Strathclyde Review
Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park(7 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank my noble friend for that and thank his committee for all the work that it did in relation to the review and the work that it does regularly for the House.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I join all noble Lords in congratulating the Government and the Leader of the House on reaching a much more mature position than was threatened by the previous Prime Minister. The whole House very much welcomes the recognition of the House’s role. However, I warmly endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lang, about the overreliance on secondary legislation as part of the legislative process. Along with others, I have spent many happy hours in the Moses Room tormenting Ministers, or endeavouring to, on the contents of secondary legislation. I am particularly conscious of how the system works in the light of the experience over the Housing and Planning Act, as it now is. It is now more than six months since the Act received Royal Assent; the Bill went through on the basis of consultation that had not taken place and leading to secondary legislation, none of which has yet emerged. We have not even seen the response to the consultation. This is a grave defect in the system, and the noble Lord was right to draw attention to it—and it is a matter that the House and the Government need to consider, because it makes a nonsense of the time devoted in this House to primary legislation if so much of what actually happens is determined by this somewhat difficult process, over which we have little control and which, on the basis of the experience of the Housing and Planning Act, seems never to emerge.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Like the noble Lord, I often reflect on the many hours that we spent in this Chamber on the Housing and Planning Bill in the last Session. On a broader point, there has not been an increase in the use of SIs laid before Parliament in the last 20 years, but I hear what he says in relation to that Bill.
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2016
Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, as the Committee will be aware, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 seeks to support the reintegration into society of offenders who have demonstrated that they have put their criminal past behind them. After a specified period of time, therefore, the Act provides for cautions and most convictions to become spent. When individuals apply for most jobs or seek insurance, they do not need to disclose spent cautions and convictions, nor can they be taken into account by employers and others. Research has consistently shown that obtaining employment lowers the risk of offending. That is the general position under the primary legislation.
There are, however, certain types of employment and other activities that give rise to particular risks to the public. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 therefore creates exceptions to the Act so that in some circumstances certain spent, as well as unspent, convictions and cautions must be disclosed and may be taken into account when assessing a person’s suitability for certain positions.
Those areas of activity included in the exceptions order require a high degree of trust, often involving vulnerable persons. It is therefore appropriate that an employer should know a person’s fuller criminal history before an offer of employment is made, and consideration can be given to any necessary protections to be put in place. The three amendments in the order are part of the Government’s ongoing commitment to keep safeguarding measures in step with developments elsewhere. The first provision is designed to align the order with the Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) Regulations 2002 in relation to certain regulated activity with children; the second covers certain roles within the Independent Police Complaints Commission; and the third relates to judicial appointments, which are already covered by the exceptions order, to allow for the fullest disclosure of criminal conviction information.
There is an anomaly between the exceptions order and the related Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) Regulations 2002 that needs to be addressed. The Police Act regulations cover both regulated activity concerning children that is unsupervised and carried out on a frequent basis—for example, teaching—and activity that would be regulated activity relating to children if it were done frequently. Examples might be the provision of health and palliative care to children who are sick or disabled, or childminding on a one-off basis during the school holidays. At the moment, however, only such activity that is carried out frequently is covered by the exceptions order. The purpose of the amendment is therefore to align the order with the Police Act regulations so that roles involving unsupervised work with children on an infrequent basis are eligible for enhanced criminal records checks.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission was established by the Police Reform Act 2002 and became operational in April 2004. The IPCC’s fundamental statutory purpose is to secure and maintain public confidence in the police complaints system in England and Wales. It does so by making decisions independently of the police, government and interest groups. It is tasked with investigating the most serious complaints and incidents involving the police across England and Wales, and it also handles certain appeals from people who are not satisfied with the way the police have dealt with their complaint.
By the end of 2017, following a three-year programme of reform and expansion, the IPCC will independently investigate all serious and sensitive cases. The expansion has increased the number of cases and range of matters being investigated. Most notably, this includes an increased number of child sexual abuse and exploitation cases, and allegations concerning the abuse of vulnerable adults.
It is clearly important that commissioners and staff within the IPCC who have contact with vulnerable people or access to sensitive information are thoroughly vetted. The amendment to the exceptions order will permit the IPCC to ask for, and take into account, the unprotected spent convictions and cautions of staff and commissioners whose work involves this type of contact or access. Contact with children by commissioners and other IPCC staff is already covered by other provisions in the exceptions order relating to regulated activity, but contact with other vulnerable people is not covered. The IPCC will be able to ask for the disclosure of this information when recruiting to these positions.
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 established the independent Judicial Appointments Commission—the JAC—to select candidates of good character for judicial office in courts and tribunals in England and Wales. Prior to the Act, appointments were made by the Lord Chancellor. Magistrates are appointed by the senior presiding judge, rather than the JAC, but are assessed for suitability in the same way as other judicial appointees. As noble Lords would expect, judicial appointments are already covered by the exceptions order, given the nature and responsibilities of such roles. This means that the JAC is currently entitled to ask candidates for details of their unspent convictions and certain spent cautions and convictions that are not protected from disclosure, and can take that information into account.
As I have referred to protected spent cautions and convictions, I will briefly explain what they are. I am sure noble Lords will remember that where an occupation or activity is listed in the exceptions order, full disclosure of all spent cautions and convictions was formerly allowed. In May 2013, however, following a Court of Appeal judgment, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, the Government amended the disclosure policy under the exceptions order to provide that certain old and minor spent cautions and convictions are protected from routine disclosure in criminal records certificates. In other words, they are filtered out of certificates and do not have to be disclosed by individuals, nor can they be taken into account by employers.
Since May 2013, the JAC has not therefore seen an applicant’s full criminal record. The Lord Chief Justice has expressed concern about this position, particularly in relation to dishonesty offences, which may go towards assessing an applicant’s good character. He has therefore supported the commission in requesting this amendment to allow the disclosure of all spent cautions and convictions. The commission is clear that the disclosure of old and minor spent cautions and convictions is required to mitigate the risk to the integrity of the judiciary should details of an appointee’s previous caution or conviction subsequently emerge. The significance of a caution or conviction is considered much greater because of the unique position of the judiciary, including the magistracy. It is a requirement that judges be of good character, and if they did not possess such good character, the confidence of the public in their constitutional function might be damaged.
