Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Lord Blunkett and Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle

Committee stage
Monday 20th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am speaking to Amendment 172A in my name, but I want to commend the breadth of what has already been described in the three speeches that we have already heard. I strongly commend Amendment 170, in the name of my noble friend on the Front Bench, about bereavement; we have to be careful what we do here.

I want to make it clear that I am not speaking about empty property. I think there is absolute clarity about taking action to bring back into proper use, as either rented or owner-occupied premises, those homes that have been empty for a length of time. However, I shall touch on some of the complexities relating to second homes. I declare a very long-term interest from 1987 onwards, because I was involved in having to have a second home as a Member of Parliament, as MPs outside a radius of 25 miles of London will inevitably have to do if they are serving their constituency appropriately. Not all do so, but these days most see it as their duty to have a foothold, a footprint, in their constituency, even if they spend more time than would otherwise be necessary in London.

Perversely, because of the nature of our housing market, even with the new rules through the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority—which will pick up, on behalf of the public purse, the cost of second homes—there can be the very perverse situation where someone chooses to designate their second home in one place when actually it is their main home, because they do not want to be caught on their death in relation to capital gains, or when they move. There are all kinds of complexities that many people speaking today know more about than I do when it comes to the housing market.

I want to address the importance of the devolution of decision-making to local authorities, but with the proviso that those authorities are encouraged, in whatever way is appropriate, to do a proper research review themselves of the impact of the actions that they take, because the intent—and I have to say it is a very socialistic intent—of the legislation before us, in the debate that we are having, can have completely perverse consequences. Today we have heard references to short-term lets and Airbnb, which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter mentioned last Thursday, and to holiday lets. They are very different, but all have very similar impacts in the short-term nature of those coming into communities which otherwise would have long-term owner-occupier or renting residents. I separate the two because there are already consultations going out—or pseudo-consultations—from local authorities across the country, consequent on and in anticipation of the passing of this legislation, which fail completely to distinguish between ownership and rent.

Of course, there are people with second homes who rent them on a long-term basis, perhaps on a lease, and those who are the owners of the property. In certain parts of the country, we have very large landowners who are landlords and have built up over the years enormous portfolios of rented accommodation. They are the owners and people are renting—many of them local people who managed to obtain a rent agreement in the past that still holds. There is a residue of old agricultural workers legislation in some parts of the country.

The perverseness I refer to is that, on many of these large estates, when accommodation for rent becomes available because the tenant leaves—for whatever reason—it is turned into holiday lets. They are turned into business rate, rather than council tax, providers, which changes the character and nature of the locality. Of course, many second-home renters or owners may turn up infrequently. However, many, not least because of the experience we had from Covid, are spending a quite lot of time in both their homes using the facility of being online and—if I might touch on a controversial issue—working from home for part of the week. This has also transformed the nature of how the impact might be felt at a local level.

I want to put on record that, although I have no problem at all with this, it is important going forward—and I hope the Government will bring forward their own amendment—we ensure that a proper economic and social impact assessment is undertaken by people who know what they are talking about. I am afraid to say this as someone who spent many happy years in local government, but many authorities, particularly small ones, do not have officers with the first idea how to conduct a proper research survey, never mind analysing it.

If we do not get this right, it will have consequent perverse outcomes none of us wants. The purpose must surely be to try to get as much accommodation as possible available for long-term local provision, either for let or owner-occupation, to keep the life of those communities going. If action is taken that has a very different effect and pushes accommodation that is currently available for rent into holiday lets, we will have achieved exactly the opposite outcome to the one we seek. As I have some experience of this and know what is going on, for example in the Peak District, I counsel very strongly that we build in guidance so that we get what we think we are getting, rather than the opposite. It does not matter if it is a 100% or 300% council tax hike if you get the wrong answer and it switches to national business rates. Neither local people nor the local authority will be the gainer.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I offer Green support for the general direction of all of these amendments. I will attempt not to repeat the tale of woe we heard, but I will make a couple of additional points and also pass on some good news, because I think we need some at this point. In the debate on the last group, I should have declared and put on the record that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Blunkett and Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle

Lords Hansard - part two & Committee stage
Wednesday 17th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, we have already had an extensive debate so I will be brief. I must note that I have heard my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb talk about this issue often; it is something that she is extremely passionate about. I have no doubt that she would have attached her name to this amendment had space been available under our systems.

