Pension Schemes Bill
Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
The noble Baroness cited a particular case and gave considerable detail about the circumstances. Is there any reason why the Committee cannot be told which authority it concerns? As things stand, there is no way that I or any other Member of the Committee could comment on that case. If the noble Baroness can tell us which authority it is, in the interest of transparency, I urge her to do so.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I have always been a supporter of transparency. I do not know the answer to the noble Lord’s question, but I will find out and let him know either the name of the council or the reason why I cannot give it to him. We have other examples that we are happy to share. I hope that answers the noble Lord’s question. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. It is an important issue and public money should always be open to scrutiny and deep thought about how we approach these issues. The noble Baroness, in introducing the amendments, quoted the significant switch round in the financial state of the Local Government Pension Scheme. She will be able to have an interesting discussion with her former colleagues, Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng, as to why exactly that has happened. They have had more influence on it probably than the actuarial profession.
My message essentially is, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. What we have here is the Official Opposition attempting to make a crisis out of a significant success. The Local Government Pension Scheme has been successful, as attested to by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, yet here we are being presented with it as if there is some crisis to address. We should recognise that, in actuarial terms, the financial management of the scheme has been a significant success. It is up to those suggesting reviews—two in this group of amendments and two more in the following group, which should more accurately be here—to explain, rather than providing anonymous details, what the problem is.
The context is that, compared to private sector funded schemes, where contributions have been increasing, what we are going to see in the coming year is the opportunity of significant cost reductions. This is for two reasons. First, it is because of the successes of Local Government Pension Scheme investments, with returns of around 9% per annum since the last valuations. As a result, that has generated significant surpluses—significant excess of assets over liabilities. I shall come back to that in a later group. Following the latest set of triennial valuations, substantial reductions will be available. It is up to individual authorities to make their decisions, but the opportunity will be there, certainly for most funds.
As far as actuaries who support and work within the local government sector are concerned, as I explained on Monday, this discussion comes as a bolt from the blue. What we really need in this area is stability. It would be far better to promote discussion first within the sector, with those who know what they are talking about, before producing these proposals, which inevitably lead to uncertainty.
It is not a surprise, given the environment we are in, that there has been no consultation on this, unlike the investment changes, because it is part of a programme that we see with amendments submitted later in this Bill. There are some people who just do not like successful collective pension provision. There is an agenda at work here. As I say, I do not oppose consideration of the issues, but we should understand where it is coming from.
It is important to understand that the last valuations were in 2022. The current valuations, as at 31 March last year, are under way and we do not yet have the full results. Early results have been provided and we know the direction of travel, but we do not know the final results, which is why I question the figures being quoted. We do not yet know the results over the sector as a whole of the current series of valuations. Any speculation about that outcome misses the point.
The second point I want to make is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the funding of local government pension schemes. They vary widely in their size. The staff membership has to be taken into account, and that varies, and you also have to understand that some of these funds have significant numbers of non-local government members through the admitted body process and each of those has to be assessed in a proper way. There is no way you can have a one-size-fits-all approach to the actuarial management of these funds. You need the professional knowledge and judgment of actuaries—you may think I am promoting my own profession—to decide what is the best approach.
Clearly, that judgment should be open to review and, of course, it has been reviewed. That is what is so nonsensical about these proposals. Under Section 13 of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013, the Government can ask for reviews of the funded public service schemes, which effectively means local government schemes. Indeed, such a review has been carried out and a full detailed report produced by the Government Actuary, setting out the approach that has been adopted, comparing the different approaches—there are four firms of actuaries, which all have slightly different approaches—reconciling them and judging the assumptions that have been made.
Broadly speaking, the Government Actuary has given these valuations a clean bill of health. Therefore, any suggestion that there is anything wrong about the actuarial approach that is being taken is denied by the Government’s own actuarial adviser. Funds need to take account of local needs and public interest has a role in deciding how services can be employed in these funds. There is no question of refund in these funds, but the way in which it affects contributions is crucial.
Another point, which I think the noble Baroness ignored, is that these funds are all subject to the cost- capping arrangements set out in the coalition Government’s review of public service pensions of 14 or 15 years ago. There is a cost cap. I made a note of what the noble Baroness said: that the full cost of the contributions “bears on the employers”. That is just wrong. It bears on the employers and the members together. It is the employers’ costs that are capped under legislation and it is the members who bear the risk of increasing costs and stand to enjoy the benefit of reducing costs. The cost cap is crucial in these schemes and to ignore its important role fails to understand what we are doing. I am sorry—I could go on, but I think the situation is clear.
There was just one other point—I will go on. It arises under the next group and it is the idea of a statutory funding standard. Of course, we tried that with private sector pension schemes and it was a disaster. Everyone agreed it was a disaster and we had to have a new system—whether the new system was any better is a matter for debate. However, the idea of having a statutory funding standard just did not work.
To conclude—I hope it is a conclusion this time—there is no evidence that the existing system has failed. Indeed, we expect to see the benefits of the current approach when we decide what these funds should be in the light of the forthcoming valuation results.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
There is a phrase, “esprit d’escalier”—is that how you say it?—for when you are walking down the stairs and you suddenly think of the thing you wish you had said in a previous discussion. Well, this group of amendments provides an ideal opportunity to avoid that very problem.