I hope noble Lords will support the Lord Chief Justice’s view that the integrity of the judiciary needs to be upheld. However, before the Government agreed to support this change, we asked the commission to confirm that it would adopt a clear and transparent recruitment policy on how old and minor cautions and convictions would be treated to make sure that all applications are treated objectively and fairly. I can reassure noble Lords that proper and balanced consideration will be given to any old and minor spent convictions when disclosed; they will not automatically preclude an applicant taking up a judicial appointment. The JAC’s Good Character Guidance has been provisionally amended and will be available to candidates if Parliament approves this amendment and once the order comes into force.
I am sure noble Lords will agree that this statutory instrument is necessary for public protection purposes. It needs to be amended regularly to make sure it is up to date and keeps pace with developments elsewhere. There is always a balance to be achieved in the disclosure of criminal conviction information between the rehabilitation of offenders and public protection. These amendments to the exceptions order are limited in scope, but are necessary for the purposes of safeguarding vulnerable people and maintaining the integrity of the judiciary. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I can confirm that the Opposition—entirely embodied by me on this occasion—welcome the order. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for elucidating some of its detail. I intended to ask whether the magistracy is included in the reference to judicial appointments, and she has confirmed that it is, which I think is desirable. However, I am not yet clear about the position of police commissioners as opposed to officers and whether they are included.
Lord Beecham
Given that police commissioners have an overriding responsibility in relation to disciplinary matters and the like, I wonder whether—I do not expect the noble Baroness to answer now—the Government might wish to consider the position of police commissioners in relation to this. One thinks in a different context of the activities of police forces; for example, in South Yorkshire, where there have been great problems, which are not, I hope, related to this. On the other hand, of course, the police were involved in child abuse investigations and so on, and it might be thought desirable for the police commissioner with overall responsibility for that to also have a clear position on this. I am not asking the noble Baroness to answer now or to make any policy decisions now, but she may wish to take this back to others for a view. All I ask for is that it be considered. I am not saying that it should be definitively acted on but, in my submission, it ought to be considered. With that comment, I am certainly happy to endorse the order.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank the noble Lord for his support. As regards the facts I can say, police and crime commissioners are vetted for their suitability—police officers are already covered, and full disclosure is required—but I will take back the comments he made. With that, I thank him again for his support and comments, and I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, we had a wide-ranging debate in Committee on competition. My noble friend Lady Williams has reflected on concerns such as whether the private sector could have an inappropriate influence on decisions for planning permission. She has also considered the various reports from the DPRRC and, as a result, we have laid amendments which address many of the issues raised in your Lordships’ House.
Amendment 120A does three things. First, as recommended by the DPRRC, it confirms that the purpose of the clauses is to enable pilots in discrete areas to test the benefits of introducing competition to planning application processing. Secondly, it addresses another committee recommendation by setting the maximum length of pilot schemes. Discussions with local authorities and professional bodies have suggested that a maximum period of five years is prudent to allow for lengthy applications to go through the whole process, including appeals if necessary. Thirdly, local authorities have said the pilots will not be a level playing field if designated persons only process planning applications attracting a fee and local authorities are left to do the other applications connected to the development of the sites, as those connected applications tend to attract little or no fee.
Proposed new subsection (1A)(b) enables regulations to provide that connected applications can also be processed by designated persons. Amendments 121A, 121B, 121D, 121F, 122B, 122C, 123A, 123C and 123F make consequential changes to enable connected applications to be processed by designated persons.
The DPRRC has said that we should put a list of connected applications in the Bill and take a power to add to it. I am afraid in this regard we disagree. Our recent engagement work with over a hundred authorities has highlighted a concern about connected applications. It is right that we now address it with the sector and agree a list to be included in regulations rather than impose an unworkable list now.
In Committee we heard a clear message from your Lordships that a decision on a planning application must be a democratic one by a local planning authority. Authorities cannot be allowed to delegate this decision to designated persons and nothing should bind the authority’s decision. We have always been clear that decision-making will remain with the authority in a pilot area. However, I want to directly address the points noble Lords made in Committee.
Amendment 121C prevents us including in regulations anything that allows or could allow an authority’s decision-making function to be carried out by a designated person. It also puts beyond doubt that any advice, report or recommendation from a designated person will not be binding on the authority responsible for determining a planning application. To support this, Amendment 123D removes Clause 146(2)(g), which was of particular concern to noble Lords in Committee.
Noble Lords wanted more detail about how the pilots would operate and, ideally, to see draft regulations. It is essential that the pilots are designed with local government and professional bodies. We have started an extensive dialogue with planning professionals that has already involved over a hundred local authorities. None the less, I want to respond to noble Lords’ concerns, so Amendment 121C also places a duty on the Secretary of State to consult before making the first regulations to implement pilot schemes. Combined with other amendments, this means that your Lordships’ House will be able to debate the detail of how the pilot schemes will operate after it has been co-designed and consulted on with local government.
Amendment 121 implements a recommendation from the DPRRC that the Secretary of State should be under a duty to bring back to Parliament an evaluation of the pilots and set out any conclusions that can be drawn from them.
The DPRRC recommended that the affirmative procedure should apply to all regulations made under Clause 145. We recognise that the pilots represent a significant change to the planning system and that there are understandable concerns about their potential impact. We therefore agree that the affirmative procedure provides the appropriate level of scrutiny in certain circumstances. However, the affirmative procedure is not appropriate for every exercise of the powers. We may need to quickly make small changes to procedural rules to address something that is not working as effectively as it should.
In these circumstances, we think that the negative procedure is more appropriate. This is consistent with the negative resolution procedure that applies to the development management procedure order, which sets out the procedural rules for processing planning applications. Amendment 135A gives effect to this approach and applies the affirmative procedure to the power to specify the period after which each pilot will cease, specify the description of planning applications which may be processed by designated persons during the pilots, disapply or modify planning enactments to implement the pilot, specify what are connected applications in addition to reserved matters applications during the pilots, set fees during the pilots and require data sharing during the pilots.
Let me now directly address two concerns raised by the DPRRC in its 28th report. The committee said that the Government had failed to give effect to the use of the affirmative procedure on the first exercise of these powers. However, I am afraid that we disagree. For pilot schemes to be run, the first regulations will need, for example, to set out the length of them, the descriptions of planning applications that can be processed by designated persons and how fees should be set. Amendment 135A applies the affirmative procedure for these matters.
