by the noble Lord, congratulate him on securing agreement from the Government and look forward to this debate ending very quickly.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I, too, am pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in her place. I have fond memories of working with her in DCLG. Although my name is on Amendment 100, in the light of recent developments I rise to support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and my noble friend Lord Palmer. I particularly wanted to speak to congratulate both of them on the sterling work they have done in this area and to thank the members of the ministerial team for being willing to listen to the arguments that have been put.
I previously made the case for why mandatory client money protection is needed, and all those who have spoken have done that very eloquently. We are now aware that the Minister has received letters from a large number of industry bodies and letting agencies asking for mandatory CMP. It is worth reflecting that some of those supporting documents make the case even more powerfully, with one letting agency saying that all it is asking for is provisions similar to those that already apply to estate agents, another pointing out that tenants and landlords can get a false sense of security because it is widely assumed that such protection already exists across the industry by default and yet another using the phrase:
“The sector is crying out for proper regulation”.
It is worth reflecting that in another place the Minister, Brandon Lewis, rejected calls for mandatory CMP, saying that it,
“would be a step too far and would overburden a market that is perfectly capable of self-regulation”.—[Official Report, Commons, Housing and Planning Bill Committee, 10/12/2015; col. 719.]
In Committee in your Lordships’ House, the Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, clearly had not been given a new script because he said exactly the same words. However, now that the industry has said with one voice that it wants mandatory CMP and does not think the costs would be too high, I hope that when she responds the Minister will have been given a new script.
Lord Beecham
I join this parliamentary lovefest briefly to join others in congratulating the Minister on accepting the amendments and to pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Hayter; I do not think a doughtier champion of consumer rights could be found anywhere. This is a very satisfactory conclusion and it enables us to get on to slightly more contentious matters a little further down the Marshalled List.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am not entirely sticking to a script. In saying that, though, I hope I can reflect the views of the Government accurately. I add my tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and of course to the parliamentary draftsmen, who have turned this around so quickly. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord are experts in this area and have taught me much about it over the past few weeks. We have met them both in recent days and I have listened carefully to the points they have made.
I thank the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment following our discussion. If approved by this House, it will provide an enabling power for the Secretary of State to make regulations by affirmative procedure to require letting agents and property management agents to belong to a client money protection scheme. It will also provide a clear enforcement mechanism, which is important for ensuring that this regulation has teeth.
The Government have already shown our commitment to taking steps on this issue, committing to a review of the transparency legislation, which includes a requirement for letting agents to be transparent about whether they offer client money protection, and to work with the sector to explore the detailed options for regulation. However, it is important that we ensure that the regulation is balanced and does not overburden the sector, and that we get the detail of the legislation right and do not rush into it. So the review will be important in informing the details of the regulation, and I am very happy to give my assurance that the Government will act on its findings at the earliest opportunity.
There has been some discussion about “must”, “shall” and “may”. I have almost lost track of where we got to on the amendment, but I think we were satisfied on the balance of “must”, “may” and “shall”. Still, in no way does that lessen our commitment to the issue at hand.
I inform the House that the Housing Minister and I have asked the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, to play a key role in the review of client money protection and transparency, reflecting their knowledge of and commitment to these issues, and I am very grateful that they have agreed. I hope that, with those points in mind, noble Lords will agree to support the amendment. I think that is the first time I have said that in this housing Bill.
Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham
My Lords, the declared aim of the Government’s promotion of the concept of permission in principle was to facilitate the building of homes, especially on brownfield sites. This objective is all the more compelling in the light of today’s news that the number of housing starts in the first quarter of this year was the lowest in three years—while of course we still have several hundred thousand sites with planning permission that has not been activated.
For ideological reasons, the Government rely almost entirely on the private sector and building for sale, whereas I recall that 50 years ago Newcastle City Council alone was building 3,000 new council homes in a year. Perhaps the Government should reconsider their hostility to the provision of social housing and do something to redress the balance.
However, leaving history aside, it was reassuring to hear the Minister affirm in Committee on 22 March:
“We are currently consulting on an approach that would enable permission in principle to be granted for housing-led development to allow for the possibility of mixed uses that are compatible with a residential environment. This means that as long as a site allocation is housing-led, local authorities will be able to grant permission in principle in line with local and national policy for other uses”.
In reply to my question at the time as to whether there would be a definition in guidance about what “housing led” actually means in terms of the proportion of sites, she confirmed that there would, and she gave the example that it might include retail, community and office space, saying:
“This approach is absolutely crucial to continuing to promote sustainable development and the delivery of balanced, mixed communities, spaces and places”.—[Official Report, 22/3/16; col. 2281.]
This reflected the statement in paragraph 402 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill that the uses “must be housing led”.
The Opposition and, I suspect, most other Members of the House entirely support that approach, which is reiterated in the department’s policy factsheet, which states explicitly:
“The Bill will allow permission in principle to be granted when local authorities or neighbourhood groups choose to allocate housing-led development in future local and neighbourhood plans or identify it on brownfield registers”.
