Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 13th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, this has been an extensive and fascinating debate. We on these Benches support the call for a ban on cold calling, as laid out in Amendments 72 and 73. As to which is the right formulation, the answer is probably neither of them as they stand, but we can work on that between now and Report.

My noble friend Lady Drake argued for a well-regulated market and the need for access to justice. That is not inconsistent with a ban on cold calling; it seems to me entirely consistent. I hope that deals with the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.

We have heard some very powerful presentations. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, introduced the amendment with a range of statistics. His term was “omnipresent menace”, which has been demonstrated extensively in this afternoon’s debate. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said that such cold calling was a social nuisance of massive proportions, and I agree. For me, it interrupts my slumbers on the sofa on the Sunday afternoon, but that may be a minor inconvenience.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, said it was an industry we could do without. My noble friend Lady Drake dealt with that point: we need a well-regulated industry because we need a means of helping people reach justice.

[Lord Deben]

I am sorry; it was a slip of the tongue. It is a mechanism which we could do without from this industry.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I take the noble Lord’s point.

The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, made the interesting point that some of the behaviours that the existence of cold calling has generated have an impact on our reputation not only here in the UK but around the world. Many other points were made, all in favour of a ban on cold calling.

We should reject the suggestion that we should shy away from such a move because the Government have perhaps set their face against it for the time being. Anybody from outside the Chamber who has listened to this debate would readily see the consensus reflected on all these Benches. We should test the democracy of this Chamber and bring forward amendments that are in scope but focus on claims management as a start. We realise that the Ministers are not unsympathetic, so it would help them in their cause of persuading Secretaries of State and the wider mechanisms of government to support the measure. The Government have done the right thing, although too slowly, on pensions; here is an opportunity to follow that up swiftly and ban cold calling for claims management operations as soon as we can. We should do that quickly.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Does the noble Lord accept that there are plenty of ways to promote good health and safety practice without forcing safety reps through the processes in the Bill, with the risks that run from the subsequent clause, under which they could be restricted?

[Lord Deben]

There are plenty of good ways, but I have to say to the noble Lord, having said that I agree with so much of what he has to say, that in the world of the internet, when everyone expects to be able to know everything, it is an odd argument to say that we should not know how much time is spent on this. I just think that that is not of 2016; it is the kind of argument people used 20 years ago. Today we need to know. We need to use those figures in order to point out that this borough spends very little time on health and safety while that borough spends much more, and it is about time that I as a taxpayer in a particular borough could say, “I don’t think my council is behaving properly”. If I do not have the figures then I cannot make that point.

I quite agree with the noble Lord about the consequences if this were used to push down the unions, but I have no evidence whatever that this Government, or any previous Conservative Government, have done that on health and safety. All I am saying is that I know of no evidence of that. I can imagine that in some areas suspicions might arise, and indeed I might find myself equally suspicious, but on this particular measure I do not think that is a fair assertion.

Still, it gives me an opportunity to say to the Minister something that I think needs to be said more often. Just because certain popular newspapers find ridiculous things that health and safety has insisted upon, and just because it is true that many local organisations fail to do the things that they used to because some unnecessary intervention by health and safety has suggested that it might be dangerous—children might fall over or something untoward might happen—that does not mean to say that we should not continually press for better health and safety in our workplaces. I particularly want to make the point about health and safety as far as hearing is concerned; we still have far too many people who retire to an old age of deafness because the health and safety provision has not been satisfactory.

In supporting my noble friend’s view about this amendment I would like to hear from her a very robust defence of the need for health and safety, the role of trade unions in ensuring that, and a determination to use the knowledge which we get from the Bill to ensure that those public sector bodies which do not treat this seriously enough can now be pinpointed because we shall know that they are not giving the time off which they should for the trade unions to play the part that they ought to play on health and safety.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Monday 29th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I know that opposition to motherhood and apple pie is always disliked in this House, but the impression put forward by these amendments is very worrying. Do we have any indication that the governance of London has been affected by this, because any sensible mayor of any denomination would do the useful things that are listed here? However, some of them mean very little. For example, what can we take from subsection (2) of proposed new Section 117B, which states that any body or person a combined authority considers consulting must include any council within its area and,

“bodies of each of the descriptions specified in subsection (3)”?

Those bodies in subsection (3) include:

“(a) voluntary bodies some or all of whose activities benefit the whole or part of its area;

(b) bodies which represent the interests of different racial, ethnic or religious groups in its area;

(c) bodies which represent the interests of persons carrying on business in its area”.