The committee also maintained its position that the Government should always consult before making any regulations and that every exercise of powers under Clauses 145 to 148 should be subject to the affirmative procedure. I note that the noble Lords, Lords Beecham and Lord Kennedy, have tabled Amendments 121CA and 135D to this effect, which they will speak to shortly. Again, I disagree. As I have said, the pilots are complex and we may not get the design perfect from the outset. This is the very reason why any Government use pilots to test their new approach. Consulting on every use of regulations combined with using affirmative procedures for them could snarl up the effective operation of the competition pilots, particularly where small changes to procedural rules are required. It would take six months each time we consult and use the affirmative procedure, equivalent to a 10th of the length of the five-year pilots. I appreciate the spirit and intention of the committee’s recommendations, but we believe that they are simply impractical. I hope that your Lordships will agree that we have taken the committee’s recommendations and applied them in a practical and effective way.
Amendment 137 means that regulations made under Clause 145 will not be treated as hybrid and will be subject only to the affirmative procedure usual for this type of scheme. We are implementing a pilot scheme, not a permanent change to the planning system. We are consulting on the first regulations before implementing any pilots, and local communities will have an opportunity to comment. These clauses are about processing, not deciding applications. Crucially, decisions remain with local planning authorities, so I suggest that private rights are not affected. In any case, it is entirely the applicant’s choice as to whether to stay with the existing authority provider or select a designated person. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on racing through the 15 amendments in her name in such a short time and so clearly. The amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kennedy are Amendments 121CA, 121G and 135D. The noble Baroness has referred to Amendment 121CA, which provides that the consultation should not be confined to the first regulations but should apply to any sets of regulations that might emerge. Amendment 121G would require a full list of the type of applications that constitute a connected application to be defined in regulations by the Secretary of State, while Amendment 135D would require all regulations made under Clause 145 to be affirmative.
The Government’s intention to extend their fetish with privatisation to the provision of planning services emerged only at the last minute during the Bill’s Report stage in the Commons. It was not the subject of prior consultation and, like the Chancellor’s recent announcement about education, seems uncannily more like Lenin’s concept of democratic centralism than the localism which Ministers proclaim is their watchword.
It is instructive to consider the material produced by the Government in support of their proposals. The Bill’s impact assessment proclaims the importance of the planning application process being,
“resourced and organised in a way that allows an efficient and effective service to be provided”,
and cites fee levels as “an important factor”. Fee levels are of course prescribed by the Government themselves. The document stresses the importance of driving down the costs of processing applications and notes that there is,
“cross-sector concern that resource constraints are affecting the overall service”.
Typically, this so-called impact assessment contains no evidence as to the impact of current or future costs on the performance of the planning process, although it affirms that,
“adequately resourced planning departments depend on an appropriate level of income”,
which it fails to define. There is also no attempted definition of,
“well organised, efficient and low cost services”,
even though the costs are determined by the Government.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy with the points of both the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Shipley. I am concerned how it would be seen by the public generally, but also by those applicants who have paid for a report to be prepared, which may make a recommendation. The decision will certainly be made by the committee. That is more or less the position that operates now in the existing system. Sometimes, council planning officers’ recommendations are not accepted by the committee, and they may help appellants on appeal. However, if you are paying for that advice as an applicant, it creates a different ambience altogether, it seems to me. It makes the whole process rather more confusing and difficult for the applicant, as well as for the local authority. I hope that the noble Baroness will look again at how the process works, because it is fraught with danger for both the authority and public understanding of what is happening.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My Lords, I will not repeat the detail of what we have already done to strengthen Clauses 145 to 148 but turn straight to the amendments.
Although I cannot accept Amendment 121E from my noble friend Lord True, I agree with its intent and commit to take the issue away and address it in the design of the pilots and regulations. Authorities have said clearly to us that it will be very inefficient if designated persons do all the background work but they are required to review it all and then pull together their own recommendation in a report that they write. They are not saying to us that they must make the recommendation or write their own report. Instead, they are saying that simple and efficient mechanisms are needed to ensure that quality and impartiality are maintained. This amendment could lead to inefficient behaviour.
Authorities have also said that designated persons must share some of the risk and cost of defending appeals. I am concerned that the amendment could make it harder to argue that designated persons should share any risks which will concern authorities. There is a complex set of interrelated issues which we need to explore in detail with authorities to avoid perverse behaviours and outcomes. We will explore a range of safeguards. I ask noble Lords to let us explore them with authorities and bring them forward in regulations. We would be very happy to have further discussions with my noble friend and others about how we can best do that. I hope that reassures him that we will take this away.
I am afraid I cannot accept Amendment 122 from the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, limiting ‘designated persons’ to local authorities and public bodies and ruling out private sector companies and individuals. This amendment says, “It is the public sector way and there is no other way”. In contrast to noble Lords, the dozen or so local authorities considering being a pilot area are not arguing for the exclusion of the private sector. They believe that they can compete with it and, indeed, beat it. If that is the case, what have local authorities got to fear? If they provide the best service, they will hold on to the business. We believe that the concerns at the heart of this amendment are about any potential for the private sector to have undue influence on planning decisions, and we believe these can be managed.
We have strengthened planning authorities’ retention of decision-making during the pilots following concerns expressed in Committee. Our amendments mean that regulations cannot contain anything that allows an authority to delegate decision-making to designated persons and make clear that advice from designated persons will not be binding on authorities. However, other safeguards will also exist. We will set out high professional standards, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, outlined, drawing on codes of conduct such as that of the Royal Town Planning Institute, which requires competence, honesty, integrity and independent professional judgment from its members. We will remove someone’s designation where they fail continually to meet these high standards. We expect to prevent designated persons processing applications in which they, their company or its subsidiaries have any interest. I have committed to explore how we can maintain high-quality, independent advice being presented to decision-makers and having designated persons list their interest with authorities, as suggested by my noble friend Lord True. Section 327A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that where the necessary procedures have not been followed appropriately an application can be declared null and void. We believe that enabling the private sector to compete with local planning authorities is likely to drive greater reform.
Some in local government have said that it may not be possible to process some applications, such as householder applications, for a price even close to the fee. Our initial dialogue with the private sector indicates that it might indeed be possible to process such applications, and we want to test this belief.