I do not want to delay the Grand Committee unnecessarily but I feel forced to say something. In essence, these amendments are fundamentally misconceived. I do not object to these questions being asked, but have the two previous speakers ever looked at a Local Government Pension Scheme valuation report? All the information for which they are asking and more is set out in those reports, in accordance with the professional standard that all actuaries must meet.
It is worth saying that that professional standard is set not by actuaries but by the Financial Reporting Council, which sets technical standards for the actuarial profession. The profession looks after professional standards but technical standards, and specifically what should appear in a valuation report, are set by the Financial Reporting Council, which is not part of the actuarial profession. Obviously, there is big actuarial input, but the final decision is made by the council, and all the information called for by the noble Viscount and the noble Baroness is in those reports. Of course, there may be cases where it does not appear in those reports, in which case that is a case of technical malpractice and the Financial Reporting Council should be told.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I apologise for intervening, but I feel that there is a bit of misdescription here. Yes, it is true that Regulation 64, for example, includes this information, but the FRC does not have the authority to insist on these issues being fed through. Indeed, there is non-statutory guidance that seems to override all this. For example, it says that you should not consider changes in contribution rates on the basis of liabilities that have changed due to market changes, so the interest rate environment, which has changed so fundamentally, is supposed not to feed through to the conclusions on contribution rates. That is part of this mindset which, I feel, it is so important for us to try to adjust as we go forward, given the fundamental changes that have happened.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I apologise, but I do not understand what the noble Baroness is saying. Actuaries have to comply with these professional standards; any valuation report they produce has to meet them—that is not a question for debate. If a report does not meet those standards, it should be pursued on its merits. To claim that this information is not available is simply untrue: it is there in the valuation reports. I always have problems with the word “transparency”, because to me it looks like something you can see through and you cannot see it, but I take it to mean that a full explanation of the degree of prudence, a wide evaluation of the assumptions chosen, what effect different assumptions would have and the outcome in terms of the contribution rate all have to be set out. They are publicly available.
The second point is that actuaries do not decide on the valuation assumptions; the management committee decides, on actuarial advice, what the assumptions should be. The local, democratically elected representatives take the decisions, including about what the contribution rate should be. We are currently in an odd state where lots of information on the situation is becoming available, but that is because we are at the end of a three-year cycle of valuations. By the end of this year, all these issues will have been resolved. Not everyone will be pleased; it is entirely possible that some admitted bodies will find that their contributions go up. Perhaps they had significant changes in their workforce—who knows? But the mere fact that some contribution rates go up while the overall move is a reduction does not in itself mean that the system is broken.
I find it difficult to understand what exactly these amendments intend to achieve. The information is available, the decisions are made by the local government bodies involved, and they take the decisions based on their democratic responsibility. What more could we want?
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
Perhaps I could assist the Committee. These amendments are asking for a publicly available report that clarifies and sets out all this information on a basis that council tax payers, for example, whose money is being used, can see with clarity: it is provided to them. With all due respect, they will not read the actuarial report, but having a properly set-out review that explains all this clearly, in language that people can understand, would have huge value.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I shall just comment on Amendment 19. To summarise what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, said, there are actuaries’ reports that have all this information, and actuaries understand those reports. Amendment 19 concentrates on publishing something in a form accessible to employers and the public, and I think that that is very important, because actuarial practice is quite difficult to understand sometimes. It cannot be assumed that a member of the public could understand actuarial language. We need to be able to communicate in a way that is accessible to the people who actually bear the costs of the local authority pension scheme—the council tax payers. I do not think that that is met by the actuaries’ reports, which doubtless comply with all kinds of standards issued by the FRC and long-standing actuarial practice but, in my limited experience of looking at these things, are pretty difficult to understand.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I do not think that I said that it was okay if actuaries understood the report even if no one else did. I have in front of me the last valuation report from the pension panel of the London Pensions Fund Authority. I have been looking through it and I think that it is a wonderful example of presenting difficult actuarial information in a way that is understandable to any member of the fund who is prepared to put a modicum of effort into understanding it. The report starts with a very clear and concise executive summary, picking out the important points, then goes through all the issues that need to be explained, around levels of prudence and why particular assumptions have been made. It is all in there, with lots of appendices alongside if you want a deep dive into the detailed data.
I do not think I said that these reports were understandable only by actuaries; these are big commercial organisations which support their clients by providing information in an accessible manner. That is part of their job and it is what I always tried to do when I was a scheme actuary. The feedback that I received was that people were pleased to understand what was happening to their money.
Lord Fuller (Con)
In my scheme, and in the one that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, talked about, we take pride in what we do—but if only all the schemes did that. The value of these amendments is in taking the best schemes, which set the bar, and making sure that other schemes meet that bar in terms of transparency. Just a few of them doing it is not good enough; we want all of them to be doing it.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I was coming to a conclusion anyway, so I will not detain your Lordships any further. I have made the points that I wanted to make.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
At the risk of receiving a glare from my Whip, I feel I have something to contribute to this group as well.
I will first make a general point. If noble Lords and noble Baronesses are going to quote specific examples, we need chapter and verse in order to understand what is happening. If we are just given figures, we are meant to absorb and draw some conclusion from them, which is not possible; we need to know chapter and verse of any examples that noble Lords quote so we can analyse and see what is really going on in that particular case. I have to say that my assumption is that, with all the examples we have been given, there is a readily available, understandable situation, and somewhere along the line there has been a failure of understanding.
