Leasehold Reform: Forfeiture Provisions

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, with vulnerable, low-income elderly groups in this highly inflationary period facing unaffordable, escalating service charges and possible loss or even forfeiture of their homes, why not promote or sponsor a national scheme for elderly leaseholders that rolls up service charges in the form of a debenture against property title—effectively a rising legal charge? The debenture holder would pay the service charge on behalf of the resident, and then claw back payments—interest-serviced or otherwise—on death or even before.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for some exciting policy ideas. It is important that we recognise that forfeiture is a very lengthy process, and there are ways in which we can cover debt. In fact, where there is an outstanding mortgage, you typically find that mortgage companies step in and pay off any remaining amounts, because they want to protect their financial interest in a property that is worth far more than the debt. But it is an idea that I will take back to the department.

Elections: Multiple Voting

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, we have a virtual contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Minister may in reply to my noble friend Lord Reid of Cardowan say, “No”, but how can he challenge the proposition that an ID card number, with its unique personalised identifier, is impossible to misuse in a system that is electronically secure and at the same time capable of capturing data that exposes repeat voting? Ministers can oppose the card’s introduction but cannot challenge the efficacy when the evidence is overwhelming.

Local Government (Disqualification) Bill

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 4th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

I thank noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister, for sponsoring this Private Member’s Bill. I also congratulate the honourable Member for Mole Valley, Sir Paul Beresford, for all the work he has done to progress this Bill through the other place. The two of them share one thing in common: they were both leaders of Wandsworth, which is known, by them at least, as “the brighter borough”. I served for 20 years in Hammersmith and Fulham, and learned an awful lot from them and from what they achieved for their local residents. My noble friend has an unrivalled record, certainly when I compare it to mine. As he said in his speech, he served as a councillor for 35 years, with great distinction, and—I do not know how he survived it—19 years as leader of a London borough. That requires some survival instinct; it is quite incredible. Beyond that, he served five years in City Hall, along with the then mayor, Mayor Johnson, before completing the pyramid with two years in Downing Street. It is great that this Bill is sponsored by my noble friend, whom I very much consider a mentor.

The Government support the Bill for three main reasons. First, preventing registered sex offenders from either standing or serving as councillors, mayors or London Assembly members will strengthen communities’ faith and confidence in their elected representatives. Secondly, the Bill delivers on the Government’s stated commitment to bring local government disqualification into line with modern sentencing practice for sexual offences. Thirdly, the electorate has a right to expect that the people who stand and serve to represent them and their local communities are of good character.

The current disqualification criteria for local government candidates and councillors will automatically disqualify anyone for five years if they are convicted of a custodial sentence of three months or more, suspended or not. This rule dates back to the Local Government Act 1972. However, while the existing law is still effective in addressing serious cases of criminal behaviour, it does not take account of the non-custodial sentences the courts now issue for certain categories of sexual offences. This means that some individuals who are convicted and who ought to be disqualified do not meet the current threshold and can therefore slip through the net.

Noble Lords have indicated that they agree with me and the Government that it is quite intolerable that people deemed by the courts to pose a risk to children and vulnerable adults are not barred from serving as members of local authorities. The Bill rights that wrong by updating the law to ensure that only fit and proper persons can stand or serve as locally elected officials. We know, of course, that the vast majority of local authority members serving their communities are of good character, worthy of trust and beyond reproach. But, with some 120,000 councillors in England, there have inevitably been cases in which the behaviour of elected officials has fallen well below the standards the public expect and deserve.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, referred to two excluded categories. Why were they excluded, as this is probably an off-the-shelf Bill?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I was going to come to that; I was not going to finish my speech without addressing that point, but I will bring it forward a paragraph or two. The answer to why this does not apply to MPs, as was raised by my noble friend Lord Hayward, or to PCCs, as was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, is that standards and conduct for MPs and PCCs are governed under separate regimes, with their own mechanisms to disqualify or sanction unacceptable behaviour. There is currently the power to recall a MP, under certain circumstances, if at least 10% of the constituency electorate signs a petition. I take the general point: this Bill tidies up this issue, but there is another regime in place. I think my noble friend alluded to that point.

I had better resume from where I was. We know that the vast majority of local authority members serving their communities are of good character, worthy of trust and beyond reproach. That is one of the reasons why, in 2018, the Government responded to a consultation to update the local government criteria with a commitment to legislate on this matter. This was, in part, in response to an infamous case in which a parish councillor, shortly after being elected, was convicted of possessing indecent images of children. He was placed on the sex offender register but not given a custodial sentence. Despite repeated calls for him to resign, he refused to stand down and actually remained a parish councillor for the full term. The law as it stands allowed him to continue to do so, but this Bill would prevent such circumstances occurring again.

These new disqualification criteria will protect our communities by barring such individuals from holding office while they remain subject to the notification requirements for sexual offences or subject to a sexual risk order. Where offenders pose such a severe risk to the public that they are subject to indefinite notification requirements, communities can feel safe in the knowledge that such individuals will remain disqualified from elected office for the entire duration.