Finally, I cannot accept Amendments 123 to 126 from the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham. We all want a planning system fit for the 21st century, so we believe that, in order to achieve it, it would be wrong not to explore alternative delivery models for handling planning applications. Currently, local planning authorities have a monopoly which denies the user choice and does not incentivise service innovation and the provision of the most efficient and effective service. Alongside this, reform of planning departments lags behind most other local authority services. Local authorities can do a lot more to transform their planning departments. Indeed, many have introduced new ways of operating and have shown that performance can be improved and costs reduced, but we believe that more should follow their lead.
We have heard concerns about the undue potential influence of the private sector in the pilots. My noble friend Lady Williams has laid amendments to strengthen local authorities’ decision-making function, and I have set out other safeguards we intend to put in place. I have also committed to explore proposals raised by my noble friend Lord True. Your Lordships’ House has been concerned about the lack of detail about how the pilots will operate. Our amendments mean that we will debate the regulations in this House following a consultation before pilot schemes can come into force. Noble Lords have queried whether we intend to evaluate the pilot, and we have laid an amendment committing us to sharing our assessment of the pilots in the House. The RTPI and the LGA rightly highlight areas where we need carefully to consider the design of the pilots, and we will work with them to explore their ideas, but they have not opposed the principle of the pilots. Local authorities are telling us that we are right to challenge the current delivery model and, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Porter, some want to be pilot areas. Despite this, the noble Lords opposite want to say that they cannot.
We listened very carefully to the debate in Committee and today, and I believe we have taken significant steps to ensure that the pilots are workable and to address many of the concerns that noble Lords have raised. I hope that, with these reassurance and the commitments I have made in these remarks, the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Lord Beecham
I am grateful to the Minister. As she will know, we have the last day of Report on Monday and Third Reading is on Wednesday, which gives us very little time to consider amendments that the Government may table. They may be perfectly adequate —one lives in hope, if not expectation—but they may not, and we and other Members may want to table amendments for Third Reading, so we really need to know what the Government are doing by Monday at the latest, because no amendments can be tabled after Tuesday. If we can have an assurance about the timing, that will be very helpful.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My Lords, we are acutely aware of the timing issues, so yes, I give that assurance. I fear that it may mean that we will be working more closely together over the coming days than we have been already.
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
This is an extremely worrying situation, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, explained it. I am not at all clear about the fact that this provision appears to apply the tenancy provisions that are applicable to all guardianship contracts. The noble Lord has already explained clearly that these are not all residential properties; some are commercial. I wonder whether the guardianship arrangements are suitable for people who live in the accommodation, which cannot be of a very high standard to come under the guardianship scheme. Therefore, I wonder whether it is possible to build something satisfactory on a foundation so unsatisfactory as a guardianship scheme for residential property.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My Lords, I reiterate the point made by my noble friend the Minister during our previous debates. We as a Government do not endorse these schemes and do not have any plans to introduce new regulation in this area as we believe that doing so could be regarded as tacitly endorsing the use of property guardianship schemes as a legitimate housing option. As the noble Lord said, while there has been some suggestion in the press that these schemes are becoming more widespread, we do not have any evidence that this is in fact a growing sector, nor has there been any pressure from campaign groups and others to take action in this area. People are free to make their own housing choices and the Government do not have any plans to stop the use of property guardianship schemes. Occupiers pay a fee to occupy part of a building and are responsible for securing it and preventing damage. However, they are not tenants and do not, therefore, have the right to exclusive possession of any part of the building. In addition, they can be required to leave at very short notice. However, it is very important that anyone considering living in such a building clearly understands the limitations of these schemes and that they will have very limited rights.
As the noble Lord said, my noble friend has proposed that the department will publish a factsheet on its website which highlights the fact that the Government do not endorse these schemes and draws attention to their clear drawbacks, including the fact that the buildings may frequently be unsuitable to be used as accommodation and that an occupier of such buildings has very limited rights. With that explanation, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beecham
I am sorry to say that I find that a completely unsatisfactory answer. Once again, I do not blame the Minister. That is clearly the department’s line and it is utterly unacceptable. The noble and learned Lord says that all these arrangements should be barred, in effect. They were working reasonably well because there can be a fair degree of common interest when a responsible owner with a building on his or its hands treats people reasonably, on the understanding that it is short term, with no security of tenure, but there is at least a basic, decent standard of accommodation.
We now have people exploiting that situation partly on the basis, by the way, that the freeholders of the property no longer pay business rates because the property is not being used for business. That constitutes quite a significant financial loss to the local authority. That unfortunate consequence is a separate issue and one might not be too concerned about it.
We are left in the position that the Government are adamantly refusing to do anything other than warn people about the situation. That is, frankly, not good enough. I am sorry that the Government are taking that line. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I will come back to that in a second but, as I say, we will be publishing the response by the end of today. We therefore believe that Amendment 102CLA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is premature.
I thank the noble Lord for Amendments 102CL and 102DB about consent. An effective test of competition is likely to be achieved with a set of pilots which reflect the different types, sizes and geographic locations of local authorities. To answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, there will be a number of pilots, not just one. Local authorities have consistently told us that a fair test of competition must include weaker authorities at the lower end of the performance spectrum—pilots cannot just include top-performing, progressive authorities. However, they are concerned that weaker authorities are unlikely to volunteer to be in pilot areas. Therefore, we need powers which give us the necessary flexibility to select an appropriate mix of pilot areas and to be able to respond to the sector’s concern if necessary.
I do not see how compelling a local authority to be a designated provider would work in practice. How would we actually force a local authority, against its will, to compete for work in another patch and to do that work to a high standard? We do not therefore intend to compel any local planning authority to be a designated provider.
I turn now to Amendment 102D. We have been very clear that during any competition pilots we bring forward under Clause 145, the responsibility to determine planning applications will remain with the local planning authority in the pilot area. I will put this as clearly as I can: only the local authority can decide on an application. Clause 145 will give the Secretary of State the power, by regulations, to introduce pilot schemes for competition in the processing of applications for planning permission. Subsection (1) allows the regulations to make provision for a planning application to be “processed” by a “designated person”, and subsection (6) says that “processing” the application means any action “other than determining it”.