We have heard some terribly powerful contributions, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond. I really hope that the Government were listening. I am not sure that the point has been made that restorative justice should be the foundation of our justice system. It should be fundamental to what it is all about. At the moment, by contrast, it seems to be an afterthought added on at the end. This means that we have seen a loss of funding for some really practical things, such as restorative justice training for all prosecutors, including the independent Bar, so that they can better identify opportunities for restorative justice when handling cases. We also need to see restorative justice training for magistrates and judges so that they can be fully involved in facilitating it. Just as judges have a central role in enabling alternative dispute resolution in the civil courts, in the criminal courts, they should promote and encourage a restorative approach all the way from the initial arraignment right through to sentencing.

What we are talking about here is coming out after the awful event of a crime and repairing, restoring and making things better. We know well from our criminal justice system—a system at the end of which everyone comes out feeling worse about it—that what we have at the moment is not working for the people involved. It is not working for victims. It is not working to provide change for perpetrators. It is not working for the entire community.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I realise that I am breaching protocol because I was not here at the beginning of the debate on Amendment 265. I apologise profusely to the House and to the Minister. On a lighter note, one day we will have a Braille annunciator and an audible signal that I can pick up. I would not be here at this time of night if I did not care about this proposition and had not pledged to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, that I would support it, so please forgive me; I shall be incredibly brief. I hope that the noble Baroness is recovering well.

Some years ago, I took part in what could be described as a slightly bizarre and almost unreal television programme, “Banged Up”. It was a five-part series in which real ex-prisoners, real ex-offenders, real victims and an ex-governor, who is now a criminologist at the University of Birmingham, took part in an experiment to see how people would react to understanding what they have done and being able to relate to their victims. It was remarkable: it brought home to me, and I hope to all those viewing, that restorative justice could make a difference to the victim and how they felt and to their future, and, crucially, to the perpetrator, in understanding the impact of their crime and how to then redeem themselves and put things right. It was crucial to both their futures.

I commend the initiative in demonstrating in this short debate how vital it is to remember that putting things right, and getting restorative justice to ensure that perpetrators do not repeat their crime, is far more important than punishment.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Lord Blunkett and Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 22nd February 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]]

I am very pleased indeed to join in this important debate. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, set out the situation in the macro field extremely well and I am pleased to support the speeches that have already been made by a number of noble Lords.

I will concentrate on two things. The first is the issue of protection from exploitation with the development of cybercrime. I hope we will be able to come back to this in Committee and on Report with respect to the risks that people are put into because of the lack of care within the whole of the financial services sector. Secondly, very small businesses and partnerships are excluded from redress, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, mentioned. This is also is relevant to Amendment 129, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond.

On the first issue, in relation to cybersecurity, there is a growing trend that those who are affected keep quiet rather than reveal what has happened. This is a real danger. If, as I hope, we come out of the present dip in relation to financial services globally because of Brexit, we will be able to present to the world a marketplace which is both effective and forward looking—and is also secure. A duty of care to both individual customers and to small and medium-sized enterprises is a critical element in taking this Bill forward and strengthening the measures that exist there. I will not egg the measures that I think are necessary this afternoon, because there will an opportunity to come back to them. But I will just say that this is a growing area of real concern. An improved mandate for those operating in the financial services sector from the FCA would be very welcome indeed.

On the issue of small and medium-sized businesses and small partnerships, and the relationship between them and individual consumer, it is little known that access to the Financial Ombudsman is confined to individuals rather than small businesses and partnerships. What was said by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and also the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, was highly relevant here. It backs up the need for clarity in terms of how we deal not only with prevention but with redress.

I give one small example, which I took up the with the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, when he was at the Department of Health. To his credit, he saw the wisdom of trying to bring about change. As the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has described, it was not received well at the time because of the struggle that was going on post the Brexit referendum and because of the difficulties the Government were facing. We have dealt with banks and financial services, but we need to concern ourselves with insurance as well. Perhaps now is an opportune moment to deal with the situation where an insurance company is taken over and the new provider offers a slightly revised agreement which is sent out without highlighting the key changes that have been made.

For instance, in cover for physical ailments and physical damage because of accident, there is no change, but in terms of absence from work and insurance by a partnership with more than 10 partners insuring together, the mental health clauses are changed to make any payment dependent on having to gain, within 12 weeks, the sign-off of a psychiatrist and a clinical psychologist. Anyone with any knowledge of this area will know that that is an impossible ask. Had it been highlighted to the partnership, it would have been able to look elsewhere for an insurer that was not going to exploit the market as this company did.