On Amendment 20, my question for the noble Baroness, which she sort of answered, was: why is this amendment required? I think we were told that it is all too difficult, but of course it is not all too difficult. There is a big example: the London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which has a Conservative-controlled council, earlier this year made an interim change in its contribution rate to zero because its investment policy had been so successful. It is worth noting that it has a very successful investment policy and it is one of the smallest local government funds—something to bear in mind during the other debates on the Bill.
There is a question: how often should you undertake a valuation? There is a strong argument for three years because that provides some level of stability to the council’s finances. You have to remember that, over the last year or two years, a council may be paying too much or it may be paying too little, but that is not money down the drain; it either goes into the fund or does not, and it will be available or not available at the end of the three-year period. The money does not disappear if contributions are up, and it will be reflected in the future contributions that that council will pay.
I am also concerned that of course an employer will seek a review when it thinks its contribution is going to go down. I bet it will not seek a review if it thinks its contribution is going to go up, which provides exactly the sort of ratchet effect that the noble Baroness said she wanted to avoid. So it would be perfectly practical to do a valuation every year with the strength of the computers we have available now. It a long time since the day when I had to sit at a large square sheet of paper and do all the figures by hand: you just run the computer and there are the figures. I am sure the consulting firms will be happy to get all the additional fee income, but does it actually produce the advantages that we are told will be achieved through this amendment?
I note the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. I think it is a very valid point. It is a shame that whatever the local government department is called nowadays has not been involved with the Bill; it could have brought some perspective to where we are.
On Amendment 20A and benchmarks, I draw the attention of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, to a regular report from a group whose name I shall not get right—but there is a national group of local government pension schemes. Following each valuation, it produces a detailed report providing all the information she asks for. Again, the information is available. She is asking for this information, when it is already easily available online. On my iPad, I can look up all the information which it is being suggested is being hidden away. The importance of the Local Government Pension Scheme is obvious, and obviously there should be transparency, but the idea being promoted that we do not know what is going on in these funds is gravely unfair to the pension schemes concerned.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I shall now respond to Amendments 20 and 20A. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Stedman-Scott and Lady Altmann, for tabling them. Amendment 20 seeks to revise the existing LGPS regulations to make it easier for employers in the scheme to request interim reviews of contribution rates. I welcome the intention to increase flexibility in how surpluses in the LGPS are treated, but it is crucial for any flexibility to be underpinned by robust safeguards to protect the long-term funding position of those funds. It is important, equally, to make the distinction between how surpluses are treated in the LGPS scheme and in other defined benefit schemes. At the risk of repeating my words on the previous group, within other defined benefit schemes, trustees can choose to release surplus where scheme rules allow. Clauses 9 and 10, which we cannot wait to get to, will increase that flexibility.
In the LGPS, the triennial valuation process already ensures that contribution rates are reviewed every three years and enables withdrawal of surplus through reduced contribution rates where it is prudent to do so. The interim review process is available as an additional mechanism to allow scheme employers, particularly those at risk of exiting the scheme, to seek lower contribution rates between valuations. Interim reviews may take place if it appears likely to the administering authority that the liabilities have changed significantly since the last valuation, if there has been significant change in the ability of employers to meet their obligations or if the employer has requested a review.
I welcome the call from noble Lords opposite to make interim reviews easier to understand and more transparent. I agree that regulations on interim reviews require revision, including on these points. Indeed, the department has already stated this in a letter to administering authorities—that was in March 2025. I understand the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, was making about the vicissitudes of the market and other changes that occur. Without wishing to be overly sarcastic, we could posit having reviews on an almost continual basis to try to anticipate market movements, changes in demographics or other external shocks. I am not for a minute suggesting that that was the intention behind the amendment, but it proves the point that, if we are going to break up the cycle of valuation, when and how we do it is a question for further debate. That possibly addresses some of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, was making as well. It is important that any changes to regulations are properly considered and avoid unforeseen consequences.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts(11 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friends Lord Wilson of Sedgefield and Lady Brown of Silvertown on their excellent maiden speeches. I am sure that the House will benefit from their membership.
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Tope; he has covered a number of the points that were going to be included in my speech and I agree with everything he has said. My views on housing are very much governed and guided by my experience as an inner-London borough councillor. However, I am not just going to talk about London; I also want to talk about older renters.
A Venn diagram shows that there is considerable overlap, with a higher proportion of older renters in London than anywhere else in the country. This is a particularly difficult issue which needs to be addressed. There is a crisis in London’s housing, driven by a combination of soaring rents, the lack of affordable housing and growing insecurity for tenants. With 2.7 million private renters, making up 31% of the capital’s housing market, many Londoners are struggling with rising costs, poor housing conditions and the threat of eviction.
Older renters in London are particularly vulnerable in this crisis. Many are long-term tenants on fixed incomes, facing significant rent hikes, leaving them at risk of eviction and potential homelessness. Unlike younger renters, older tenants often struggle to relocate due to mobility issues, limited financial means and a shortage of suitable age-friendly housing. Additionally, age discrimination and strong competition in the private rental sector make it harder for older people to secure new tenancies. This is a growing issue. Research from the charity Independent Age estimates that, over the coming 25 years, there will be a fourfold increase in the number of older renters.