However, a different picture emerged in the Government’s response last week to the 26th report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Paragraph 35 of the reply confirms:
“The Committee is right to emphasise that this measure will facilitate the building of vital new housing, by allowing permission in principle to be granted for housing-led development. That is, development that contains an element of housing but which can also include other compatible uses in the interests of encouraging mixed use and sustainable development”.
That sentence alone prompts a degree of suspicion. Housing-led development now appears to be defined as development containing only “an element”—unquantified—of housing.
That some mysterious alchemy continues to be at work is confirmed by the contents of paragraph 36, in which the Minister proclaims that,
“I consider it to be reasonable … for other uses, such as retail or commercial space, where there is no housing element. There is no restriction on the types of development for which full or outline planning permission may be granted”.
Paragraph 37 goes on to say that amendments will, however, be tabled—as they have been—to exclude “fracking or mineral development”. Welcome though that latter position is, we now have a permission-in-principle cocktail in which the ingredient of housing development can be reduced to homeopathic proportions or even be excluded altogether.
I am sure that the Minister did not deliberately mislead the House. We all know how hard she has struggled to explain and defend this dreadful Bill and the way in which it comes to us, laden with promises of future consultations and government responses in the form of reams of secondary legislation, none of which Parliament will have seen before the Bill becomes law. It is not her fault that the timetable results in Delegated Powers Committee’s reports, intensely critical as they are of the process, reaching us a day before matters are debated on Report.
But the position now in respect of permission in principle and the necessary involvement of housing is completely unacceptable. The amendments in this group are designed simply to enshrine in legislation what the Government told us were the Bill’s intentions—namely, to facilitate the provision of desperately needed new homes in, to use their own words, “housing-led development”. All the amendments seek to do is to hold the Government to their originally declared policy, which they appear to have changed, possibly without the Minister even noticing.
I therefore commend the amendments in my name and, in particular, Amendments 102C and 102D, which make it clear that permission in principle is to be for housing-led development—by which it is clear that I do not mean exclusively housing development. In Amendment 102D the permission in principle is for the development of brownfield land for that purpose. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I support this group of amendments for the simple reason that the point made so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, should be in the Bill.
When I saw these further amendments, I returned to the Hansard report of Committee. I refer to col. 2330, where my noble friend Lord Greaves had initiated a debate on whether Clause 136 should stand part of the Bill and raised the question of what permission in principle should be for. He said:
“We are told that permission in principle is just for housing ... There may be other things associated with housing development, such as shops or local offices, but so long as it is housing led that is okay”.
I will quote entirely what the Minister said in reply. She said:
“I confirm to the noble Lord that it would have to be categorised as housing-led development. For permission in principle to be granted, it would have to be categorised by size, location and type of development. I hope that reassures the noble Lord”.—[Official Report, 22/3/16; col. 2330.]
But of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, made clear, it is not quite as simple as that. The problem we have is the one we have had throughout the Bill, which is that it is a skeleton Bill. It does not have detail, much of which is to be presented in the form of regulations through either the negative or the affirmative procedure. These three amendments would make the matter absolutely clear. Line 6 on page 67 of the Bill says:
“Permission in principle may be granted for development of land in England as provided in section 59A”.
Reading on, I do not see the word “housing” appear anywhere. The amendments would alter the wording to, “Permission in principle may be granted for housing led development of brownfield land for housing in England as provided in section 59A”. That seems so much clearer. I think that that is the Government’s intention but I do not think that a matter of such fundamental importance should be left off the face of the Bill. I therefore strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to open further discussion on the permission in principle measure today. I appreciate the time and effort that noble Lords have invested, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, in considering its detailed implications. I am grateful that they have shared their experience and expertise, which have proved extremely helpful in ensuring that permission in principle operates as effectively as possible.
In a moment, I will explain our government amendments to Clause 136 and why I believe they demonstrate that the Government have listened to the views expressed in Committee and have taken action accordingly to improve the functioning of this measure. However, given that we have some further amendments on it, I shall briefly remind noble Lords what the Government are seeking to achieve and why we believe it is a worthwhile measure that should remain part of the Bill.
We know that there is concern in the industry about the lack of up-front certainty in the current planning system. In Committee, I highlighted issues around the cost of submitting outline and full applications without confirmation of the acceptability of the principles between plan-making and planning application stage. All these have been raised with my department by the Planning Officers Society, the Home Builders Federation and the Federation of Master Builders, and I highlighted that even last summer’s Lyons review recommended an approach where the principle of development is established earlier. Permission in principle seeks to respond to these concerns by making the planning process more certain and more efficient. It will help provide a way for small builders to enter the market and for locally supported plan development to get under way faster.
I explained at length in Committee that local authorities and neighbourhood forums would be in the driving seat when it came to choosing to grant permission in principle. I gave strong confirmation that the approach taken to granting permission in principle would be in line with local policy and the National Planning Policy Framework.
