Fireworks: Damage

Debate between Lord Greaves and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Wednesday 11th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

I call the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Old Trafford.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford)]

Well, I am young Trafford, actually, compared to the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, but we often get the two mixed up. One is old and one is young.

The Government remain committed to promoting the safe and considerate use of fireworks through an effective legislative framework and through non-legislative measures. We launched a public awareness campaign this October with the aim of educating people on how to buy, use, store and dispose of fireworks safely and considerately, and ensuring that retailers know and understand their responsibilities when selling fireworks.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, I put this Question down because there seemed to be a spate of fireworks causing damage to buildings that they had hit, including one just down the valley from us at Brierfield, but is it not the case that the indiscriminate and uncontrolled use of fireworks is one of the major causes of anti-social behaviour now in this country? Is it not time that there was a ban on the purchase and use of fireworks except by appropriate bodies on special commemorative occasions and in a controlled and organised way?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, it is true to say that fireworks injuries have actually gone down since 2016. I cannot comment on the assertions made by the noble Lord in his questions, because I do not know whether that is the case or not. The Government are most certainly not thinking of a ban. It might help him to know that the Petitions Committee conducted an extensive inquiry into fireworks in 2019, and concluded that it could not support a ban on the sale or use of them. Funnily enough, the National Fire Chiefs Council agrees, as do the Government.

Life in the UK Test

Debate between Lord Greaves and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for pointing those things out. I suspect if we took a straw poll of all views in this House the handbook would be very long.

[Lord Greaves (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I had a look at a lot of it. It seemed to me that it was very good training for taking part in pub quizzes. There is an extraordinary emphasis on a lot of irrelevant history, mainly about people who were white, rich and powerful. I did not see a lot in it about food banks or the laws in relation to planning permission and how to apply for planning permission. The question about what happened to hereditary Peers in 1999 seems bizarre. It seems to me that a thorough revision is required. Does the Minister agree?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

No, I do not agree. The laws on planning applications could fill a tome by themselves—

Licensing: Closing Time

Debate between Lord Greaves and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Tuesday 29th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I assure the noble Lord that this system is in place. The fines do go up, from £1,000 to £10,000. It would be an unusual licensee who wished to have several £10,000 fines.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. The people who do the work covered by regulations in these premises, and not just at kicking-out time, are environmental staff on district councils in two-tier areas, yet the powers to enforce and, if necessary, to close down for a period, rest at county level with public health. Should the powers not be aligned with the people who do the work on the ground at district level?

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Greaves and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 14th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow so many very clear and excellent speeches, starting with my noble friend Lord Oates and including my old friends, the noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Hain. I listened to both of them and thought, “They got some good training when they were kids, didn’t they?”

It is interesting that, of all the things that people such as the3million group and lots of other European citizens who are concerned about settled status and so on do not like, this is the one thing that they are almost all united in thinking ought to be changed. A lot of them put it at the top of their list of priorities, partly because it is such a simple and obvious thing for the Government to do.

I have been in this place for 20 years—I have to pinch myself but it is true—and I have noticed over the years that sensible Governments do not just lie down and do everything that your Lordships’ House wants them to do, although we have the debate and they listen. Occasionally they say, “Yes. There’s sense in this. We’ll take it away and sort it, and will come back.” I think that this is one of those issues. The great advantage that Governments have of doing that here and not in the House of Commons is that the Opposition do not then start shouting “U-turn” and so on at them; they say, “We thank the Government for their sensible thoughts and actions on this. Good for them.” This is one issue where the Minister, who has a reasonable amount of clout in her department and in the Government—not as much as some people but a reasonable amount—

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Oh!

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

There are shadowy figures who get appointed and seem to run things but never appear in this or any other House, but I am sure that the Minister could do it if she wanted to. I think that this is a single thing that the Government could do.

Various people have talked about it being a two-tier system. My noble friend Lord Paddick said it would mean that people with settled status would be in a position different from that of other people. They would be, and they would sometimes be worse off in some respects compared with some citizens of the European Union. For example, those who come here to work after the end of June next year will need a work visa. As I understand it, they will have a passport and the work visa will be stamped in it. They will be okay. They will say, “Look, I can work”, whereas those with settled status will have to go through the long and complex system that has been described to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.

My other question concerns transactions, whether relating to employment, housing or other things—odd jobs and so on, with people doing work for others. If the European Union person with settled status, who might be on either side of the transaction, is the provider of the facilities or services, will they have to show that they are entitled to be here and to provide those services to their customers or whoever they are providing them to? That is a question for the Minister.

It seems a bit ridiculous in some cases, such as odd-job men. Somebody comes around—they may be a traveller or just an ordinary odd-job man—and says they will mend your roof by putting the tiles back on or will set up a window-cleaning round. If you employ them to work for you, and pay them to do it, but they are not entitled to work in this country, will you be breaking the law in some way—or is it all on the side of the person providing the service?

I have been trying to get my mind around the worst-case scenarios. If you want to rent a new flat and you are leasing it from a big landlord, who is highly reputable and provides high-quality accommodation, you will be okay. They will have all the computer systems, will know how to do it and be used to it. It will just go through. But you may be renting an attic from an old lady who has lived in the house all her life but does not know what a computer looks like or how to operate that kind of system. She does not work through an agent or anybody like that; she just does it. You may be a lodger or a tenant. Under those circumstances, you need a physical document.

I can think of loads of others. Think of the gig economy. Lots of it is highly organised and computerised, and will easily be able to cope—driving for Uber, running webinars or whatever it is. But a lot of the gig economy is short-term jobs, such as working at a bar, doing delivery rounds, music gigs or all sorts of things, as we all know. We should not expect this system to work under circumstances where people do not have a physical document. It is simply not going to happen; it is not going to work.

Then there is the question of self-employed people—your classic Polish plumber, or whoever it is, whatever they are doing. As I suggested before, they may have come to mend your roof or sort out your heating. This is a self-employed person, a sole trader. They may or may not be operating properly within the tax system, but there are loads of such people. How will they cope with this? Some of them have devices with them, but lots will not want to worry about computers. If you are employing these people, as I said before, is it your responsibility to check that their settled status is bona fide?

The more I think about, the more circumstances there are where it will simply not work. It might work in 90% of cases, but there are lots where it will not. Simply having a physical document means that the system can work. It does not mean it will, but it means that it can, so that people on all sides of the transactions can cope. I return to what I said before: this is simple. I cannot understand why the Government will not do it. They should go away, design a scheme, come back and tell us what they are doing, and we will cheer them to the rooftops.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between Lord Greaves and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 14th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would grant an automatic continuation of pre-exit-day rights and immigration status for EU citizens resident in the United Kingdom. This is a position that the Labour Party has consistently supported. Indeed, the party put forward amendments to that effect when the original Article 50 Bill was considered. However, the then Prime Minister resisted any amendments to that Bill on this issue.