Amendments 102CM, 102DA, 102FA and 102FB, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would remove intended safeguards. For example, Clause 145(3), which would be removed by Amendment 102CM, leaves room for the Government to exclude from the pilots certain types of application where local government and others can make a compelling case that they are so significant or sensitive that they should continue to be handled by the relevant local planning authority. Clause 146(1)(a), which would be removed by Amendment 102FA, enables us to specify circumstances where it is inappropriate for a designated person to process an application, for instance because of a conflict of interest. The removal of text that would result from Amendment 102FB would leave us unable to specify the circumstances in which a planning authority should take over an application from a designated person. They could either potentially take them all over without limit, or none, and we believe removing the safeguard is impractical and unworkable.
Amendment 102DAA was tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham. Enabling the private sector to compete with local planning authorities is likely to drive greater reform than if we leave things solely to authorities, as the noble Lords would wish. We are proposing pilots to test the benefits of introducing competition in planning application processing.
Lord Beecham
I think the Minister has overlooked the fact that the amendment also refers to “public bodies” being able to take over the role, not just local authorities.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My apologies. However, my argument stands. We want to encourage the private sector to be involved as well, but I apologise for that misreading of the noble Lord’s amendment.
Amendment 102EA would extend the definition of “planning application” to include permission in principle and technical details consent. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his amendment. We intend to give it some further thought.
We intend to design the pilot schemes collaboratively with local government, professional bodies and the private sector. We are already consulting on how they might operate. Furthermore, an extensive dialogue with key partners is under way and in the last six weeks we have met with more than 80 local authorities through a range of events. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, raised a number of technical points. Obviously, these are issues that will be addressed through the pilot schemes.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster, asked about the draft regulations. As I hope I made clear, we are engaging extensively with the sector and consultations are currently out for consideration. As I said, we have already spoken to more than 80 local authorities. I would be happy to write to him to provide an initial summary of the issues raised so far during our engagement with the sector.
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for his comments on these amendments, and to the noble Baroness. I hope I will be able to assure your Lordships that the Mayor of London will continue to play an important role without the need for these amendments.
New Section 59A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, inserted by Clause 136, makes it possible for permission in principle to be granted on sites allocated within local development plans, neighbourhood plans and the new brownfield register, and the choice of when to do this will be a local one. Let me be absolutely clear that the Secretary of State will have no direct role in choosing specific sites to grant permission in principle to. In the same way that the Secretary of State maintains oversight of the existing development order-making powers under Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to ensure consistency of how the planning system functions across England, he must maintain oversight of how the permission-in-principle system will work.
Amendment 92B would effectively set up different planning systems between London and the rest of the country by giving the Mayor of London the ability to change the process for permission in principle. We believe that introducing inconsistency into the system would be undesirable.
I reassure noble Lords that there are a number of ways in which the Mayor of London will be able to play an active role in influencing the granting of permission in principle in London. The London Plan will be able to set policies that will influence which sites are suitable for a grant of permission in principle. The mayor will also be a key statutory consultee during the plan preparation of any borough in London. Furthermore, where a mayoral development corporation is in place, the plan for that corporation can allocate specific sites that could be granted permission in principle. Mayoral development orders can also now be used to grant planning permission for site-specific development in London.
The noble Lord also asked whether the mayor would be able to call in applications for technical details consent. The answer is yes: the mayor can call in applications, including the new technical details consent, when the planning application is of potential strategic importance. He can also do this for an application for permission in principle. I will see if there is any further information that I can provide the noble Lord with in writing, but I hope that on the basis of what I have said he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beecham
For the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister confirm that the Government do not intend to extend any of these mayoral powers to the mayors of combined authorities under the devolution deal?
Lord Beecham
I stand corrected on the experience of Pendle, but that is not necessarily typical, one hopes. I look to the Minister to take the point that I made in respect of other authorities, which are perhaps not in quite the vulnerable position that Pendle appears to be. That means, again, looking at local authorities building houses, whether on brownfield sites or elsewhere. There is no incentive in the Bill for that to happen, so I ask the Minister to consider, again, the role of local authorities in providing housing, not just on brownfield sites but more generally.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his amendment. I reassure him that the Government are fully committed to unlocking new homes on brownfield land, which is why we are creating the £2 billion Home Building Fund to provide the investment in infrastructure and land remediation needed to support major housing developments. The fund will provide long-term loan funding to help unlock or accelerate a pipeline of 160,000 to 200,000 homes. It will support our key manifesto commitment to create a brownfield regeneration fund and to fund housing zones to transform brownfield sites into new housing. The new fund will be available to builders and housing developers across England.
I emphasise that the criteria on which we are consulting to assess the suitability of sites for brownfield registers will include a consideration of site viability. We would expect a site that was not viable to be unlikely to go on the register. I reassure the noble Lord that viability is central to our proposals and ask him to withdraw this amendment.
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, but surely the noble Baroness is moving on to other groups. She seems to be responding to the ninth group. Perhaps I am making a mistake. If it is the right group, I beg noble Lords’ pardon.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I apologise if I repeat myself as I find my place again.
As I have said, this would apply only in rare cases. These cases would be when a local planning authority has failed to decide what action to take in response to the recommendations of the independent examiner or where the authority disagrees with an examiner’s recommendations and wants to modify the plan or order proposal against the wishes of the neighbourhood planning group, unless the modifications are to ensure compliance with EU or human rights obligations, or to correct errors. We anticipate that this power would be used only in exceptional circumstances. We have been very clear that communities and local planning authorities should be working very closely on the neighbourhood plan or order proposal throughout the process. However, we are aware, as the noble Lord suggested, that in a small number of cases there have been disagreements between groups and authorities. There is currently no mechanism to resolve these disagreements. In extreme cases those disagreements have blocked the progress of a proposal by more than a year, even though it is supported by the community and has been approved by an independent examiner. We do not believe that that is an acceptable situation. Regulations would set out the procedure to be followed when a request to intervene is made and the proposals for these are also the subject of public consultation. While this power to intervene would remove some responsibility from the local level, we believe that it is necessary in the rare cases that I have outlined.
Although I fully understand the good intentions behind my noble friend Lord True’s amendment, unfortunately we believe that it would diminish the ability of the Government to meet their manifesto commitment of speeding up and simplifying the neighbourhood planning process. The amendment would unnecessarily restrict and potentially even nullify the proposed power and would mean that some plans or orders could be indefinitely blocked by an authority or amended without the support of the community. However, I can assure my noble friend that we very much support and encourage local planning authorities such as Richmond-upon-Thames, which works proactively with communities to prepare other types of community plans. Indeed I congratulate Richmond-upon-Thames on taking such a comprehensive approach to delivering community-led planning through its series of village plans.