Urgent action is needed, including rent controls, greater legal protections and stronger enforcement against rogue landlords. Without intervention, London’s rental market will continue to push vulnerable groups, especially older people, into precarious and unstable living conditions. Given the extent of the crisis in London, I make no apology for highlighting the views of London Councils, emphasising the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and by the Mayor of London on what is needed in addition to what is in the Bill.
The mayor and London Councils have broadly welcomed the Renters’ Rights Bill as a crucial step towards improving the private rented sector in the capital. However, they have highlighted key areas where further government action is needed to address the capital’s severe housing pressures, growing homelessness and stretched local authority resources. We will need to address the issues they have raised during the Committee stage.
The mayor and London Councils support the abolition of Section 21 no-fault evictions, which have been a major driver of homelessness in London: 5,000 Londoners faced homelessness due to Section 21 evictions in the last fiscal year, which is an 18% increase on the previous year. Greater protection for tenants is set out in the Bill, but the mayor, for example, has also called for rent control powers to be devolved to London, while London Councils, as we have heard, supports strengthened tenant protections against sudden rent increases through a fairer tribunal process and an extended notice period of two months.
Both bodies have expressed concerns about the new regulatory and enforcement responsibilities being placed on local authorities. Councils will be responsible for enforcing the decent homes standard in a private rental sector where 134,000 properties failed to meet this standard. With London boroughs already facing a £500 million funding shortfall for the forthcoming year, additional enforcement duties will be unsustainable without government funding. London Councils has urged the Government to undertake a full new burdens assessment to ensure councils can implement the reforms effectively.
We also need stronger protections against rental discrimination. They call for the regulation of guarantor requirements, which discriminate against older people, who find it more difficult to obtain such guarantees, in addition to migrants and low-income renters. The Bill should also ensure better access to compensation for renters who have faced discrimination, with a lower burden of proof for claims.
I am running out of time, so I will just emphasise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and my noble friend, about extending protection to asylum accommodation. The mayor and London Councils have highlighted the substandard conditions in Home Office-provided asylum accommodation. We need an extension of the decent homes standard to cover asylum accommodation, the application of Awaab’s law and the new renters’ ombudsman to cover asylum housing, ensuring that asylum seekers and refugees receive the same legal protections as other renters.
Social Care Strategy
Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, for introducing this debate and for her fantastic introduction. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Keeley on her excellent maiden speech and add that I would really like to give my noble friend Lady Donaghy a virtual hug.
I want to make a joint or double point: carers deserve pensions—decent pensions. I am talking here about paid carers and unpaid carers. As far as paid carers are concerned, we had this great promise in the Labour manifesto of a fair pay agreement in the care industry. It would be a sector-collective agreement that would set fair pay terms and conditions along with training standards. That has to include decent pensions. I suspect that, because of the nature of employment within the care sector, relying on existing automatic enrolment provisions will not be sufficient. I hope that, in establishing the arrangements for the fair pay agreement, the need to consider pensions is built in and not there simply as an afterthought.
The treatment of unpaid carers and their lack of decent pensions—I have addressed this issue many times before—is one of the prime reasons for the gender pension gap. Whatever we may say about shared responsibilities, in practice it is women who end up undertaking the great majority of unpaid care. They do not get any pension, yet we have a pension system which relies on people earning. The basic state pension is not enough; they need a pension in addition, but do not get one because they are not being paid. Well, the state needs to provide them with additional pension top-up. I am not going to set out too much detail now about how that should be done but, for me, the most attractive option is some form of pension credits. In addition to the normal state pension, for the years that you provide unpaid care, whether for children or parents, you should receive additional credits for additional state pension. I hope that my noble friend will acknowledge these issues, which we will need to discuss.
Affordable Housing: Supply
Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, on a tremendous speech, one that I—as someone with forebears from the beautiful island of Ynys Môn, or Anglesey if you prefer, one of the most beautiful places in the world—particularly welcome. She is very welcome, and I am sure will be a tremendous asset to this House. I also thank my noble friend Lord Chandos for introducing this debate. In his and all the other contributions, a powerful case has been made. I am looking forward to the Minister’s reply. I hope she will adopt a constructive response to what has been said rather than just defending the Government’s record. We have to look to the future and to what needs to be done.
I am going to talk about the crying need for more council housing, especially but not necessarily for those on lower incomes. This need has become increasingly critical, given today’s housing crisis, which has been so ably laid out by previous speakers. I emphasise that I am talking about council housing: housing that is publicly owned and subject to a degree of democratic accountability, where tenants have secure tenancies and rents are, in general, substantially lower than in other forms of renting. As a result, as has been argued by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Council Housing, it offers the only real opportunity for mass affordable rented housing in the whole of the UK. There is obviously a significant role for other forms of social housing, but the long-term sustainable solution to the problems we face relies on council housing.
Extraordinarily, it is one of those areas of social policy where we know what works but, for one reason or another, are blind to what needs to be done. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, joined us briefly—he is not here now—to make the point from the opposite Benches about the success of the Macmillan housing programme. That depended on council housing; it was not done by private developers. The success of our new towns, to which I hope my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage will refer in winding up, relied on council housing. We know it works. Council housing provided millions of families with their first opportunity of a decent family home. For one reason or another, we choose to ignore that success.
The changes we have seen in housing during the last decades, have resulted in pushing low-income families into insecure, substandard housing, with overcrowding and—to an increasingly worrying extent—homelessness. Council housing has played a crucial role in ensuring a basic standard of living and security for all.