The Government waited a long time to announce that they would unilaterally guarantee the rights of EU citizens resident in the UK, even in the event of a no-deal exit. However, regarding this amendment, the reality is that the settled status scheme has now been operational for some time and the withdrawal agreement was negotiated on the existence of such a scheme. As such, while we sympathise with the thrust behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, we believe that a better approach is to reform the current system, as the next group of amendments aims to do.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord McNicol, for their comments. The initial points made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, were about Immigration Rules. There will be an update in March. He made some points about Big Ben; I was not sure what they were. He also talked about gloating, but I do not observe any member of your Lordships’ House gloating over the Bill and I concur with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that comparing the UK on 31 January to Nazi Germany is a step too far.

To get to the point of what the noble Lord eventually said, we reject the proposed new clause in Amendment 1. It is well intentioned but unnecessary; it conflicts with our general implementation of the withdrawal agreement, the EEA EFTA Separation Agreement and the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement. For brevity, I will refer to these as the agreements. My references to EU citizens should likewise be taken to include these EEA/EFTA and Swiss nationals, and their family members.

Citizens’ rights have been a priority in negotiations and the Government have delivered on that commitment, reaching agreements that provide certainty to EU citizens in the UK and to UK nationals in the EU that they can continue to live, work, study and access benefits and services broadly as now. Clauses 5 and 6 create a conduit pipe, which makes the rights and obligations contained in the agreements available in UK law. This is intended to replicate the way that EU law applied in the UK while the UK was a member state, and these clauses ensure that the rights contained in the agreements are available to EU citizens in the UK. The agreements provide certainty and protect the rights of EU citizens lawfully resident in the UK before the end of the implementation period. Existing close family members, including children of those covered in the agreements, will also have a lifelong right to family reunion. The as-yet unborn children of EU citizens will also be protected. This protection applies equally to UK nationals in their member state of residence and is guaranteed by the withdrawal agreement.

The UK has already introduced the EU settlement scheme, which is the means for EU citizens to obtain the status that confers rights under the agreements. The scheme provides a quick and easy way to do this, and it is a success. According to the latest internal figures, over 2.8 million applications have been received and 2.5 million grants of status made. The Home Office is processing up to 20,000 applications a day. We are working tirelessly with communities up and down the country to raise awareness and keep up this momentum. The scheme already allows EU citizens protected by the agreements to obtain UK immigration status, which enables them to remain here permanently after exit. The proposed new clause is therefore unnecessary, as it conflicts with the purpose and operation of the scheme.

Finally, the proposed new clause makes reference to those resident in the UK on exit day, at the end of this month. As the noble Lord should know, rights under the agreements are conferred on those resident in the UK at the end of the implementation period, which is at the end of this year. The proposed new clause therefore does not align with our obligations under the agreements. I hope that has reassured the noble Lord on the concerns expressed through this new clause and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I will certainly withdraw the amendment and I am glad that the Minister discovered the error that I had made when it was too late to correct it. I thank her for that but, as I said, it is not a carefully honed amendment; it is an amendment to declare a principle. The Minister says that it declares the principle behind what the Government are doing. That is clearly not the case. It is the case in many areas, but not in all. As for the settled status scheme, it is certainly the most efficient Home Office scheme that I have come across in recent years—although that does not say very much—because of the effort that has been put into it. I thank her for that. The Minister said, and the Government keep saying, that the rights of European citizens will be broadly as now. It is “broadly” that is a weasel word.

Finally, I did not compare this country to Nazi Germany and obviously I would not do so; that would be ridiculous. What I am saying is that some of the conditions that exist in this country are similar to those that existed in Germany between the wars before the Nazis came to power. You can think that that is right or that it is wrong, but I believe it is the case. Look at the amount of racist abuse there is on social media, while if you listen to pub conversations, you can hear people saying things that perhaps three, four or five years ago they would have kept to themselves. There is an amount of abuse by a small minority of people that is not being stopped by the social controls that previously existed. That, I am afraid, is the position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

There was controversy not very long ago about allegations that the settled status database would be shared with outside organisations, perhaps abroad. Is that completely untrue?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord outlines the point that I have just made about information being seen by people who are entitled to see it for the purposes for which it should be seen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the document that the noble Lord refers to is a letter confirming that a person has been successful. Anyone who is successful in obtaining the status could show that letter to a landlord and say, “There. Go and look online to confirm that I have the status”. However, it is not a proof; it is a confirmation. Does that help the noble Lord? I see that it does. Thank goodness.

[Lord Greaves]

Can I ask another question?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

No. I am going to continue, and the noble Lord can speak when I have finished if he wishes.

I want to move on to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Oates, made about the criminalisation of people who do not apply by the deadline. That is a very important point—made also, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol. An EU citizen who fails to apply to the EU settlement scheme before the deadline will not be acting unlawfully in the same way as an illegal entrant or overstayer would be. They will not have knowingly entered the UK in breach of the Immigration Act or overstayed their leave. That is an important point to make. Once free movement has ended, they will need leave to remain in the UK—there is an important distinction there. We set up the EU settlement scheme to provide a quick and easy way to secure that leave, confirming their status in the UK.

We have been very clear that we will take a pragmatic approach, in line with the agreements, to provide those who have reasonable grounds for missing the deadline with a further opportunity to apply. I hope that that helps the noble Lord. He might want to intervene to ask what constitutes reasonable grounds for missing the deadline. We have deliberately not published a list of acceptable grounds for missing the deadline. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, requested, we will send reminders to those with pre-settled status six months before their leave expires so that they can apply for settled status. In the first instance, we want to continue to encourage people to apply. We do not want to provide an exhaustive list as we want to give ourselves the maximum possible flexibility when this situation arises. Examples of people in such a situation might include a child whose parents or guardian failed to apply on their behalf, people in abusive or controlling relationships who are prevented from applying or from obtaining the documents they need, or those who, as I said before, lacked the physical or mental capacity to apply.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, pressed me again on the automatic reminder. I have previously confirmed that there will be an automatic reminder. In fact, in the EU Settlement Scheme: Statement of Intent, published in June 2018—quite some time ago—we committed to reminding people ahead of the expiry of their pre-settled status and it remains our intention to do so. That is not in place yet, as it will not be needed until five years after the first granting of pre-settled status, if that makes sense, so it will be September 2023 at the latest. The noble Baroness is looking puzzled. That is because March 2019 was day one, so it will not be needed for another five years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I ask the noble Baroness to understand that perhaps they might not be EU citizens.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I did not get an answer to my question about the numbers. I have checked: there were 2.6 million at the end of November; there are now 2.8 million. Of the extra ones, does the Minister have a breakdown between settled and pre-settled? Should she not have the answer now, it would be helpful if she could let us know.

Secondly, something has occurred to me while listening to all this about documents. If I want to order a railway ticket in advance, I order it on my computer and print it off. Some might not, but I do. People do different things; they take their devices with them and even buy tickets. Regardless, I can print off a railway ticket. If I have settled status and I want to prove it, why can I not bring it up on my computer, take a screen shot and use that? What legal validity would that have?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, by preference I do my tax online and get an email confirmation. If I book a train ticket, it is on my phone. In fact I rarely take my credit or debit card out any more; everything is on my phone. However, if the noble Lord is honestly suggesting screenshotting your settled-status proof online and then printing it off, I suggest that that might be forgeable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I added my name to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNicol of West Kilbride, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat group. I have one or two other amendments in this group. One is on the judicial review point, and I am perfectly happy to leave the lawyers to argue the case on that, which they know far more about than I do.