The partnership could not go to the ombudsman. It would have been entitled to if each individual partner had insured themselves, but because there were more than 10 of them signed up to the insurance contract, that was not possible. We need to put right nonsense of this kind and ensure that those making enormous amounts of money, which they will continue to do, do not do so at the expense of individuals or small and medium-sized enterprises.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I very much support his call for a financial sector that is secure, that does not threaten the security of all of us and that does not exploit people who are forced to use its services.

I speak chiefly to Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, also signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and me. It was ably introduced by the noble Lord. I speak to this amendment because it is a subject close to my heart and one that I referred to at length in my speech at Second Reading. This group fits together nicely when we look also at Amendments 72 and 129, which I also support. We are talking about a huge imbalance of power in the interactions between the financial sector and its customers. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said in his introduction, when talking about this we often focus on banks, but we have seen some truly outrageous behaviour from insurance companies during the Covid-19 pandemic, something that I have referred to previously in the House.

When thinking about this amendment I reflected on being a 19 year-old in Australia, many years ago, buying a studio flat. It was cheaper then to have a mortgage than to pay rent. My father stood as guarantor and met the local bank manager—they knew each other personally. This was before the financial deregulation that allowed the massive boosting of prices, as the excellent 2016 New Economics Foundation report The Financialisaton of UK Homes laid out. That was what made it possible.

However, the banking sector then was no ideal model. It was undoubtedly paternalistic, patriarchal and discriminatory, against people from BAME and certain socioeconomic backgrounds and on the basis of gender. I am not sure whether my father was forced to be guarantor because I was a single female and a strange type of person to be taking out a loan, or just because of my youth, but there was in the local bank manager an individual knowledge and understanding, and the hope that if something went wrong, an individual would know your circumstances and do their best to help you.

That is not the situation that we have now. We have a “computer says no” approach. Anyone with a problem can expect to encounter an endlessly changing rota of call centre staff reading from scripts. We could hope for a locally based institution serving the needs of local communities, something that other parts of the world, such as Germany, still expect from their financial sector. That would be a financial sector that served as a utility, not as a generator of maximum profit. Care would then be built in and we might not need an amendment such as the duty of care amendment, but we have to start from where we are.

Coronavirus Bill

Debate between Lord Blunkett and Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 25th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blunkett]

I add my support by saying that those words from the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, were very wise. On the people that we have addressed so far and who have been talked about publicly, I reinforce that it is quite right that we should seek, in whatever way we can, to provide the support that has just been described. However, there is a group that falls between those who have already been assisted in support to companies and the purely self-employed: the worker working for themselves in our economy.

There is a group of entrepreneurs, many of them with start-ups and some with continuing businesses, who cannot access what is on offer to those in slightly different circumstances because of this. If they are using serviced premises—I will give an example in this House in a second—and therefore do not pay business rates, they are not entitled to the help that is already been granted on business rates or the grants that have been put in place, all of which are extremely welcome. In addition to what we describe as the self-employed there is therefore a group of people with very small microbusinesses.

The hairdresser’s in the Palace of Westminster—I make no declaration other than that I use it—is not unique but is a good example of someone running a small business which employs people but which cannot draw down on the help currently available for the reasons I have just described. It does not pay business rates in this building, and those with serviced premises that they rent do not pay them either. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to take back to his colleagues that there is this little additional gap that we should not have to come back to and say, “We forgot about those.” I am sure that is not the case but I just want to reinforce it.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I support the amendment and I stress, as others have, the extreme urgency in this. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, told us a very moving story about a situation involving an older worker, but I invite the Committee to think about the situation of many young people, who are disproportionately represented in the gig economy in these sorts of roles.

In London and many other cities, young people live in shared households. There may be four, five or six people, each with one bedroom, probably not even with a living room, because what was once a living room is now a bedroom. What happens in that household when most people cannot pay the rent? What strains will there be in that household as people struggle to get by, with the most basic cooking facilities and the smallest amount of space? One can imagine the difficulties such people will be in. They need to be rescued, to know that they have security now, and that will give stability and certainty.

As many other noble Lords have stressed, this would ensure that that person would not have to continue to operate as a courier for food travelling around the country—I am trying not to mention a brand name—or as a care worker or in any other of the roles they might be fulfilling. This is in the interests of everybody’s health, but also in the interests of people who do not have, as some in this situation will, the bank of mum and dad to rely on. It is those young people who do not have the bank of mum and dad that we really have to help.