The case for expanding the use of council housing is grounded in both social justice and economic practicalities. First, I believe that housing is a fundamental human right, crucial for personal stability, dignity and family life. By providing more council housing, Governments can directly support those in need, fulfilling their basic responsibility toward their citizens. Secondly, as other speakers have mentioned, low-income families often spend a disproportionate amount of their earnings on housing, squeezing what is available for other essentials such as food, healthcare and education. More council housing, with socially appropriate rents, would increase disposable income levels, leading to greater consumer spending and more contentment with human life, but also economic growth. Thirdly, councils provide stable and affordable homes for low-income families, reducing their risk of homelessness with the associated social costs which come back on all of us. Finally, having a secure living environment can lead to better educational outcomes for children, greater employment opportunities for adults, and overall improved health for families. Not for nothing were health and housing in a single ministry in the Government following the last war. Good health requires and needs good housing.
From a broader perspective, increased investment in council housing can stimulate the economy. Construction projects—of which there are all too few at the moment—generate jobs, boost local businesses and can lead to the revitalisation of undeveloped areas.
Given the manifest need for more council housing, we must talk about the adverse, malign effects of right to buy. While the scheme has allowed many tenants to achieve home ownership and has been popular among those who have benefited from it, its long-term implications for the availability and affordability of housing have been malign. Clearly, there has been this massive reduction in the stock of social housing that has been referred to, but we have seen that many of those properties which were sold to create this property-owning democracy have been bought up by commercial letting agents. We end up with families still relying on rented accommodation, provided more expensively by the private sector and of not such a good standard.
That has led to a reduction in social cohesion and, although there is not time today to go through all the details, an adverse effect on the financial stability of local authorities—it is one of the major factors in why local authorities are facing the problems they are—and to lengthening housing lists and more people in need of accommodation. To address this problem, we require a comprehensive strategy involving the multiple stakeholders involved, but government at all levels must commit to long-term funding and policy support for council housing development. Public support is essential. Community involvement in planning and decision-making can ensure that developments meet local needs and integrate well with existing neighbourhoods.
I particularly emphasise the importance of cottage estates. That is the sort of housing people want to live in. All too often the financial rules on the development of new housing force the building of flats, which are fine for some, but the great majority of people want to live in the cottage estates that we built between the wars and during the 1950s, but which for some reason are no longer being built in the numbers people require. It is a matter of some concern that Goldsmith Street in Norwich, a Stirling prize-winning development that was built as council housing, is now to be sold off to the private sector for right to buy. This simply has to stop.
Increasing the availability of council housing is a pivotal step towards addressing the housing affordability crisis and the support that is required for low-income families. Not only will it provide the basic need for shelter, but it will serve as an economic catalyst and promote social equity. By prioritising this approach, Governments can make significant strides towards a more stable and just society.
Holocaust Memorial Day
Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, it is an honour to take part in this debate and to listen to everyone’s contributions. We are, of course, particularly affected by the testimony of my noble friend Lord Dubs, but all speakers have posed questions that for most of us like myself, who have had a life free of the sort of discrimination faced by too many people, make us ask, “What are we doing about the issue?”. That is the purpose of Holocaust Memorial Day. It is an issue of considerable gravity and historical significance because it relates to the Holocaust.
The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust’s website sets out:
“Holocaust Memorial Day is the day for everyone to remember the millions of people murdered in the Holocaust, under Nazi Persecution, and in the genocides which followed in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur”.
Clearly, we have to pay tribute to the work of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust for the amazing, extraordinary and dedicated work that they do. One of the key objectives, as set out in the Statement of Commitment for Holocaust Memorial Day, is:
“We pledge to strengthen our efforts to promote education and research about the Holocaust and other genocides. We will do our utmost to make sure that the lessons of such events are fully learnt”.
Clearly, this is a continuing task, a continual battle.
There is no question but that the Holocaust stands out in human history, when the systematic persecution and extermination of 6 million Jews took place under the Nazi regime during World War II. That is why, as a number of speakers have said, we must ensure that “never again” does not become a matter of ritual and is kept firmly in our minds and passed on to our children and our children’s children, echoing down the ages. For all of us, the Holocaust has to serve as a stark reminder of the consequences of hatred, discrimination and the erosion of basic human rights.
It is essential that, in addition to what other noble Lords have said, as well as spending time remembering victims, we remember the bravery of those who resisted the oppression and sought to protect the values of humanity. I take the opportunity of this debate to mention the courageous role played by trade unionists during those dark times. The Holocaust Day Memorial Trust points out that, on assuming power, the first people the Nazis targeted for arrest and imprisonment were political opponents, primarily communists, socialists and trade unionists. Dachau, one of the first Nazi concentration camps, opened in March 1933 to imprison political opponents, including trade unionists. Trade unions were disbanded in May 1933 and union leaders were arrested and incarcerated, or fled into exile. By the end of 1933, almost 27,000 people were imprisoned in concentration camps, the majority of whom were political prisoners.