Amendment 6 relates to Clause 11(1), on appeals against citizens’ rights immigration decisions, which says:

“A Minister of the Crown may”—


I would prefer “must” but I accept that “may” means it is probably going to happen—

“by regulations make provision for, or in connection with, appeals against citizens’ rights immigration decisions of a kind described in the regulations.”

Clause 11(2) defines a “citizens’ rights immigration decision” for the purposes of the Bill and it talks about various kinds of entry clearance, decisions in connection with leave to enter or remain, a deportation order, and

“any other decision made in connection with restricting the right of a relevant person to enter the United Kingdom”.

That all seems fairly comprehensive. What I do not understand, which is why I tabled Amendment 6 to probe this, is what is meant by

“of a kind described in the regulations.”

Does it mean that some of the things listed will not be covered by the regulations and the right to appeal? If so, what is the Government’s thinking about which ones they may be, or do they intend that they will all be covered, in which case why does the kind have to be described in the regulations since it is set out here in the Bill?

On the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol of West Kilbride, and other noble Lords, it is fairly clear that many people who have been given pre-settled status because they have not been living in the United Kingdom for five years or, in some cases, cannot prove that they have been doing so. There is also a significant number of people—I have no idea how many—who have been living here for five years but whose applications have been found difficult, for some reason or other. Rather than refusing them, the scheme is giving them pre-settled status because establishing the true facts would take a lot of time, energy and workload and, as the Minister said, millions of people are applying. It would be helpful to know what proportion of the people who have got pre-settled status have been, or say they have been, living here for more than five years—in some cases, they have been here pretty well all their lives—and have been given that status to give them something without prolonging the argument. In those cases, does the provision that they will automatically get settled status once they have been here for five years still apply?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken to these amendments. We cannot support them, and I will outline why. The Government will provide for a right of appeal against citizens’ rights immigration decisions. While I commend noble Lords for their commitment to citizens’ rights, these amendments create unnecessary changes to the wording of Clause 11 and, at worst, undermine our ability to provide for a right of appeal in all circumstances and ensure consistency for judicial review, and even create perverse incentives to appeal decisions to gain the benefits of indefinite leave to remain.

Amendments 4 and 9 are unnecessary. EU citizens who are appealing a decision on residence must be able to appeal if refused leave, or given what they believe is an incorrect status under the EU settlement scheme, under our international agreements. It is also damaging, as a power is required to implement the numerous situations requiring appeals.

Amendment 5 is at best unnecessary and, at worst, could prevent the provision for necessary appeals. This Government will provide for a right of appeal against citizens’ rights immigration decisions. This is an essential part of our commitment to protecting the rights of EU citizens, EEA EFTA and Swiss nationals under the withdrawal agreement, the EEA EFTA Separation Agreement and the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement.

On Amendment 6, the current wording of Clause 11(1) allows the Government to make sufficient regulations in relation to appeals against citizens’ rights immigration decisions. It fulfils our commitment in the agreements and provides certainty to EU citizens that they shall have a right to appeals. Moreover, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has recently commended the powers in the Bill as,

“naturally constrained by the scope of the particular matter contained in the Agreements”.

As such, Amendment 6 is unnecessary.

As for Amendment 7, it is in the public interest to make reviews of exclusion directions made in respect of those protected by our implementation of the withdrawal agreements consistent with how similar reviews are treated now. This power enables us to do this, but Amendment 7 would remove that ability.

Amendment 8 would make it harder for EU citizens to challenge an exclusion direction, would prevent the Government being able to prevent removal unless the appeal is certified and would create a perverse incentive for individuals to launch appeals to gain access to the benefits of indefinite leave to remain.

Amendment 10 seeks to limit the power in Clause 11 in relation to judicial review. It is in the public interest to make reviews of exclusion directions made in respect of those protected by our implementation of the agreements consistent with how similar reviews are treated. This power enables us to do this, but the amendment would remove that ability.

EU Settlement Scheme

Debate between Lord Greaves and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Wednesday 23rd October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the EU Settlement Scheme.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the EU settlement scheme is performing well. This is demonstrated by the latest internal figures, which show that there have been more than 2 million applications. The Home Office is processing up to 20,000 applications a day and most complete applications are being processed in around five days.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, on 1 June 2016, just before the referendum, the following statement was made:

“There will be no change for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK. These EU citizens will automatically be granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK and will be treated no less favourably than they are at present”.


That was over the signatures of Michael Gove, the present Home Secretary Priti Patel, and Mr Boris Johnson. Is it not the case that these promises have been systematically broken in some large and many small ways? At present, European Union citizens who are offered settled status in the UK possess legal rights as European Union citizens. In future, they will simply have permissions that can be withdrawn any time. Is this not a total breach of the promise made by these people and is the answer not to scrap the present system and replace it with a simple system of registration?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I could not agree less with the noble Lord. First, the EU settlement scheme is free; secondly, it provides a route to settlement that gives people the same rights as any other British citizen; and, thirdly, it is also a proof of status. I really cannot understand what the noble Lord is saying. He talks about registration: I presume he means a declaratory system. In a declaratory system, we have seen the lessons of Windrush: in years to come people might not be able to prove their status, so I think the EU settlement scheme is the best route forward.

Crime: Police Numbers

Debate between Lord Greaves and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, some of the indiscriminate, random nature of stop and search in the past has been replaced by a move to a much more intelligence-led stop and search, so that people—particularly young people—do not feel that they will be stopped every time they leave the house because of the colour of their skin, as the noble Baroness has said to me in the past. When they go out, people need to know that the police are stopping them because there is an intelligence reason for doing so.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, of course this is about not just the number of police but what they do. East Lancashire 25 years ago was one of the pioneers of modern, community neighbourhood policing in Lancashire. That is now a pale shadow of what it used to be, as there is only half the number of officers and PCSOs. In such areas, will the increase in police which the Government are promising allow us to go back to the kind of effective community policing we used to have? Nowadays the crime levels are going up again.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The Government and the Home Secretary have been clear that they want the police to invest in front-line, much more visible policing that deals with communities in a much closer way than perhaps was previously imagined. The answer is yes.

Visa Applications: Dr Mu-Chun Chiang

Debate between Lord Greaves and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what (1) lessons they have learnt, and (2) procedures they intend to change, following the reconsideration of the visa application by Dr Mu-Chun Chiang.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased that the case of Dr Chiang was successfully resolved following the provision of new evidence by Dr Chiang and reconsideration by UK Visas and Immigration. UK Visas and Immigration continually utilises customer feedback and experiences to review processes and procedures with the aim of enhancing services.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, this was indeed an unusual case in that the Home Office gave in before the bitter end. About 20 years ago, I first came across immigration and nationality issues with the Home Office when a busload of asylum seekers was dumped on an industrial estate in Colne in the middle of the night. Experiences then—and, I am sorry to say, since then—have led me to believe that too much of the immigration and nationality section of the Home Office is riddled with what I would call bureaucratic incompetence tinged with institutional racism. Nothing has improved; in fact, it has got worse. Recently, the co-chair of the Green Party suggested that the immigration and nationality functions should be separated off and made into a separate department, starting again based on a culture of efficiency and humanity. Is that something that the Minister will put forward to her colleagues for the Queen’s Speech?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

On the noble Lord’s last point, about a culture that is far more humane, I would certainly totally subscribe to that, as would the Home Secretary. Regarding the balance between bureaucracy and subjectivity, it was the criticism of subjectivity that led to a much more objective way of determining applications. The noble Lord referred to a coach-load of asylum seekers 18 years ago; I am afraid that neither I nor the Conservative Party can answer for what happened 18 years ago. He also talked about the Home Office giving in before the bitter end; actually, the case was resolved quickly—not that I am in any way trying to defend the fact that it could have been resolved more quickly.