Are there any bodies of any kind whatever not covered by that? It makes no sense. It is a list of things. Will a decision by the mayor be illegal which did not follow a discussion with a particular body providing for the interests of a small number of people in a particular ethnic group for whom it was not appropriate? This is a list of things which are good, valuable and helpful but totally not useful in the activities which we envisage the mayor carrying through.

It would be perfectly reasonable to say that the mayor should have serious concern about sustainable development; that he should have appropriate consultation; that it would be a good idea to ensure that transport strategies were,

“consistent with national policies and with such international obligations as the Secretary of State may notify to the mayor for the purposes of this section”.

However, I have my doubts about whether it would make any difference. If there are things to be said, they should be said when they are necessary. There should not be merely a list of things about which we can all feel warm because we have voted in favour of reminding people that it is a good idea to consult.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments of my noble friend Lord Berkeley reasonably probe the Government and focus on issues which should underpin a combined authority’s operations and strategies. There are issues around the health of people in the area and around sustainable development, about which my noble friend always speaks with passion. I know the Minister’s answer will be, “You can ask for all these things; you may well get these things in a deal; but you do not have to have them in the Bill”

The consultation requirements in these amendments are a little more specific than one would like, even if one were in support of putting them in the Bill. The issue here is to encourage all the deals that take place under these devolution proposals to have, as their underpinning, issues around sustainable development and the health of people in the area. I am sure the Minister will tell us there is no reason why those issues should not feature in any deal that might be entered into. If that is not the case, there is a stronger case for putting something more specific in the Bill.

As to the strategic view on transport, if there is an argument for putting measures in the Bill it might be to hold the Government to account so that we do not proceed on an assumption of a northern powerhouse, with a big debate around connectivity, and hear a few days later that the funding is not there to deliver on it. That does not help trust between government and local authorities in creating an environment where devolution can work and where issues around sustainable development and the health of people in an area are at the forefront of the strategic operations of a combined authority.

Housing (Right to Buy) (Maximum Percentage Discount) (England) Order 2014

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Deben (Con)]

May I say how pleased many of us are that we have at least moved to this stage? It means that at least some of the money that goes from selling council houses goes back to building new ones. The trouble is that the Minister is saying, rightly, that this is the first time that this has happened, which is true—but both sides of the House should be pretty ashamed of what has happened before.

The truth is that the sale of council houses, for it to be sensible, should mean that you sell a house to somebody who lives in it and it is therefore not vacant for anyone else to live in, then use the money towards building houses that are not lived in and which new people can move into. At long last, we are doing this. But let us not kid ourselves—neither the Labour nor the Conservative Party has done this before, and that is what was wrong about the whole system. It was supposed to be circular and, as usual, the Treasury pinched the money, under both Labour and Conservative, because the Treasury never changes. So congratulations—and I hope that the Minister will press for all the money to go to local councils for this purpose.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

To be fair, I think that, in the past, not all the money was snaffled by the Treasury—I think that 25% went to local authorities. I was not pressing the point to be pedantic, but because it is a very bold statement about replacement to say that you will sell one house and another will replace it. That will be a very important policy, but as we pick away at it we see that it is not quite like that; it does not seem to be every house that is sold that will give rise to this replacement.

I am not sure that we can take the discussion much further, as I think that we need some facts and clarification on this. I would be very grateful if the Minister would write on this and share the answer, because my understanding is that the Government’s position is not as strong as I had understood it to be from the pronouncements that they had made on this.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Monday 28th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, let me say at the start that I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best. I was tempted to follow the Minister’s suggestion that we do not range more widely over this issue but I was sorely tempted by my noble friend Lord Davies, among others, to get into benefits policy, which I am very happy to talk about for a long time. I share my noble friend’s concerns.

Before I get into the detail of the amendment, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that the component that seems to be missing from the analysis is the value that accrues to landowners on development from the community granting planning permission and agreeing that they want their community to be in a certain way, as a mixed community. An alternative might be to have special taxes that you get from looking at the uplift in value from planning permission—I will come back on that point—and you might then have your national scheme. For as long as that does not exist, you surely need to recognise that by agreeing to grant planning permission the local community is giving value to the landowner and developer, and to those who are going to occupy the houses that are built on that land.

[Lord Deben]

There are two very quick things that the noble Lord has to take into account. One is: who pays that? I am merely saying that in our present circumstances, when people find it very hard to buy, first-time buyers and the rest of them are paying for that cost. Secondly, we have a little difficulty here because to have the view that planning permission is a privilege seems to be wholly against any concept of the right to property, which says you can do exactly what you like on it, if the community then decides that you are going to have that restricted. The noble Lord is entering a very much deeper philosophical discussion there. However, the crucial issue is: who pays it? If the person who pays is the one at the bottom end of the scale, as it very often is, we ought to ask whether it should be paid rather more generally. That is all.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

It seems to me that the value comes from the granting of planning permission in respect of the land. If you are going to argue that that has to be shared by the community as a whole, not just the local community, surely you need mechanisms to get that value raised and to redistribute it. You could not do it on the basis of the current tax system.