Trade unionists played a crucial and perhaps overlooked role during the Holocaust. Driven by a commitment to justice and solidarity, they stood against the tyranny of the Nazi regime. They were aware that the principles of fairness, equality and workers’ rights were under direct threat. Despite the dangers they faced, many trade unionists defied the oppressive forces and resisted the erosion of the very fabric of society. They provided shelter, forged documents and facilitated escapes, risking their own lives to defy the Nazi authorities. The lesson for us now is how the courage and resilience of these trade unionists set a model for us to follow, to exert the power of collective action and the importance of standing up against injustice. We all have to ask ourselves what we would have done in those circumstances. They provide an inspiration that perhaps we could have joined in the fight—a fight that continues now.
When we reflect on the Holocaust and the contributions of the trade unionists, we must all renew our commitment to safeguard human rights, promote equality, and resist discrimination in all its forms. The lessons of history have to inspire us to be vigilant against the seeds of hatred and intolerance, and to foster a world where the principles of justice and solidarity prevail.
The theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day is to highlight the importance of protecting freedom. Will the Minister provide the House with an update on how the Government are supporting greater awareness that events leading to genocide can be subtle, and of the importance that we all recognise the conditions that can lead to persecution?
Representation of the People (Overseas Electors etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Khan of Burnley, following his excellent speech. I have just one additional point to add to this discussion. The argument is that these are British citizens and they should be entitled to vote. The thing about the way the rules will work in practice is that they will tend to be older voters, many of whom may even be past retirement age.
The issue I want to raise is frozen pensions. I am particularly pleased to see in his place the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, who is the relevant Minister. We have discussed these issues before. We have a Government who seem to think it appropriate for these people to have a vote, but who do not think it appropriate for them to have the pension increases they have paid for. It is a total lottery. If they live in the US, they get pension increases; if they live in Canada, they do not. If they live in New Zealand, they get increases; if they live in Australia, they do not.
The whole system is irrational—as rational as if the noble Viscount came to this House and tried to persuade us not to pay pension increases to people who live in Yorkshire. They are all British citizens; that is the basis of this proposal. My question for the Minister is, what logic is there in giving many British citizens who live abroad a vote if you are not going to give them their pension increases?
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, we were, I think, discussing the statutory instruments that relate to overseas voters and their registration, rather than a range of other matters. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, took us down a series of other paths. I will pick up on two or three of them very quickly. On voter ID, a resolution was passed by this House, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in a previous debate, whereby that process would be reviewed. Equally, the noble Lord made reference to a process that applies in the statutory instrument which is rarely used in this country but is already in law. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that this application should be extended elsewhere.
The noble Lord referred to postal votes in Australia and other parts of the world arriving after the actual polling date. I think I am correct in saying that in many of those domains, such votes have to be date stamped before or on the actual election day, so there is no extension to the election period by that application.
Returning to the SIs themselves, in any process of trying to extend the entitlement to vote, there is a risk that you reduce the level of security of voting. That is inevitable. Whether it is postal votes, an extended period of voting, votes abroad or whatever it may be, there is an increased risk. The question is, how do you find that balance between extension and security of the ballot? These SIs apply the process that was established under the Elections Act a few months ago. Therefore, I do not see a particular issue with them.
On the question of trying to achieve some form of financial largesse, I wish that the noble Lords, Lord Khan and Lord Rennard, had been present—as I think my noble friend Lord Mott and other noble Lords will have been—at meetings of overseas Conservatives, who were certainly not promising vast quantities of money in return for the opportunity to vote. It was just a genuine desire for the opportunity for a vote in a country to which, as the noble Lord, Lord Khan, acknowledged, those people who are most likely to register do still feel committed.
The concentration is naturally on national elections, but we should also be conscious of local elections. As the Pickles report identified, if those have insecure systems, you are far more likely to end up with a corrupt and influenced local authority, many of which have huge budgets, than at a national election, where it would be much more difficult to overturn the result by the levels of registration, which, to be honest, I expect. However, if the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, is taken up—Members of Parliament having constituencies around the world—I am sure that a number of people would be happy to represent Spain, the Canary Islands or France, for example, rather than some of the domains they have in this country. I say that in respect of all sides of the House, not necessarily this side alone.
I will not be supporting the amendment. I approach all these matters with great consideration because they are important, and my reasoning is twofold. First, as I see it, these SIs implement the process that was approved by the Elections Act. They do not result in an undue threat. There are other processes and aspects of election law which are far bigger threats than this. Cyberattacks have been referred to, as has AI in one form or another, along with dubious registration and intimidation.
Two aspects are particularly important. First, as I think Members on all sides of the House agree, electoral law is a complete mess and needs to be consolidated quickly, so that we do not face the problems we do. Secondly, there is the burden imposed on elections administrators, which has also been alluded to. When I was young and an election occurred, you registered and did everything months or years in advance. Now, there is an elections event, which takes place over three weeks, and everything is concentrated into it. We should not underestimate the burden imposed on elections administrators in any number of different ways. If our elections system fails, it will be because our electoral law is inadequately clear—it is a mess—or because the administrators just cannot cope.
It is for those reasons that I will be supporting the Government’s Motion and not the amendment.
Windrush: 75th Anniversary
Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I join all speakers in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for introducing this important debate. I have three questions.
First, the Windrush generation has given the UK so much, since docking at Tilbury to help us rebuild our country after the war—extra hands that were so sorely needed. However, those people have also contributed dance, art, writing, cuisine and music, which have done so much to enrich British culture. Do the Government recognise that the Windrush generation has made such an important contribution, which merits a jubilant celebration on the 75th anniversary? Can they give an unequivocal commitment to supporting and sponsoring such a celebration?