European Union Settlement Scheme

Debate between Lord Greaves and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Tuesday 16th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made on the implementation of the European Union Settlement Scheme.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the EU settlement scheme opened fully on 31 March and makes it easier for resident EEA and Swiss citizens and their family members to get the status they need to remain here after we leave the EU. The system is performing well and, according to the most recent internal figures, nearly 1 million applications have been received.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, that is good news, but there is still a very long way to go. As the Minister knows, if you have not been here for five years, you get pre-settled status. On 20 May, Caroline Nokes said in a Commons Written Answer:

“We are currently working hard on a number of enhancements to the EU Settlement Scheme including the functionality to support individuals who currently hold pre-settled status to apply for settled status once they become eligible”.


Is the Minister aware that there was publicity only over the weekend because people are finding it difficult to use the app that they must use to convert their pre-settled status into settled status. Caroline Nokes promised that it would all be sorted within six weeks; that was two months ago. What is happening about that and can the Minister tell us what happens to people who forget to apply for settled status once they have their pre-settled status and the time arrives?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

In answer to the noble Lord’s first point—that we have a long way to go—given the number of citizens we are talking about, it sounds to me as though we are almost a third of the way there. In answer to his point about pre-settled status, interestingly enough, just before we came into the Chamber, I had a conversation with his noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, about a question she had raised with me previously on a reminder system for people coming to the end of their pre-settled status. That is certainly being worked on. He also asked me about the app. I am aware of the problem and we intend that from the end of July, it will be possible for people with pre-settled status to apply online to convert it to settled status as soon as they become eligible.

EU Settlement Scheme

Debate between Lord Greaves and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Thursday 14th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in implementing the EU Settlement Scheme.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the EU settlement scheme opened on a trial basis at the end of August and a second pilot phase ended on 21 December. In the light of positive progress, we commenced the wider public testing of the scheme on 21 January. The EU settlement scheme will be fully open by 30 March.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, we recently had a letter dated 11 February from Caroline Nokes, the Minister for Immigration, telling us that everything was wonderful and that it was all going okay. This is just not true. The Home Office seems to be living in a bubble of its own making. When will it start listening to many of the 3.6 million EU citizens in this country struggling to make sense of a technical and bureaucratic shambles that is not fit for purpose? The internet is awash with frustration, anger, fear and distress in relation to the obstacles in accessing the system, ridiculous demands for evidence, obviously wrong decisions—decisions made by machines—and no proper means of appeal. Is it not time to scrap the scheme and start afresh with a simple system based on a simple acceptance of the rights of people already living here?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the whole construction of the scheme was designed to be as simple and unbureaucratic as possible. To date we have had 100,000 applications in total. As regards the plethora of evidence that people need to supply, in fact they need to supply only three pieces of evidence: first, their identity, secondly their residency and thirdly the absence of criminal convictions.

Brexit: EU Citizens in the UK

Debate between Lord Greaves and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what support they are giving to citizens of European Union countries who have been resident in the United Kingdom since before the United Kingdom joined the European Economic Community.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, European Union citizens make a huge contribution to our economy and society, and we want them to stay. The Government are making it as easy as possible for all EU citizens to secure their status after Brexit, and for long-term residents a number of simple options are available for them to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, the purpose of asking this topical Question is to raise an issue highlighted by elderly Italian people living in Bradford. The BBC’s “Inside Out” programme in Yorkshire on Monday evening covered this admirably. I am talking about Italians, particularly ladies, who came to Bradford as mill girls 60 years ago and are now therefore mainly in their 80s. One of them said:

“We are foreigners in Italy, we are foreigners over here”.


They are old people; they are racked by dismay and anxiety. Many of them do not know what to do and are astonished that they have to apply for something which was granted to them—the right to live in this country—when they first came. On 15 January, the Bradford Telegraph & Argus had a headline: “Bradford Italians gripped by Brexit fear”. Do the Government understand that this group of people is in exactly the same position as the Windrush people? They are old and do not need the worry in their lives, which may put some of them into what a long time ago people called a decline. What are the Government doing to withdraw those threats from them and simply to leave them alone?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for advance notice of his concern about this. Like any EEA nationals who settled in the UK before 1973, the Italians in Bradford already have indefinite leave to remain and do not need to apply to the EU settlement scheme. They can if they want make a free application to the Windrush scheme for documentation to confirm that status. In any event, the Windrush scheme is open to a person of any nationality who arrived in the UK before 31 December 1988 and believes that they have settled status in the UK.

Police Funding Settlement

Debate between Lord Greaves and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Thursday 13th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Baroness for that question. She mentioned giving with one hand and taking with the other. I talked about general taxation and people being taken out of tax— 32 million people are paying less tax—but there is also the government grant to PCCs, which will be £161 million. I reject her idea that costs are passed on to local people. We all pay tax. I for one am happy to pay local tax, knowing that it will go to my local police in Greater Manchester. She asked about the police precept being billed separately; I put it to her that she would then pass the cost of additional billing on to local people. Different areas can decide how to do things in their own way but an extra bill, even if put in the same envelope, will incur additional costs.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, in the Statement she repeated, the Minister made it sound as though the sunlit uplands have come into view. That is not the way we see it where I live. The Statement says:

“As a result of last year’s settlement, most police and crime commissioners set out plans to either protect or enhance front-line policing”.


In Colne, the town I come from, the people I represent on the local council ask me, “Why are we paying more for the police when we are having our local police taken away?” Lancashire was in the forefront of developing neighbourhood policing 20 or 25 years ago, and Pendle and east Lancashire generally were in the forefront in Lancashire. We were pioneers. This year, half the community beat managers—the constables who are the actual neighbourhood police officers—are being removed. There are still some PCSOs, but half the police officers on the beat, in the ward and on the street, are being removed. The Minister referred to police officers on the street getting more technological devices and being more efficient; that is no use if they have gone.

What do I say to people when they ask me, “Who is to blame if not you?” I tell them I am not to blame, so they ask me, “Is it the Government, the police commissioner, the police constable?” Who is it? There is no local accountability at all.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for that. The investment in front-line police—whether in neighbourhood or any other kind of policing—is up to the local force. He made the point that technology is no use if the police are gone; he is not incorrect in that, but the savings made from investing in technology can be invested in front-line policing. I hope the settlement, which I think is very generous, means that the police will have more scope to invest in the areas they want to invest in while still looking at efficiencies in procurement and technology.