Neighbourhood plans are a powerful tool, because they become part of the statutory development plan, which is the starting point for planning decisions. They are subject to two consultations and must pass an independent examination and a local referendum before becoming part of the development plan. We believe that every community that passes the independent examination stage should have the right to request that the Secretary of State intervenes if that plan is blocked by a local planning authority, or amended in a way that the examiner did not recommend. It would not be right to restrict this power where an authority has adopted in the past, or says it will be adopting in the future, other kinds of supplementary planning document, and there is no guarantee that other types of documents are up to date or have the same level of genuine support as a neighbourhood plan.
We have learned from the experience of communities undertaking neighbourhood planning and believe that the proposed new power in the Bill is already limited to the right set of very specific circumstances. Indeed, the Government have further explained, in our recently published consultation document, that the Secretary of State will, in considering a request, consider the plan or order plans positively for local development needs, taking account of the latest evidence. Let me reassure my noble friend that the proposed power does not affect a local planning authority’s ability to progress other types of planning document where it is already working with its communities. I also assure the noble Lord that the proposed power does not enable the Secretary of State to intervene in any other stage of the neighbourhood planning process. For these reasons, I hope that noble Lords will withdraw or not move their amendments, and ask that Clauses 125, 126 and 127 stand part of the Bill.
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Lord Beecham
My Lords, this amendment relates to Schedule 7 to the Bill, which refers to what is to happen in respect of a landlord’s obligation to deal with the ending of a fixed term of a tenancy. The amendment seeks a review of what will happen in accordance with a “clear and accessible policy” which outlines a series of factors: first, the circumstances in which the landlord may or may not grant another tenancy; secondly, the advice and assistance that can be given to the tenant in the event that it is decided not to grant another tenancy; thirdly, the way the landlord would address the needs of households that would be at risk of homelessness as a result of the failure to renew the secure tenancy; and, finally, the way advice would be tailored and assistance given to meet the needs of vulnerable groups. To back this up, there is a requirement that the Secretary of State should prepare, publish and update as necessary the policy to enshrine these principles.
The object is to offer at least a measure of comfort to those who find their secure tenancy ending, to assist them in relocating in a suitable way, and to ensure that they receive all necessary support from their landlord. It is a perfectly sensible approach and I hope that the Minister will concur. The amendment is meant to be constructive and helpful to both landlord and tenant. It is important that we allay some of the fears and misgivings which may arise in the minds of tenants if it is decided that their security is to end. One would hope that this would not be a frequent occurrence, but when it does occur there is a clear obligation on the landlord to make the best provision possible for alternative accommodation and to support the tenant through that process. I beg to move.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for this group of amendments, which deal with the review that local authority landlords will be required to carry out towards the end of the fixed term. It is an important new protection that will ensure that those who need long-term support are provided with more appropriate tenancies as their needs change over time, and that households are supported to make the transition into home ownership where they can.
Amendment 82GAA would require the Government to publish a policy that local authorities would need to follow when carrying out the review, including about the advice and assistance that landlords should offer where tenancies are not renewed, and how landlords should address the needs of those at risk of homelessness. I do not believe that this amendment is necessary, for several reasons. Firstly, it is our intention to provide guidance to local authorities on the sort of factors we expect them to consider when carrying out the review and it is therefore not necessary to provide for this on the face of the Bill.
Secondly, while I agree that landlords should provide advice on housing options if they decide not to renew a tenancy, this is already provided for in the Bill. Thirdly, as I have said, local authorities have strong incentives not to allow the end-of-tenancy review to create future homelessness acceptances.
Amendment 82GAC would require local authorities to consider whether a decision not to grant another tenancy could result in homelessness and, if they think it could, would require them to provide the tenant with advice and assistance on finding another home. Where a landlord decides not to renew a tenancy, the provisions in the Bill already ensure that the tenant has the opportunity to challenge the decision, as I explained previously, as well as sufficient time to find alternative accommodation following advice from their landlord on buying a home or other housing options. There are also existing duties under the homelessness legislation that require local authorities to give advice and assistance to those who are homeless and threatened with homelessness. For these reasons, we do not believe that the amendment is necessary.
Amendment 82GAD would mean that whenever the local authority decided on review that it was unrealistic for the tenant to buy a home, it would have to grant a further social tenancy. We want local authorities to use the tenancy review points to support tenants to move towards home ownership where it is appropriate, but of course we recognise that this will not be a viable option in every case. Where families continue to need social housing, of course the local authority will be able to offer a further tenancy at the end of the fixed period. Where tenants’ financial circumstances improve significantly, councils may decide that they are able to move out of the social rented sector into private rented accommodation, or they may decide to offer a further tenancy but on a higher rent.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
It would not say much for the behaviour of the local authority, which has a responsibility. I would hope that that would not happen. Obviously, as I have said, there is an opportunity for the decision to be reviewed and then to go further, to the county court—so there are options available for a prospective tenant.
I hope my responses provide reassurance that within the Bill there are adequate safeguards for tenants. The new review procedure will ensure that landlords make appropriate decisions, based on households’ housing needs, and that where they decide to terminate a tenancy, landlords will need to give ample notice and provide advice to support tenants’ access to alternative accommodation. These changes are about supporting local authorities to make the best use of their social housing stock and supporting tenants into home ownership, not making the vulnerable homeless. With these assurances, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beecham
At this time, I am not disposed to prolong the agony. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am happy to agree to meet with noble Lords interested in this area so perhaps they could list all their questions and we will try to respond to them when we meet in due course.
Lord Beecham
I declare two interests: one is my local government interest which is in the register. In that context I want to reflect briefly on the burdens that might be imposed on local authorities in terms of enforcement and point out that there is such a thing as the new burdens doctrine. Admittedly it is more honoured in the breach than in the observance by the present Administration—the noble Lord, Lord True, is nodding his wry agreement with that—but technically speaking, if a new burden is imposed and incurs costs then the Government are expected to meet that cost. We are presumably not talking about large sums of money nationally in any event, as I assume that there will not be a huge number of cases, unless the Bill incentivises such procedures.