This takes me back to a point that I was going to make on the amendment. I recall that when I first went on Luton Council, in the mid-1970s, we had something called the Community Land Act, as I recall it, and the development land tax. It was then very much the name of the game for developers to go and dig a trench to demonstrate that they had started their development before those provisions kicked in. Normally, there was a photograph taken with somebody holding up a copy of the Times, or whatever, to validate that this was when they had actually dug the trench.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we have Amendments 16 and 18 in this group; I will start in reverse order with Amendment 18. This requires the Secretary of State,

“to ensure that there has been adequate consultation with the local community”.

Both of these amendments were pursued as amendments in Committee in the Commons.

The consultation document, hot off the press at that time, acknowledges that the planning committee stage obviously will be denied these processes. It is at this stage that the merits of any proposal would generally be considered in public. However, in a case which circumvents the local planning authority, it seems that the process for engaging with the local public will be left to the Planning Inspectorate to determine on a case-by-case basis. The presumption is that applications will be examined principally by written representations, with the option of a short hearing to allow the key parties to briefly put their points of view. These strictures do not seem to be supporting community engagement in a very fulsome manner. Is it not likely that, given a choice, a developer with a potentially unpopular development plan will opt for circumventing the local planning authority?

Evidence given in another place stresses the point that local communities will become increasingly reluctant to accept new developments if their voices are not to be heard. The tasks which the Secretary of State will delegate to the local planning authority may include site notices and neighbour notification, but there is no mention of a wider consultation—the very detailed points that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has just reviewed. Site notices on a lamp post are no substitute for a proper consultation—the interaction with local communities which frequently leads to changes in applications for the better, both for the community and for the developer, and helps drive quality decisions.

Written representations are not the preferred means of communication for everyone. Who does the Minister consider should be treated as “key parties” in this process? Will this always include the local planning authority? Given that the process and the scope of any consultation will be largely delegated to the Planning Inspectorate, what will the Secretary of State do to satisfy himself in the interests of good planning that the consultation with the local community is at least adequate?

Amendment 16 requires that any decision on an application falling to the Secretary of State because of designation must take full account of local and neighbourhood plans of relevant local authorities. One might have added the NPPF. We acknowledge that planning law requires that applications for planning permission are determined in accordance with the development plan, unless, of course, material considerations indicate otherwise. To that extent, the amendment might be seen as superfluous, but it gives me the chance to ask the Minister what will happen where updated plans are not yet in place, and whether the Secretary of State or the Planning Inspectorate will look to the NPPF, presumably as the local planning authority would.

There are issues around determining material considerations in any given situation. Might these be different when we are talking about a Secretary of State’s perspective and that of the local planning authority? There is doubtless a range of other considerations as well, but the amendment is probing whether the designation might not only involve a different speed of decision-making but could also mean that the criteria which in practice might be brought to bear could be different around the different perspective on material considerations and, if there is no local plan in place, around the perception and requirements of the NPPF.

[Lord Deben]

This is an important series of amendments because they bear on the very issue that we have all raised with the Minister as to the difficulties which arise because of the procedure initiated by this clause. There is a real issue here, and it is one for her to consider deeply. I heard what she said about this not being contrary to the localism agenda; I cannot say that I was entirely convinced, but she obviously is concerned that it should be consonant with the localism agenda. Surely, the one important thing in the localism agenda is that the public locally feel themselves involved. The nature of the kinds of applications which are likely to be referred to the Minister rather than to the local authority is that they will be controversial and particularly controversial locally.

I say to the Minister that, in my experience of being a Member of Parliament for nearly 40 years, the one thing people will not put up with is not being able to be heard. I would commend to her my experience of the campaign about how we should build Sizewell B. This was very successful; we got every local parish council—50 or so—to support that planning permission. We did it because we went round to every single one of them and discussed it. We put the case for and against. We listened and made sure that none of the discussions were dominated by incoming protesters from either side and were just done by the locality, so that by the time they finished hardly anybody could say—nobody could say truthfully—that they had not been involved.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Monday 14th January 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we are happy to support these amendments. They seek to remove a very extensive power which could draw a wide range of circumstances into the ambit of duties which cease to be actionable. As the Delegated Powers Committee put it, there is no discernible policy objective to the inclusion of the proposed new Section 47(2B). The scope could be incredibly wide: any provisions of any enactment which link to any matter relevant to any of the general purposes of the 1974 Act—that is the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. The Delegated Powers Committee has pointed to just one example: the control and keeping of dangerous substances. It is therefore absolutely right that the Government have backed off on this; they are very wise to do so. It is illustrative of a dangerous desire to accumulate draconian powers, but I am pleased that the Government have stepped back from that on this occasion.