Police Commissioners

Debate between Lord Greaves and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Monday 22nd January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what advice they are giving to police commissioners on (1) whether commissioners should use the opportunity to levy additional council tax of £1 per month, and (2) what criteria should be used when making that decision.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government believe that democratically elected police and crime commissioners are best placed to take these local decisions. It is a matter for them to determine the appropriate levels of council tax precept to apply in each police force area.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, that is not true, of course, because there is a cap on it. To give just one example, in my own county in Lancashire the police are facing £90 million of savings in this decade, and they have already lost 800 police officers. The Government accept that there is a need for more spending, but the only way in which they will allow it, in order to max their cuts in what they are providing in real terms, is by putting up council tax by £12 a year, which would raise a fairly paltry £5 million this year. What advice will the Government give police commissioners in such places? Will they come off the fence and say whether they want the commissioners to stop further cuts in the police? If they do, will they therefore put council tax up by an extra £12 a year?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the reason for a cap is to stop precepts from getting completely out of hand in terms of the amount that local people might be asked to pay. The advice to police is that there are further efficiencies to be made in policing, as acknowledged by HMICFRS. There are investments in technology and things such as shared services that the police can look at across the piece. However, it is up to the local PCC to determine the best level of funding for the area and what type of investments it wishes to make.

Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013

Debate between Lord Greaves and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am just turning to my noble friend Lord Henley, who was involved in the Act, as was my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach. I understand that during the passage of the Bill and prior to that, the Gypsy and Traveller community made representations. However, there is an overriding point here, which is that the trade in scrap metal must be lawful, and therefore the full force of the law should come down on people who steal metal and attempt to sell it.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, noble Lords have spoken about the top level of illegal trade and theft. What tends to happen in towns in the north of England is that people drive up and down the backstreets in unregistered vans or trucks with no identification on them. They pick up and take away anything that is left on the street. They also look into backyards and if no one is living in the house, they might take material away. If there is someone in the house, they will offer them a couple of quid. But even if these people are not paying money for the scrap, they need waste carrier licences. Much of this is going on at a low level that is just below the radar. What will the police do to stop it?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the noble Lord mentions a number of different events, which may or may not be theft. Some people might be quite grateful to have scrap metal that has been lying in their backyards for years picked up. Going back to the Scrap Metal Dealers Act, it is now unlawful for someone to buy scrap metal for cash, and therefore there is now a better audit trail of where scrap metal is going.

Hate Crime

Debate between Lord Greaves and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Tuesday 18th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they propose to take to reduce the incidence of hate crime.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

The new cross-government hate crime action plan published in July sets out a comprehensive programme of action to reduce hate crime. This includes education programmes to prevent hate incidents, measures to improve the police response and recording of hate crime and stronger sentencing guidelines for the judiciary. As part of the action plan, we have committed £2.4 million of funding for security for places of worship which have been targeted by hate crime. We are also sharing £300,000 of funding across communities to tackle hate crime through innovative projects.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, the Home Secretary said in relation to the recent figures that the Government intended to stamp out hate crime. That and the actions referred to by the Minister are very welcome, but does she agree that, while it may be possible to stamp out behaviour, stamping out hatred in people’s hearts and minds is more difficult? What is required in addition to these actions is for the Government to take the lead in saying loud and clear that everyone who lives in this country is welcome, that we live in a multicultural, multiracial and increasingly diverse country, that this is not going to change and that it is a good thing.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I agree with the noble Lord to the extent that stamping out hatred in people’s hearts and minds is a bigger issue than just providing a hate crime action plan, but this country is tolerant and welcoming. We have seen that in the past 24 hours with some of those fleeing persecution in other countries coming across and being welcomed to this country. It involves more than just action plans—attitudes and the way that we approach our fellow man or woman in everyday life.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Greaves and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the Government are committed to increasing housing supply. More homes are now started every year than at any time since 2007. The total stock of housing in England is now almost 800,000 higher than it was in 2009. In the spending review we announced investment of £8 billion to deliver 400,000 affordable housing starts by 2020-21. This includes £4.1 billion for 135,000 shared ownership homes, £1.6 billion to deliver 100,000 affordable homes for rent and £2.3 billion towards delivering our starter homes manifesto commitment.

In order to further support housing delivery, we need measures to avoid Section 106 planning obligations preventing or delaying new homes being built. Clause 142 inserts new Schedule 9A into the Town and County Planning Act 1990. The new schedule sets out a dispute resolution process to speed up Section 106 negotiations in order to help housing starts to proceed more quickly. Dispute resolution will be available on a broad range of cases, including where affordable housing is in dispute or particular infrastructure is needed to make development acceptable in planning terms. However, as with any effective dispute resolution process, we anticipate that it would be used only as a last resort. The speeding up of Section 106 negotiations is part of a wider package of measures that the Government are introducing to make the planning system simpler and more streamlined. We anticipate that its existence will encourage all parties to work constructively together and agree planning obligations earlier in the planning process.

We are also working with stakeholders to understand the particular issues caused by negotiating affordable housing provision. So far, we know that problems include the time and expense of viability negotiations, the lack of clarity over affordable housing requirements and the difficulty of getting housing associations to take only one or two units on a site. These effects can be felt more acutely by smaller developers, which are more likely to focus on building on small sites. We are consulting on some of the detail of the process and we will bring forward regulations in due course. Clause 143 allows us to address some of these issues by providing a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to the enforcement of planning obligations for affordable housing. The clause provides flexibility depending on the size, scale or nature of the site or of the proposed development so that we can target regulations appropriately.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans asked when we were going to consult on the powers. We are already engaging with key partners to identify those measures that would best support the delivery of new housing, and we will consult on our proposals in due course. Restrictions or conditions will be introduced through affirmative regulation, so Members of both Houses will have a chance to scrutinise any measures that we introduce. That means we can bring about a more consistent approach to how Section 106 agreements can be used in relation to affordable housing provision. It will reduce a key element of uncertainty for developers and, in doing so, support housebuilding.

The noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, asked how we anticipate using the power in Clause 143(2)—would it be used to restrict right to buy, and what about the rural aspect? The broad power proposed allows for a distinction to be made depending on the size and nature of the proposed development, such as rural sites, where restrictions may not be appropriate, and the distinction in relation to the types of affordable housing that may be restricted. This is intended to focus any restrictions where they would have the most likely benefits in encouraging housing development more broadly, rather than, as the noble Lord says, restricting it. For example, we could use this power to address the particular problems faced on small sites, as I have said, and we are working with stakeholders to identify how we can best use the power to address the issues and support the delivery of new houses. I should also say that the restriction provision would not apply to existing Section 106 agreements.

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, is concerned about the Government not supporting rural areas. As I say, this provision gives us the flexibility to target our regulations in a way that would best benefit overall housing delivery. For example, as I said, restrictions or conditions could apply differently depending on the type of sites, such as rural areas.

Amendment 101BGB limits the use of Section 106 dispute resolution, to be introduced through this clause, to affordable housing disputes only. It is not necessary for Amendment 101BGB to be introduced to implement this change. Schedule 13 of the Bill allows the scope of dispute resolution to be restricted through regulations, which could include limiting dispute resolution to cases involving affordable housing. We are presently seeking views on the scope of dispute resolution through our planning technical consultation, but dispute resolution would be a very useful tool for resolving disputes on applications without affordable housing as well as on those with.