I hope that these brief comments have given noble Lords an update on the value of the measure. Alongside some of the amendments that we are laying to provide greater certainty on the use of permission in principle, I hope that this is enough to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, to reconsider their opposition to the clause.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am just giving a brief overview and shall now move on to the amendments. They were introductory remarks—scene-setting, if you like—and I shall now speak to Amendments 102C, 102D and 102E. I may have been a little premature in some of my remarks, but they were intended to be helpful; I am sorry if it is felt that I have been a little ahead of myself.
I am keen to touch on the merits of permission in principle and to set out the amendments that the Government are making today. However, I shall turn first to the amendments tabled and comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Kennedy, that would restrict the granting of permission in principle.
Although I understand why the noble Lords have returned with the amendments, I must set out why we cannot accept them. First, and most importantly, Amendment 102D would limit the granting of permission in principle to brownfield land, as my noble friend Lord Lansley said. During the passage of this Bill, the Government have been consistently clear that permission in principle is a measure that aims to strengthen the local plan-led system and ensure that development takes place on sites that people want to see built. The amendment therefore represents an unnecessary restriction on the Government’s desire to bring forward development where it is considered to be appropriate locally.
In Committee, I gave strong assurances that the choice about where to grant permission in principle would be a local one, guided by local policy and the NPPF. To put it very clearly, restricting the granting of permission in principle to brownfield sites would remove the ability for local authorities to grant permission in principle to other sites that they considered perfectly suitable for housing-led development, in line with local and national policy. The amendment would remove local discretion and severely limit the usefulness of the measure.
Secondly, Amendments 102C and 102E would limit the type of development suitable for a grant of permission in principle to “housing led” development. We have been consistently clear that we intend permission in principle to be limited to housing-led development and will specify this in secondary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referring to the DPRRC report, brought up a pertinent point and asked whether PIP could be granted for other uses. I have never sought to mislead the House, and I do not think that the noble Lord was suggesting that I was, but that we have been consistently clear that PIP is for housing-led development and that will continue to be the case under this Government. Clearly, we cannot hold future Governments to account, but we have made it clear that this is the Government’s intention. One of the DPRRC’s concerns was “What about future Governments?”, but this Government are absolutely clear that this will continue to be their intention.
Lord Beecham
I am sorry to return to the remarks that the Minister made in paragraph 36 of the response to the committee, but they are crucial. Will she clarify her stance now? She said then:
“I consider it to be reasonable for … other uses, such as retail or commercial space, where there is no housing element. There is no restriction on the types of development for which full or outline planning permission may be granted”.
That is not consistent with what she is now saying is the policy—that development should be housing led. The response to the Delegated Powers Committee makes it clear—or made it clear at that point—that it was not confined to housing-led development. That is why my Amendment 102C seeks to include that concept in the Bill. I am perfectly happy to abandon the latter two of my amendments because the first deals with the point which, as far as I can understand it today, seems to be the Government’s policy. But it was apparently not the policy when the reply was made to the Delegated Powers Committee.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I have paragraph 36 before me, and it refers to future uses. But I have always been clear that the intention under this Government was for this to be housing led.
Lord Beecham
I accept the Minister’s word for that, but that is all the more reason to build it into the Bill. All she has to say is, “We accept that”, and that is it. It confirms what is apparently the Government’s policy today, yet it was not the policy reported to the Delegated Powers Committee.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I can confirm today that it is the Government’s intention to have housing-led development. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, because the question of what “housing-led” might be is under consultation, I urge caution in placing such a definition in the Bill at this stage. We can put a suitable definition into secondary legislation.
I am well aware that there has been some misinformation about granting development involving fracking and other types of development for permission in principle. I hope that the government amendment tabled today that will prohibit granting permission in principle for development related to the,
“winning and working of materials”,
reassures noble Lords in that regard. With that, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will feel that they are relevant. With that, as I say, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment. I am sorry that the Minister is in such a tangle. I suspect that it is because she has not been properly advised either before today or indeed today. We seem to be clear that housing-led development is to be the principal purpose of this amended planning regime of permission in principle. I accept for the moment, although it is regrettable, that we do not have details of what housing-led development might amount to, but at the very least it must mean that housing will be part of the development. However, that was not confirmed in the response to the Delegated Powers Committee.
As in so many cases during the course of this Bill, it would have been much better if we had had a clearer indication of how the thing is expected to work in practice, but the principle at least should be enshrined in the Bill. Although that is not the full story, it would leave the Government to come back through secondary legislation—preferably affirmative—to specify what is meant by housing led. What it cannot mean is a development with no housing on it, by definition. Beyond that, there is scope for discussion and argument. I understand that the Minister is not in a position to give clear indications of proportions and the like at this stage, but the principle ought to be on the face of the Bill. Accordingly, I wish to test the opinion of the House.