I also declare a family interest inasmuch as my daughter practises at the Bar, particularly in the field of housing law, both as counsel and as a part-time deputy district judge. My impression is that legal aid would not be available. At the moment it is confined to cases of eviction. I assume that this case would not fall within the definition of eviction. It is effectively the tenant failing to respond to the procedure that is set out here. If I am wrong about that and if legal aid is applicable, it would be as well to have that on the record. If it is not, then I hope that the Minister will not only reply to that effect but consider very carefully and quickly whether legal aid should be extended to cases of this sort, particularly because, as my noble friend has indicated, there may well be vulnerable people who will need help in presenting any kind of case for resuming possession of a property which appeared to be abandoned.
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I understand where the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, is coming from in moving her amendment. It seems to me that the issue is not so much one of rent arrears as one of rent levels, which of course very often lead to rent arrears. It may well be the case that families go short, but they do so partly because they are fearful of eviction and will pay the rent first and look after other family needs second. It might have been better to think again—perhaps we will when we get to Report—about the terminology here. It is not just rent arrears that will cause problems but a combination of the income in the house and what other expenditure there may be, including for example, the impact of the bedroom tax on households. The noble Baroness is absolutely right, however, that whatever components one looks at, it is necessary to have regard to the impact on the health and well-being of people, particularly those in rented property, given the huge increase in rents in recent years.
I can give an example from my own family’s indirect experience. My son had a raised ground-floor flat in Islington comprising 286 square feet, which would fit relatively comfortably in the third of the ground-floor reception rooms in my house in Newcastle. The purchaser of the flat put it on the market at a rent, as far as I recall, of over £1,000 a month—roughly £4 a square foot. It is a tiny flat and only really suitable for one person, which I suspect is not untypical of housing in many parts of London these days. I would guess that is a huge proportion of the income of many people—certainly those who are not in well-paid jobs.
That may well exemplify the kind of problem that is all too often faced in the light of these absurdly high rent levels. It has to be recognised that they have gone up very markedly in the last few years, particularly, but not exclusively, in the capital. The amendment moved by the noble Baroness is very apposite to developing conditions, which may well have an impact on people’s health and well-being, as she suggests, and which therefore should be taken into account, with a view to doing something about these rent levels. That is the problem. I concede it is most acute where that leads to eviction, but it is there before you get to that point, very often for long periods.
My Amendment 32 calls, in perhaps not the most elegant drafting, for an examination of the different types of house tenure to see how this has affected the market and the levels of rent, and indeed the condition of properties. It is designed particularly to draw attention to the situation that can arise in the context of short-term lettings, such as those through Airbnb, which for other reasons has often been raised in your Lordships’ House, most notably by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, who is not now in her place. There must be concern about how these properties are managed and their impact in other ways upon the local community. Particularly on an individual basis, there is no apparent way at the moment in which these short-term lettings can be monitored in terms of the condition of the property, its safety and the like.
I hope the Minister will not repeat what she said before about the other types of property that we were discussing. Logically, I suppose, she might be driven to that extreme, but I hope she will recognise that perhaps we need to look at whether it might be timely to consider applying some criteria by which the condition of properties let—maybe for a night or two, or maybe for a slightly longer period—can be monitored. Such criteria would need to be of a standard that ensured that basic conditions were maintained.
One reads of dreadful things going on in some places. There was a court case recently—in London, I think—involving a flat that had been let for what turned out to be a wild party and was significantly damaged. That would not necessarily be covered by legislation but it may be that, beginning with looking at a requirement for such lettings to be in properties that are at least fit for human habitation and safe in terms of their electrics and the rest of it, one might ultimately revisit the issue of whether planning permission might not be needed. I know that now it is not required in London anyway but that is a separate issue—or a further issue—from the condition of these places and what individuals going there for short periods might be exposed to. It is not just a question of Airbnb for one or two nights; there is also the issue of holiday lets up and down the country, which at the moment, as I understand it, are not really governed by any requirements as to the fitness of the accommodation. If we are looking at housing across the piece, it would be desirable, to put it mildly, to look at the condition of those properties as well as at the basic stock that is on the rental market.
I hope that, with our commitment this evening, the Minister will agree to look at this before Report with a view to possibly extending some of the protections that exist for regular tenancies to these short-term lets of either kind. I beg to move.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Does the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, wish to mention waterways before I respond?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Yes, I am happy to commit to do that. I can also reassure the noble Baroness that the DCLG and the DWP will communicate on the cross-departmental issues that she raised.
The other document I mentioned, Measuring National Well-being: Life in the UK, 2015, reports on well-being in relation to where people live and how they cope financially. As well as those two reports, the European Commission produces Quality of Life in Europe: Subjective Well-being. In that report, housing security is measured by the question,
“How likely or unlikely do you think it is that you will need to leave your accommodation within the next 6 months because you can no longer afford it?”
As a result of our debate today, we have asked the department whether it might be possible to pose a similar question in the English housing survey.
With regard to Amendment 32, proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, I agree it should be easier for local authorities to identify the type of housing in their area, in order to exercise their housing functions better. However, we believe local authorities already have appropriate powers in existing and proposed legislation to seek information on housing tenure, and they can analyse that data to inform their local requirements. We believe that requiring the Government to commission and follow up a central collection and collation of this data would impose an unreasonable cost, in both time and resource, on taxpayers. We are taking the more effective approach of making tenancy deposit data available to local authorities through this Bill, for them to make use of as they see fit.
It also not clear what would be gained by collecting this information at national level. Local authorities, by definition, have localised issues, and housing statistics will only be relevant and meaningful in local areas. Schedule 2 to the Local Government Finance Act 1992 contains provisions for the Secretary of State to make legislation relating to the collection and administration of council tax, and regulations are already in place that give authorities the power to collect information which may include data on tenure in their area. The department has contacted local authorities to remind them of their existing powers. I would also add that the 2011 census provides a full tenure split at local authority level, and some local authorities have updated this record.
In connection with Amendment 33, my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford and I would be happy to meet the organisations concerned. Perhaps we could have a further conversation following this debate, just to ensure that we invite the right people. With all that in mind, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Lord Beecham
Before the noble Baroness sits down, I draw her attention to the precise wording of Amendment 32. Subsection (3)(b) of the proposed new clause goes beyond the general information to which she referred and talks specifically about,
“an assessment of the number of properties being let as short-term holiday lettings and the extent to which legislation relating to the condition of rented properties applies to short-term holiday lettings”.