Moving on to Amendments 101C and 101D, I do not think that they are necessary to address the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, because they would hinder our ability to address the issues that local planning authorities and developers tell us are caused by negotiating affordable housing obligations. This clause allows the Secretary of State to restrict the use of Section 106 planning obligations for affordable housing. The clause, therefore, goes on to define what is meant by affordable housing in this context.

The definition of affordable housing included in this clause focuses on housing that meets a particular need: for example, people whose needs are not adequately served by the commercial housing market. It also specifically includes starter homes, which are defined in Chapter 1 of the Bill. It does not restrict provision to meet the needs of any specific tenures. Indeed, we consider that the definition is broad enough to encompass all forms of tenure. Restricting the use of planning obligations for affordable housing across all tenures would not support the objective of addressing the specific issues caused by negotiations on particular types of site.

The clause also provides the Secretary of State with the power to amend the definition of affordable housing through regulations. Removing the power would affect the Government’s ability to take account of new forms of affordable housing provision that are being developed. This would limit the effectiveness of how Government can use this clause to support housing development. The power to amend the definition of affordable housing under this clause is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and noble Lords will have the opportunity to scrutinise any amendment of the definition.

Amendment 102B, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and Lady Parminter, inserts a new clause that would enable the Secretary of State to empower local planning authorities to require affordable housing contributions, in cash or kind, from small-scale developments and in rural areas. However, I do not think that it is necessary. Local authorities can set affordable housing policies in their local plans, which will take account of local housing need. Section 106 agreements can then be used to secure affordable housing delivery. They can also be used to agree financial contributions in lieu of on-site affordable housing contributions. Indeed, there is evidence of local planning authorities making very good use of this, including seeking contributions from small-scale developments and in rural areas.

The use of this power will allow us to bring about a more consistent approach to how Section 106 agreements can be used in relation to affordable housing provision. This could include conditions on how planning obligations are sought for affordable housing on particular types of sites. Such conditions could help address the problems that affordable housing negotiations can cause for particular types of sites, such as those identified in this amendment.

I will finish by saying that the Government will consult on the approach to any restrictions or conditions brought forward. Measures implementing this power will be set out in regulations. These, including any amendments to the definition of affordable housing, will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and noble Lords will have ample opportunity to scrutinise any amendment to the definition. I hope that, with those words, the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate and I thank everybody who has taken part in it. Most of the debate was about issues that I was not personally raising, but I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord True, who made a speech similar to one I thought of making. It is clear that the noble Lord is less intimidated by the Government Chief Whip on these matters than I am and feels able to make such a speech at length, putting forward the localist view which he has done so well so many times in this Committee.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Greaves and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, this is a small issue, in a sense. It is a kite-flying amendment not directly related to what is in the Bill, like many other amendments we have been discussing. However, it is an important issue for local authorities that are affected by it. Regulation 123 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations refers to Section 106 agreements. When the CIL regulations were brought in, it was tagged on to them, almost without anybody noticing—although I complained about the regulation when it came to be approved by this House.

I am challenging not the regulation as such but the bit of Regulation 123(3)(b) that restricts the number of Section 106 agreements within the area of one local planning authority to five,

“which provide for the funding or provision of that … type of infrastructure”.

That means that a local planning authority can have only five Section 106 agreements in place anywhere within its area for one particular type of infrastructure. I hope that the Minister will understand the very specific point I am making. I will come to it in a minute.

I want to be clear that I am not objecting to the requirements of Section 106, which nowadays have to be site specific. It used to be that you could have a planning application at one end of an authority and get some money for a playground miles away at the other end of the authority. That was quite rightly stopped. Agreements have to be site specific—in other words, related to the particular planning application or piece of land, as the Minister said earlier. I am not objecting to the restrictions on pooling Section 106 contributions to build up a pot for large schemes, and there is a limit to how far that can be done. It is just ordinary, small Section 106 contributions that are typically connected to retail developments, housing developments and so on. Again, I am not talking about the affordable housing things that we were talking about this morning.

The limit to five schemes is not logical for four reasons. First, there may well be more than five separate schemes that are relevant or appropriate to particular developments, even though they are of the same type. For example, it may be that Section 106 contributions are being used to support a local bus service—the kind of bus service which is subsidised or supported by the local highways authority under the Transport Act—and a contribution may be made in order to extend the route to serve a particular housing estate or so that it serves the supermarket or whatever. I have had a lot of experience in past decades of helping to support local bus services through this means, at the same time providing public transport to new housing developments or new supermarkets.

It may well be that a Section 106 agreement is required for a public open space, and it is silly to say that you can have only five open spaces if you have seven developments that would benefit from this provision. So there is no logic to it. It came in as part of the restrictions on making Section 106 agreements site specific and stopping people building up big pots, but it is not now necessary.

The second reason is that, because Section 106 agreements are now site specific, there is no reason to limit the number. Logic says that the number should be determined by the number of appropriate developments and appropriate schemes. Thirdly—and here I am talking to some extent against a small authority such as my own—the limit applies per local planning authority, however big or small. So it is five for a huge area such as Northumberland or Cornwall, five for a little authority such as Rutland, five for small district councils and five for big cities. It is an arbitrary number and there is no sense to it.

Finally, it causes particular problems where a local authority has no CIL contributions. Where the level of CIL has been assessed as zero, it cannot be levied. The kinds of councils I keep talking about during this Bill, including my own in Lancashire and lots of other councils in Lancashire and the north of England, cannot levy a CIL because if you levy a CIL, it takes developments completely over the border into being unviable. In areas where developments are only marginally viable on the best greenfield sites, you cannot levy a CIL.

Therefore, the contributions for local infrastructure that come from a CIL are not available in areas of that kind, and those areas are by their very nature probably poorer in different ways than the more prosperous parts of the country that can levy a CIL. So poorer areas do not get the infrastructure levy. Therefore we have to rely on what we can get from Section 106, and this restriction on Section 106 is arbitrary and illogical. I hope that the Government will take it away and have a look at it. They do not have to bring it back in this Bill; they can simply make a minor change to the CIL regulations. I beg to move.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his amendment. The Government introduced the pooling restriction in Regulation 123 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 in order to ensure that planning obligations are used appropriately. The regulations have encouraged 107 charging authorities to bring forward the levy, which provides greater certainty for developers about the cost of developments and helps those authorities provide certainty to their communities about how their infrastructure needs can be met.

Pooling restrictions limit the use of Section 106 to no more than five for a specific infrastructure levy type or project, as the noble Lord said, but this has helped to incentive the adoption of the levy. Adoption nearly trebled in the year prior to the pooling restriction taking effect in April 2015, and it has continued to grow since. While acknowledging that Section 106 still has a role to play in site-specific infrastructure, the Government launched a review of the levy last year to ensure that it provides an effective mechanism for funding infrastructure. The review is considering, among other matters, the relationship between the levy and Section 106 planning obligations. I shall be happy to ensure that the panel is aware of the noble Lord’s thoughts on the repeal of the regulation. With that in mind, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

I am grateful for the last sentence of that reply. I am talking not about pooling Section 106 contributions for bigger projects but about the limit on the number of small projects that can be funded directly linked in a site-specific way to particular developments. The perfectly justifiable intentions of the Government to stop Section106 being an alternative to CIL has caught the small schemes and small contributions in a way that was not intended. That specific point ought to be looked at.