[Lord Deben]

I welcome this, and ask the Minister to carry back the message that it is extremely valuable for people to listen to the advice given by committees. He may be involved in the forthcoming Bill which is entirely incorrectly called the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, in which there are some very uncooked suggestions. It would be of great help to the Committee were he to give an assurance that he will do his best to make sure that the Government listen with the same care to some of the suggestions that come from other committees as they appear to have done on this occasion in listening to the specialist committee that has advised this particular action.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Monday 17th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I hesitate to disagree with my noble friends on this subject but I would hope that the Minister will be careful before she automatically goes down the tempting line of adding cultural to the environment. The reason for that is very clear. First, I have to declare an interest: the division between the Department of the Environment and the Department for Culture was a huge mistake. But it was not made on the basis of a difference: it was made on the basis of personalities. It was set up in that way to provide particular jobs for particular people, which is why culture and sport were put together. As it was done by a Prime Minister whom I strongly supported, I do not think that people can complain about my point.

I do not think that the idea that there is an eternal justification for this distinction based on the division in government is acceptable. I understand the reason for it but it has some very dangerous aspects to it. Let me give a simple example. I have fought for a long time to protect the countryside in Suffolk—its environment and its beauty. Part of that is stopping the sea taking it away. One of the things that the previous Government did, which was wholly unacceptable, was to downgrade the nature of the heritage contribution to the environment by making the points that they scored when they came to discuss the issue of coastal defence. Without any discussion with the heritage lobby, they lowered the importance of heritage within the environment.

I cannot consider the environment without considering culture. I believe that “environment” is a word which covers our cultural heritage as much as it does—I am afraid I am going to insult people—woolly animals. One of the problems is that the environment is often talked about as if it is about woolly animals. It is not—it is about the whole ambience in which we live. To exclude culture from the environment, or to suggest that there is a distinction, seems to me to have very serious import. I would hope that a future Government would reunite the environment with culture. That is where it should be. It is much closer to that than, for example, the media, which seem to me to have only a tangential effect on it. Much of the media seems to me neither cultural nor environmental. I do not see that the media should therefore necessarily be in the same box. To be told that the future of legislation should be based on a mistaken decision in the past about divisions between Ministries seems to me to be a fault.

One of the problems the Government have got themselves into—I am sure my noble friend Lord Cormack will agree with this—is that some of the language that has been used in the context of planning has led people to believe that our commitment to our environment, be it the cultural environment or the natural environment, has been less than strong. I think that has subsequently been put right and has been remedied not only by my noble friend but by the Prime Minister and others. However, I beg my noble friend to be very careful about this. I know that the House wishes to move on, but I have stayed—I have not had temptation—for this amendment, because I think we have to stand firm on the statement that the environment is not just about the natural environment but that the urban environment, the cultural environment and the spiritual environment all fit in. If she gives way on this, I would argue that there ought to be amendments about the spiritual environment. We have had this before. If we are going to start dividing the environment up, I would find it unacceptable to leave the spiritual side of life out of the Bill. I am able to accept it because the word “environment” carries that meaning for me just as much as it implies the natural environment and the cultural environment.

I hope that the Government will take this very seriously and that those who lobby my noble friend Lady Hanham are told very clearly that if they have not managed to establish the idea that great poetry, plays, architecture and heritage are part of the environment, then they need to present their case more effectively.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I shall work back through the amendments, starting with Amendment 205A, which is tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I doubt whether the wording is actually necessary, as it is probably encompassed by what is already in the Bill, but I do think it is an admirable amendment and its thrust is certainly something we support. With regard to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, I was persuaded by the points that have just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben.

I should like to ask the Minister for clarification concerning the Government’s amendment, the thrust of which was to dispel a concern that business neighbourhood forums were going to be focused on business to the exclusion of the environment and other social and economic aspects. I think the wording has now changed, so that it ensures that neighbourhood forums always have a purpose which seeks to promote the overall economic, social and environmental well-being of the neighbourhood area. The original formulation—which is the one used in the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke—was that it should relate to individuals who want to live in the area. There may not be a great distinction in those formulations, but I should be grateful if the Minister could help us on that. Amendment 205ZA, which deals with concerns about the focus of neighbourhood business forums, is to be welcomed.