Secondly, we cannot avoid the Windrush compensation scheme in this debate. It is a scandal. If there is any doubt about the extent of the scandal, I invite people to read the Commons debate that took place in Westminster Hall, when MP after MP expressed the problems that they faced in their constituencies. It seems that the Home Office would rather make gestures to change but continue with the same culture. The only solution is to take the scheme out of the Home Office and transfer it to an independent organisation that will properly deliver the compensation due.
If the Government are serious about giving the generation its due, they should commit to enact in full all the recommendations of the Wendy Williams review. They should not mark their own homework but should invite Wendy Williams to come back and tell us whether her recommendations have been fulfilled.
Thirdly, there should be a celebration; that is absolutely clear. The lead in determining the form of that celebration should come from the Windrush generation itself—this is absolutely essential—although, in conclusion, I hope I might be forgiven for suggesting that Brixton should have an important role in such a celebration.
Housing Market
Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a relatively short debate so far, but it has been a privilege to be here and listen to contributions and, inevitably, to the magnificent introductory speech of my noble friend Lady Taylor. I think it has set a difficult standard that not all of us reach.
We have a very broad subject before us. I am going to focus on the private rental market in London. It is arguable that, because of the nature of London, the private rental market is particularly important because of the people who come to London, how long they stay here and the sort of people they are. The problem is that the private rental market in London is failing.
First, I will say a word about London. It is, of course, the greatest city where all human life can be found. To pick up a point from the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, we welcome people to London from all over the world. They are welcome and we regard them as being a net benefit to our life—even taking account of the decent housing with which they must be provided. The important point is that the success of London is not counterposed to the success of the rest of the country. I would argue, though it is not always a popular argument, that the success of the rest of the country depends on a successful London. To a significant extent, because of the particular and distinct importance of the private rental market in London, the success of the country depends on a functioning private rental market in London. This echoes the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that it is an economic issue; decent housing is not just about accommodation but about the whole economy and its success.
The 2021 census estimated that London’s population stood at 8.8 million. It is forecast to grow, heading towards 10 million on some estimates. Of course, that is a churning population: people come, and people leave. I find it difficult to understand why they leave—I have stayed. The private rental housing market in London does not serve the purposes of this rotating population. This is in the context of our worsening cost of living crisis; the fiscal Statement earlier today forecast that things are going to get worse over the next few years.
Already, more and more Londoners, particularly those in private rental accommodation, are finding it such a struggle to make ends meet and to afford their basic needs. They are faced with a situation where, as the GLA reported this year, in
“March 2022, the median rent for a privately rented home in London was £1,450 per … month, … twice as high as the median in England as a whole … London’s rents are so much higher than those of other regions that the median monthly rent for a one-bedroom home in the capital (£1,225) is higher than the median rent for a home with four or more bedrooms across all of the North and Midlands.”
Following the success at moving away from Covid—I am not suggesting that we have solved the problem, but we are in a favourable trend—rents are now increasing faster than the temporary respite they had during the Covid pandemic. Zoopla reports that average rents in London were 17.8% higher this July than they were in the year before.
As I have explained, London’s economic success depends on a successful privately rented housing sector, alongside an important role for social housing. I gave a speech on social housing in this Chamber last week on the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in which I emphasised the importance of council housing. I will not repeat that, although it is worth repeating it again. I discussed Harold Macmillan’s success, when he was Housing Minister, of achieving the then Conservative Government’s target of 350,000 new houses a year, many of which, I assume, were in Stevenage—so it can be done. However, I will not address that on this occasion; noble Lords can read my detailed contribution in Hansard.
Instead, I will continue to focus on private rental housing. I do not go along with the idea of demonising private landlords. I do not assume that they set out to provide poorly maintained stock at excessive costs, but clearly there are problems. The GLA, which I will cite again, has undertaken a survey of private tenants, finding that
“55% of private renting households in London”—
only 55%—
“said they were satisfied with … their accommodation”.
In other words, 45% were dissatisfied—representing an increase from 33% two years previously. The underlying problem we must confront is the inevitable tension that arises between, on the one hand, the provision of a human service—in this case, housing, which should be a social right that is available, of a good standard and affordable—and, on the other, a service that is being provided commercially. As we operate it at the moment, it is to the detriment of the people who are in the private rental sector.
I am glad that the issue of Airbnb was mentioned, because that is creating particular tension in some areas of London. However, I am not talking about Airbnb or the high-value rentals available to those on high incomes; I am talking about the lower-cost housing for people on incomes that are lower than average and who cannot afford to buy, but who need or want to work in London for employment, family or other reasons.
There is the oddity and counterintuitive fact that it is often more expensive to rent than it is to buy the house, provided that you have some capital in the first place. People are in the fix that they cannot afford to save to buy a house, because they are paying too much in rent. It is in that light that, again, these GLA figures tell us that 40% of London’s private renters are likely to struggle to make their rent payments in the next six months—so we have an immediate crisis.
The mayor, Sadiq Khan, held a housing crisis meeting earlier this week with representatives of the housing sector, and they are calling for greater security and safety for London’s private renters. I support the mayor’s call on the Government to introduce a two-year rent freeze, analogous to holding down the cost of energy, to address the soaring costs of living in London. Such a freeze has been introduced in Scotland. The Government should represent the democratic mandate that the mayor achieved; he fought on the basis of achieving this rental freeze, and we should look to the Government to support him in achieving this policy.