Having said that, the other point is that it is okay having lots of incentives to levy CIL—but not if the consequence of levying CIL is that no development at all takes place. Remember, I come from an authority where getting into three figures of new starts or completions a year is proving very difficult indeed. In one recent year it was in single figures and that is not for the lack of trying to build as far as the authority is concerned. Indeed, in one recent year when 50 or 60 completions took place, they were almost all built by the authority. The private market hardly exists—or has hardly existed in the last few years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I propose to make a minor change to Clause 192, through Amendments 118A and 118B, to enable the power to make regulations in Clause 137 on registers of land to come into force on Royal Assent, rather than two months after Royal Assent. This is a technical amendment that does not alter Clause 137 itself. It means that the power to make implementing regulations could be used sooner after Royal Assent, but the regulations themselves will not come into force until at least two months after Royal Assent. There is no question of local authorities being taken by surprise or being rushed as a consequence of these amendments.

The requirement to hold a register of brownfield sites suitable for housing is linked to our commitment to require local authorities to have registers of what is available, and to ensure that 90% of brownfield sites suitable for housing have planning permission in place by 2020. It makes sense for local authorities to have the tools in place to help them meet this deadline as soon as practicable, and to help them get their registers in place. I beg to move.

[Lord Greaves]

I think that 70 local authorities are taking part in the pilot scheme. I should declare that one of them is my local authority. Will these regulations apply to that pilot scheme, once they come in, or is that separate?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the regulations will apply to the pilot schemes.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Greaves and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, when setting out the local plan, local authorities will have to be clear on things such as environmental mitigation and flood risk—all the various things that would usually be considered. If noble Lords have suggestions for what should be included in the technical details stage of the process, I would be very grateful. I thought the noble Baroness was going to mention something entirely different because we talked the other day about sites of archaeological interest. Of course, such things have to be considered in terms of the NPPF anyway. But if she thinks there are additional things that should be included at the technical details stage, I am very happy to listen and take them on board.

[Lord Greaves]

That is very helpful but I think what is concerning people is not what additional material considerations there may be for planning applications or the new system, it is which of the existing ones the new system will miss out. Will anything that is a material consideration for a planning permission at the moment, whether it is a full permission or reserved matters or whatever, still be a material consideration under the PIP technical details system?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I assure the noble Lord that absolutely it will. The rigour that exists in the current planning system will be the rigour that exists through permission in principle. All the permission in principle system does is create a lesser financial burden upfront for builders, particularly small builders, which might want to build developments. It saves the upfront money knowing that they have the “in principle” go-ahead to pursue it further. I assure the noble Lord that none of the rigour that exists now will be diminished or diluted in the permission in principle system. I hope that that reassures him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am making an assumption here, but I would say that a minor scheme would be one with no more than a few dwellings on it. It would certainly not be a large scheme, which is currently designated as more than 10 dwellings, so perhaps one or two houses; no more than that. In fact, it might be just one dwelling.

I can also assure noble Lords that the technical details must be negotiated and agreed before developments can start, so in terms of the rigour of the planning process, they cannot be agreed afterwards. They have to be agreed before the development can go ahead.

[Lord Greaves]

I am a bit confused by the Minister’s language. When she said that they should be negotiated before the development starts, does that mean that permission is given by the local planning authority as if it was a reserved matter?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Yes, it would be. The development cannot go ahead unless the technical details have been agreed. It is an essential part of the process, just as it is under the current system.

Perhaps I may finish my opening remarks by reminding noble Lords of what the sector has made of our proposals since the Bill was published back in October. The Federation of Master Builders strongly supports them, and it believes in particular that the application route for minor developments will help to reduce the barriers to bringing forward small-scale housing development. In its evidence to the committee scrutinising the Bill, the Home Builders Federation said that Clause 136 would definitely increase supply because it is,

“a positive step towards finding the sites that local authorities actually want to see developed”.

I hope that I have been able to demonstrate briefly that permission in principle is a much-needed measure that is supported by the sector. It aims to introduce more predictability and efficiency into our system for locally supported development.

The noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Greaves, talked about fracking. I should just like to make the point at this juncture that fracking sites are precisely the type of development that would not be suitable for permission in principle; they are simply at the other end of the scale. We are talking here about housing-led sites, so I shall say on the Floor of the House that fracking is not the sort of thing that we are thinking about. However, I know that noble Lords like to have it confirmed again and again, and I do not blame them.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked about the number of dwellings. The number will be determined through the local plan derived via consultation with the local community. He also asked about archaeological sites. If, say, a new dead king was found under a site, making it a site of great archaeological interest, it is fair to say that the technical details consent would be refused at that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I hope the noble Baroness will engage with the consultation. In fact, her words tonight will form part of the consultation. All noble Lords’ suggestions are being taken forward to help shape policy.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, the problem is that getting permission in principle will not provide certainty. All it will provide is certainty that you can go on to the next stage where the hard work will have to be done and paid for and the application might be turned down. The Minister keeps talking about the fact that conditions can be put on and applications can be amended at the technical details stage. That is absolutely right but they can also be thrown out, and the problem that some of us, including the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, are trying to grasp is that some of the things which will be discussed at technical details stage are regarded as something that should be discussed at outline planning stage. They are matters of principle such as the question of whether you can get proper safe access to the site and the matter of ecology on the site. The proposal that has been put forward is that you can get planning permission in principle for such a site but then there are technical details that have to be dealt with, so it does not stop the cost. It might even cost small builders more because they are being led down the garden path with permission in principle and then they are being stopped when they get to the privy at the bottom, whereas at the moment they would be stopped halfway down the garden path. So this needs to be thought out.

As a ward councillor I am currently engaged peripherally in discussions for a small planning application for about 24 houses. The development has had full planning permission but the developers decided it was not viable as set out so they have come back with a changed application. Discussions are now taking place which are delaying the whole thing, but the purpose is to get it passed in the end. Some of the discussions are taking place because residents in nearby flats, assisted by me and other councillors, are complaining about some of the properties just behind them being too high and too big. Meanwhile, the developer is saying that it is still not viable and they want another one. So discussions are taking place at the moment on the minor detail of changing the design of one of the houses, perhaps putting another house in a corner where there is not one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am saying that we have no intention of setting it out in perpetuity; we are consulting on what the length of time would be and on the option of setting the limit at five years, which would indeed be set out in secondary legislation.

[Lord Greaves]

On the question of five years, if I remember correctly, the limit for outline planning applications and full applications used to be five years, and the limit for outlines was reduced to three years precisely to encourage people to get on with development and apply for reserved matters. Is it not the case that going back to five years for planning in principle before technical details are required could result in the process slowing down, which is the opposite to what the Government want?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I take the noble Lord’s point; I hope that all that would come out in the consultation and that we would arrive at a sensible period of time.