That is not a local matter but a national matter with local implications. I invite the two noble Baronesses at least to say today that they will look at that issue and consider it before we get to Report. It is a discrete issue in a way.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I will take it back. I would reiterate that it is a private matter, but we will have further conversations.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park(8 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 70, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, seeks to require the Government to report on the adequacy of the funds provided to local authorities to support troubled families. We believe that the best way to judge the adequacy of the funding will be in the outcomes that the programme achieves. Our report will ensure that the Government remain transparent in publishing the progress made by families supported by the programme. This amendment, therefore, is not necessary.
The Government have committed to funding the new, expanded troubled families programme. In the spending review 2015, funding of £720 million was allocated for the remaining four years. Of course, the new programme also aims to incentivise local authorities to reprioritise existing resources to achieve better outcomes for families with multiple problems. These families are known to local services and money is already spent on them.
As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said, there is pressure on funding for children’s services, but we have actually seen local authorities maintaining relatively stable funding in these areas. However, we completely understand that there is pressure, and that is why we are also providing additional resources to change the way services respond to these families to achieve better outcomes.
As a number of noble Lords have said, funding for the new troubled families programme is available to local authorities in three ways. They are provided with a service transformation grant to transform their services and collect evidence for the national evaluation; they receive attachment fees of £1,000, as mentioned, for each family that they agree to work with; and they are able to claim an £800 results payment once one of these families achieves significant and sustained progress.
Of course, noble Lords will be well aware that the real financial prize, as a number of noble Lords have said, is the long-term change that we make to these families’ lives. It is not the money provided by central government, but the cost savings that can be delivered through redesigning their services to deliver better results for complex families with multiple problems and to see those families take control of their lives and move forward. We would certainly expect, as the noble Baroness suggested, local authorities to work together when a family moves from one area to another. It is both in the local authorities’ interest and in the family’s interest, so we would expect the sharing of information.
The programme has been designed to incentivise local services to reprioritise their money and front-line resources away from reactive services towards more integrated, targeted interventions to offer better outcomes for families with high-cost, multiple problems. By responding more effectively to the issues that these families face, the burden placed on local services can be reduced for the long term.
It is also important to remember that we are talking about a programme that has a track record of success. As the noble Baroness said, the original programme achieved success with about 116,000 families struggling with a multitude of problems. This could not have been achieved if the right services had not been in place. As with the original programme, the Government have asked local authorities to provide information that will enable us to assess its impact. This includes understanding what is being spent on families and the savings that are being achieved through local cost-benefit analysis. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked whether this would increase the burden on local authorities. We do not believe that it will, because local authorities have already agreed to supply this information as part of the national evaluation of the expanded programme. Furthermore, they themselves receive valuable analyses of the programmes to help them drive improvement to their services.
Amendment 71, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, seeks to require the report of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to include information on the types of interventions families receive and whether they are successful. DCLG has always recommended that families should be supported through a whole-family approach to achieve positive outcomes, but it does not mandate a specific type of intervention. This is because we believe that, to work effectively, local authorities need the flexibility to adapt their approach to their local area and to each family they work with. There are no set or standard interventions that are universally applied by or across local authorities: each intervention is specific to each family. Given this necessary flexibility, the effectiveness of the programme will be measured through the outcomes it achieves with families rather than the individual intervention that it uses.
The duty to report, as it stands, already ensures that the Government are held to account on the effectiveness of the programme through publishing annual information on the progress made by families. To make progress, families will have received effective support from local authorities and their partners. The report will include information on this.
It may also be worth noble Lords noting that the report Parliament will receive annually on the troubled families programme will be based on the national evaluation of the expanded programme and the payment by results achieved by local authorities. The national evaluation will provide information about the progress of families against the six headline problems that the programme seeks to address.
The noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, asked about data matching, which was used by local authorities in the original programme in relation to outcomes. They used data sets to track and monitor the progress of families. However, the fact that they used data in this way should not imply a lack of support for families. Every family that it was claimed had been turned around made real progress following support from local services. This is checked through the councils’ internal audit process before they can claim a results payment.
On the Guardian report that the noble Baroness mentioned, that was based on something of a misunderstanding of the programme. The programme certainly encourages services to join up and offer better support for families with multiple problems through redesigning their approach to providing support, and we advocated a family-style intervention approach, but that is not the only approach. The Guardian looked only at a certain subsection of families who achieved support through the programme in this particular way, rather than the large number of families helped through a whole variety of different approaches.
On the basis of the information I have provided, I ask noble Lords to withdraw Amendment 70 and not move Amendment 71.
Lord Beecham
Could the noble Baroness indicate whether it is intended to have longitudinal studies of the programme and, if so, what kind of period we might look at? Secondly, are the Government encouraging—perhaps they are; I ask out of ignorance—peer review between different authorities carrying out projects of this kind? That would seem particularly helpful given the range of problems faced.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I believe that the full scope of the reports has yet to be decided. I am certainly happy to take back those two suggestions to the department.
Prisoners: Imprisonment for Public Protection Sentences
Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park(8 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Along with the noble Lord, I pay tribute to the much missed noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. I hope that the noble Lord sees that we take this extremely seriously. As I mentioned, we have started to tackle the unacceptable backlog—but more needs to be done. Through the indeterminate sentences prisoner co-ordination group, we have also looked at improving processes. Waiting times for transferring IPP offenders to open prisons has fallen from around nine months to six to eight weeks. We are prioritising places on offender behaviour programmes and interventions. We are encouraging offender managers to draw up sentence plans that consider a variety of interventions. NOMS has also undertaken a series of reviews which we are looking to implement, particularly for prisoners who have had four or five post-tariff reviews and still failed to progress. I understand the concerns raised by noble Lords but we are taking action.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, on 3 December 2014, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, what courses to promote rehabilitation were available for IPP prisoners other than those sex offenders for whom he had confirmed that,
“the Government have increased the number of commissioned completions of courses”.—[Official Report, 3/12/14; col. 1317.]
With his customary deftness and elegance, the noble Lord avoided answering the specific question. I ask the Minister the same question: what is the position in relation to the provision of these essential courses for other IPP offenders?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The noble Lord will be aware that it is not mandatory for IPP prisoners to complete specific courses and programmes before they can be considered for parole. In fact, the sentencing planning guidance reinforces the Parole Board’s general obligation to consider the offender’s risk level, so that it can also look at broader evidence such as training and education, specialist support and demonstrating a sustained period of stable behaviour.