Housing (Built Environment Committee Report)
Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for introducing this report. A bit to my surprise, I found myself agreeing with virtually everything he said. I mainly thank the committee for its hard work in this important area. Given the nature of an all-party report, it is excellent, covering the whole territory. There is much to learn.
I will focus on one part of the report, which simply states:
“There is a serious shortage of social housing”.
I want to make one straightforward point on the importance of council housing. We face some public policy problems to which there is no obvious solution, but we have other problems to which we do know the solution. History tells us what the solution is but, for some reason, we avoid the obvious. We know from history that the way to obtain a bigger supply of social housing is to build council houses.
I could quote the experience of the 1964 Labour Government—there is justification for that—but I am going to look at the 1951 Conservative Government. I have been rereading Harold Macmillan’s autobiography. There is much to learn. As I read, I had to ask myself whether he would have a place in today’s Conservative Party. I think the answer is no, but I do not know; obviously, he was a man of many parts. He was the Minister for Housing from 1951. He inherited a decision of the Conservative Party conference that it wanted to build 300,000 houses a year—an interesting figure. Of course, it is worth stressing that this was new-build and at the same time, it was having to undertake a massive restoration of the housing stock, which had been destroyed or run down during the war.
Macmillan set about achieving that objective. In 1953, there was a White Paper, Houses: The Next Step. I will quote for noble Lords the biography of Harold Macmillan by Charles Williams, which says that, after the White Paper, Macmillan realised that he would
“have to persuade his own colleagues that the only way to meet the promise given to the electorate”—
the manifesto promise—
“was to engage in a sustained programme of local authority housing.”
He goes on to explain that
“the only way to achieve the housing target was by subsidising local authorities to build for rent. In other words, council housing was to have the top priority.”
By way of background, during the subsequent debate in the Commons, Macmillan gave a routine acceptance of a property-owning democracy. His whole argument was that, as a long-term aim, property ownership was fine. However, Williams states:
“Council housing for rent was the only way to meet the political objective he had been set—and which he was determined to achieve.”
We have the same target now and the same means of achieving it; that is the true meaning of the shift.
Many years ago, when I was a member of a local authority, people said, “We shouldn’t be subsidising bricks. We should be subsidising people”. That is clearly wrong. The only way to solve a housing shortage is to build houses, and the most direct and simple way to achieve that is through a massive council housing programme.
Inequalities of Region and Place
Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I join in the congratulations to my noble friend Lord Stansgate. I wrote that it was an “excellent” maiden speech in my prepared notes, but we should change that to “outstanding”. It is such a pleasure to join him once again after our time working together on the late, lamented Inner London Education Authority. He will be a considerable asset to the House as someone who is clearly in command of his subject and who will stand up for science.
I also thank my noble friend Lord Liddle for initiating this important debate on a matter that is central to our country’s future. He has brought a necessary note of realism to this issue. I agree with his conclusions and one point I add, where I am sure he shares my concerns, is the need for greater involvement of trade unions in the process of renewal.
The approach of the Motion, in contrast to the bluster from the Prime Minister, is stark. The Prime Minister claims to have a policy—levelling up—but in truth all he has is a slogan in search of a policy. We all know this. I never thought I would say this, but I find support in that view from the Adam Smith Institute, the right-wing think tank. Commenting on the Prime Minister’s final speech at the Conservative Party conference, the Adam Smith Institute’s head of research, Matthew Lesh, said:
“The Prime Minister’s rhetoric was bombastic but vacuous and economically illiterate.”
I also agreed with the Adam Smith Institute when it said that:
“Levelling up so far consists of little more than listing regions and their local produce”,
and that the Prime Minister
“throws out impressive-sounding economic terms like ‘Pareto improvements’ to hide the fact that he lacks policies to drive growth.”
I do not agree with all the institute’s comments, but it went on to say that the Prime Minister’s policy
“was an agenda for levelling down to a centrally-planned, high-tax, low-productivity economy.”
We already have a low-productivity economy, and apart from the rhetoric there is nothing to suggest that the Government have got to grips with this issue. But when we come to the suggestion that the Prime Minister’s policies represent a move to a centrally planned, higher-tax economy, your Lordships might think that this is something I, as a socialist, might favour. Unfortunately not, at least not in the version presented to us by the Government. To the limited extent that there is a policy hiding behind a slogan, it consists of expecting water to run uphill—futile and ignorant.
Of course, as the Motion suggests, we need a coherent, cost-effective and long-term strategy. I have one note of caution, as mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. Casting this as a regional issue runs the risk of ignoring the real problems we face in London. All human life is in London, from great wealth to extreme economic hardship. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours correctly mentioned the injustices of the rating system, but north Westminster encounters as great social problems as the north of England, and any policies instituted need to recognise that.
In conclusion, I end with another quote from the Adam Smith Institute:
“Shortages and rising prices simply cannot be blustered away with rhetoric about migrants. It’s reprehensible and wrong to claim that migrants make us poorer. There is no evidence that immigration lowers living standards for native workers. This dogwhistle shows that this government doesn’t care about pursuing evidence-based policies.”
In no area of policy is that more stark than the vacuum that fills the space which purports to be levelling up.