On its remit with regard to the devolved Administrations, I should state that the Bill applies to England only, as much of local government is devolved. The Scottish Parliament can make corresponding provision and the Welsh Government legislated on this matter last year. That said, since the UK Government retain the responsibility for elections in Northern Ireland, we will work with the Northern Ireland Executive to extend these measures there too, with a comprehensive package addressing the rules that govern both candidates and sitting councillors.

The Government strongly believe that there should be severe penalties for locally elected councillors who break the bonds of trust that hold local democracy together. This Bill puts that principle into practice, while ensuring that local government can continue to command people’s faith and trust, both now and in future. The Government are therefore delighted to support the Bill.

Council Tax: Second Homes

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Thursday 4th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I should have registered my residential and commercial property interests, although I have not tried to use this loophole. The Government announced in March that we will legislate, and we have been working very closely with the Treasury and the Valuation Office Agency to finalise the details of how and when this will be implemented. This of course takes time and we will publish our consultation response shortly.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the proliferation of holiday lets in lakeland towns such as Ambleside, Windermere and Keswick is decimating the residential market for locals, particularly the young. The switch from council tax to a reduced business rate system will only aggravate the problem by further incentivising holiday letting. Is not the answer to this wider problem of drift to holiday letting to cap the number of holiday lets through the use of a combination of licensing and planning rules? Something has to be done.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, the Government support the sharing economy, but the noble Lord will be pleased to know that we recognise the concerns about the uneven regulatory requirements in it. In the Tourism Recovery Plan, published in June 2021, we committed to consult on the introduction of a tourist accommodation registration scheme in England.

Inequalities of Region and Place

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Thursday 14th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Liddle on his brilliant contribution today. He is a rich voice in the House on behalf of our county through his membership of Cumbria County Council. He is certainly an eye and ear for many of us on wider Cumbrian issues. In his canter around the course on regional concerns, he has alluded to differential treatment by central government. I want to refer to one such area: council tax, and the findings in my most recent report on levels in Cumbria compared to the rest of the country—and also, the response of government to calls for reform.

The truth is that Cumbria is a victim of a system designed in the last century. It has become unfair, divisive, politically compromising and utterly indefensible. It is unfair in that it favours large swathes of southern England, in particular the London boroughs. For example, I compare Conservative Westminster with Conservative-controlled Carlisle. The annual charge in Westminster for council tax band A is £551, but it is £1,328 in Carlisle—nearly three times the rate. In Westminster, band B is £643 and in Carlisle it is £1,649. Band C is £735 in Westminster and £1,771 in Carlisle. Band D in Westminster is £827 and £1,992 in Carlisle. Band E is £1,011 in Westminster and £2,435 in Carlisle. Band F is £1,195 in Westminster, and in Carlisle it is £2,877. Band G is £1,379 in Westminster and £3,320 in Carlisle. Finally, band H is £1,665 in Westminster but £3,984 in Carlisle. Copeland, Allerdale, Eden, South Lakeland and Barrow-in-Furness are all even higher. Under such a system, a council house in Cumbria pays more in council tax than a £54 million house in London’s Mayfair.

The system is divisive if it is provoking resentment in areas unable to raise additional revenues to offset their costs. Unlike London, Cumbria lacks additional sources of revenue, such as city centre parking revenues and penalty charges, high commercial rate revenues, cross-borough services provisions and high-density apartment developments with lower public service costs. The wall of silence on council tax from Cumbria’s MPs, nearly all of whom are Conservative, is a problem. They know that to open up this discussion will upset their colleagues in the south, who feel that any reform will lead to increased council tax in the Conservative heartlands of southern England. We have in place a wall of silence, with ministerial denial and Cumbria’s MPs propping up the wall by a total refusal to engage in debate. All we hear is attacks from local MPs on council profligacy, and it is totally unfair.

When Michael Gove was appointed, I welcomed his face-up-to-the-issues, refreshing approach to public administration, but then he must have realised that council tax reform was a no-go area for Conservative Governments. Ever-increasing differentials between the richer boroughs in the south and an impoverished north are the Achilles heel of this Government, and Michael Gove will ultimately be measured by his failure to grasp this burning issue.

The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who clearly understands the scale and nature of the problem, has been courageous in his advocacy of banding reform. Contrast that with the heads-down, read-the-brief response of Ministers in both Houses. It is a clear indicator of the unease, embarrassment and impossibility of opening a real debate on the future of local government finance, and we need action now.

Finally, when Conservative councillors in the north are told by Conservative Government Ministers in the south that their councils need to be more efficient and cut waste and spending, they resent it. They are already cutting to the bone. The Government need to listen to the anguished call from their own people, and mine as well, for reform.

Council Tax

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I note my noble friend’s call for a council tax revaluation. As I said in my previous answer, a full revaluation would be costly. The council tax bands are well understood by residents and provide a stable income for councils, so at this stage we have no plans for a full revaluation.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, how is it possible for a £54 million luxury house in London’s Mayfair to have a lower council tax than a former council house on Windebrowe Avenue in Keswick in Cumbria and almost the same council tax as an £80,000 house on Moorclose Road in Workington, both in my former constituency? Is it not the simple truth that the whole council tax system is now discredited? It is unfair, it penalises much of the north, it favours London and much of the south, and it is now in urgent need of reform.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I am interested to hear the specific examples given, but we must recognise that, for local authority funding, council tax represents only a proportion of the income received. That is why we try to equalise through measures such as the grant system, which recognises the index of multiple deprivation as one of the reasons in how you provide grant—

Rough Sleeping

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I point to the commitment through an entire Parliament of building 6,000 new homes for rough sleepers, which is backed by over £400 million of funding. We hope to see the reductions that we have seen on the streets of London, which were in line with the national reduction of 37%, continue.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

On the issue of Covid vaccination policy for rough sleepers, is it not true that they are not treated nationally as a priority group for vaccination and that we have a postcode lottery in operation? Some areas treat them as a priority, others do not, yet they are a particularly vulnerable and difficult group. What action are the Government taking to organise a national framework for rough sleeper priority vaccination? I was concerned when I heard the Minister say, “When it is their turn in the queue”—they should be at the very front of the queue.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, the JCVI has set the overall framework for vaccination, and there is, by definition, a queue in terms of relative vulnerability and when people are called to be vaccinated. Of course, as part of that it is important that rough sleepers are registered with their GP. Therefore, we have been working closely with local authorities—backed up by £10 million of funding—to ensure that rough sleepers are registered with GPs so that they get the vaccination when it is offered.

Building Safety

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for raising this significant issue. We are looking at how we can increase the supply of the professionals needed to carry out those EWS1 assessments, and we have provided £700,000 worth of funding to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and that is looking to upskill around 2,000 building surveyors to be in a position to do that after about a month’s training. As well as increasing the supply, we are working closely with RICS and other parties to narrow the scope of when EWS1 is required. You should not need to have an assessment of an external wall system in buildings under 11 metres. There is less latitude in buildings above 18 metres, and a number of buildings between 11 metres and 18 metres will also not require an EWS1. It is only in the event that they are covered with some kind of external cladding system to a great degree—let us say, more than 25%.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

Why do the Government not require every local authority to publish the addresses of all buildings falling under cladding fire risk categories? Is the FOI response from the DCLG of 12 March last year refusing such information still valid where it spuriously states that

“disclosing it would be likely to endanger the safety of individuals”

and

“could enable someone to identify particular buildings”,

usable by “those with malicious intent”? That could apply to any inflammable building, a chalet or indeed any temporary building.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, it is sensible to be very careful about the dissemination of information about the precise locations of buildings with flammable material. We need to recognise that there are potentially people out there with malicious intent. It is right and proper that we keep information that would enable people to identify those buildings confidential as far as possible.

Mobile Homes (Requirement for Manager of Site to be Fit and Proper Person) (England) Regulations 2020

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, having been in dispute with the powers that be over the peremptory truncation of this debate, I shall simply place on record the comments of Ros Pritchard, who heads the British Holiday & Home Parks Association, the lead trade body. She wrote:

“We are concerned that the fit-and-proper scheme as proposed will not meet its objective as a deterrent to the worst site owners. We feel that the bureaucratic system will give official fit-and-proper endorsement to park owners already denounced as rogues. We provided evidence to the Government about fit-and-proper regimes introduced in Wales which led to not one application being refused under a tick-box approach. Sadly, this system has given an endorsement to some of the very park owners already denounced as rogues. We also provided evidence showing how powers provided to local authorities under the Mobile Homes Act 2013 were simply not used or used ineffectively. Councils have neither resources nor expertise to implement these essential powers. Their legal departments feel forced to adopt a cautious approach to mobile homes regulations. When faced with applications by rogue park owners with expert legal teams, they feel obliged to grant fit-and-proper endorsement to avoid expensive legal challenge. Where one authority approves, others who refuse will become more vulnerable to the legal challenges, thereby discouraging even more authorities from effective action. These regulations only require the manager to meet criteria about background. With the legal structure of the business easily arranged by rogue operators, many councils will lack both resources and expertise to question business practices. He who pays the piper will call the tune, despite the fit-and-proper status of appointed managers. Finally, why impose on local authorities a regime which unnecessarily only replicates the role of individual officers? Sadly, the only people that benefit on this system will be lawyers dealing with appeals following inconsistent decisions and not vulnerable homeowners who deserve the protection of effective licensing systems. We need government to ensure consistency, resource and expertise in tackling rogue park operators. These regs are not enough.”


That note from Ros, edited by me, deserves a full response from Ministers: if not today, then I hope they will put it in writing.