On Amendments 93A and 92K, in answer to the points raised about permission in principle applying to existing local and neighbourhood plans, I hope that I can make some helpful assurances. I make it clear that permission in principle, granted on allocation in locally prepared plans and registers, will apply only to those adopted once the permission in principle measure is fully in force. The Government have no intention to apply the measure retrospectively to site allocations in existing local development plans. It will be possible to grant permission in principle only going forward, so existing plans and site allocations will not be affected. My noble friend Lord Lansley asked what would happen to plans that are in evolution. Local authorities can go back and review their plans to put permission in principle to effect. I am making the point that it cannot be done retrospectively, which has been a concern.

[Lord Greaves]

While we are on this, in principle—I hate to use that word here—there might be no reason why, if the local plan has been put together in a very thorough way with lots of public consultation, it should not apply, once it is adopted, perhaps next year or later this year, to permission in principle. The problem is, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the Minister said, that because of the way in which local plans are put together at present, very often there is not much public involvement about particular site allocations because people always think, “That’s been allocated for housing for ages so it’ll be allocated again, and we can always get involved and object if and when there’s a planning application”—and people hope that there never will be. If a local plan involving site allocations, whether it is the whole local plan or just the site allocations document, is almost or half-way ready to go to inspection, and the sites have more or less been agreed, and then there is the question of whether that plan, once it is adopted, should qualify for PIP, if the Minister is saying, “The local authority might have to go back and review it”, and if that then involves having a greater degree of public involvement and neighbour consultation than has taken place so far, that will delay the plan. Can the Government give a guarantee that under those circumstances they would not then penalise the authority for not meeting deadlines in production of the plan?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there is no intention to penalise local authorities; the Government made it quite clear that this would not be retrospective but could be reviewed as time went on. The noble Lord makes his own case when he talked about local people not being involved in the planning process. In fact, there is every evidence that the local planning process has vastly increased engagement from local communities, so I think it is a very good system, and I hope that local people get involved.

I turn to Amendment 93B. I assure the noble Lord that, as I said, we intend to set out a sensible period of when permission in principle ceases to have effect in secondary legislation. Setting the arrangements out in secondary legislation is more prudent, allowing us to consult and explore this further so that we can get the approach right.

[Lord Greaves]

I do not disagree with that at all.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

If I could just complete this point, the noble Lord can come in afterwards. On Amendment 93C, I reassure the noble Lord that we are consulting on the application process for the technical details consent. We envisage that the process will draw on the existing planning application process set out in Part 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act of 1990. However, because the permission in principle, followed by technical details consent, is a different route to obtaining planning permission, it would be inappropriate to place a requirement in the Bill that fully duplicates the current full planning permission procedure at the technical details consent stage.

We will be setting out the application process for technical details consent in secondary legislation once our current consultation closes, and, as I have said today, I will be very interested to hear views from noble Lords. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

It would be very helpful to have a bit more information about some of the Government’s thinking on the secondary legislation to which the noble Baroness referred several times. That is what I was trying to intervene on. It is very difficult to know how the process is going to work and to understand it without knowing at least some of that. I accept that some of it is in the technical consultation, but not all.

Can the Minister tell us the relationship between pieces of land which have permission in principle and other planning applications that might be made on those pieces of land? Is the existence of the permission in principle a material consideration in the consideration of another planning application for a different use? If that planning application is granted, does the permission in principle on that land lapse, or would there be two permissions of a different sort side by side?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I do not think that a local authority would want to put a permission in principle on a site that already had an application for another use, but that would be up to the judgment of the local authority, particularly in planning for housing.

[Lord Greaves]

I am sorry to pursue the detail, but it is important. There might be a permission in principle on a piece of land that has been there for three or four years, and nothing has happened, and someone comes along and wants to develop it for something different. That is the sort of situation I am thinking of, in which the permission in principle is historic on the land, as it were, and it is a new application. Perhaps the Minister will write to me on that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

May I start on a cheery note and reassure the noble Baroness that I did send the flow chart out with the details of the regulations? I do know that some noble Lords on the Benches opposite did not seem to get it. It will go into the Printed Paper Office. I have some copies here and the noble Baroness can avail herself of one. I hope that she is content with that.

I must say to the noble Baroness that we have spent many hours discussing the process of PIP and, if I do not answer all of her questions, perhaps she could look through Hansard and get back to me. Some of what I am about to say may also give her reassurance.

When permission in principle is granted through locally prepared plans and registers, local authorities will choose which sites they grant it to as part of their existing plan-making and site-allocation work. This choice will therefore be a local one, reached through rigorous involvement of communities and members within the current plan-making process. For the application route for minor development, following the existing planning application process, local authorities will be required to determine applications for permission in principle in accordance with the development plan for the local area, unless material considerations indicate otherwise, after a period of consultation with the community and statutory bodies.

The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, asked me what “describe” meant. It means the setting out of expectations about what will be covered in a later application underpinned by evidence. That is my understanding of what “describe” means.

Amendment 94 would include in the Bill that information included on the planning register would be subject to consultation with local authorities. Under the current system, local planning authorities are already required to hold and maintain a planning register of all planning applications. The power in subsection (7) of new Section 59A, inserted into the Town and Country Planning Act by Clause 136, will merely require local authorities to add to the planning register information about permission in principle granted through locally made plans, registers and applications. The information to be placed on the register will be the same as they are currently required to publish or make available for standard planning applications.

On Amendments 95 and 95B, permission in principle will agree and establish the fundamental principle of development for location, uses and amount of housing development. Section 70(2ZZA), as introduced by the Government into the Town and Country Planning Act through this Bill, means that when the local authority determines an application for technical details consent, it cannot revisit the fundamental principles agreed by the permission in principle. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, pressed me again on what technical details might look like. They might look like matters relating to the design, affordable housing, inappropriate mitigation or, conversely, appropriate mitigation.

[Lord Greaves]

Does that include access to the local highways?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not think that the site would get permission in principle if there were no access to the site. That would be one of the fundamental principles for a site to be suitable for permission in principle. But I will get on to that.

If accepted, the amendments would have the consequence of allowing the local authority to reconsider the fundamental principles when considering an application for technical details consent. That defeats the purpose of the measure and undermines the certainty that it aims to give, because it allows other material considerations to become relevant during the decision-making process, as is currently the case. There would therefore effectively be no change.

However, I want to make it very clear that in determining an application for technical details consent, although the local planning authority will not be able to revisit the fundamental principles of development, it will be required to consider all the details of the application fully against the National Planning Policy Framework. The noble Baroness asked at what point; the NPPF is relevant the whole way through and local policy is also relevant. I re-emphasise that technical details consent can therefore be refused if the detail is not acceptable. Permission in principle is a tool that will allow the basic suitability of a site to be established early. What it will not do is override the need to ensure that proposals are sustainable, create mixed and balanced communities and include any necessary mitigation measures.

The noble Baroness pressed me on what would happen if technical details consent cannot be granted for a scheme. I hope that I have set out the rigorous process of consideration and engagement that will be followed to grant PIP and in that context, the scenario when no scheme can be given technical details consent, is an extremely rare one. But if it does occur, in those rare circumstances we have made provision for PIP granted on application to be revoked or modified.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness that that is certainly one of the things that could be part of that stage. I could perhaps come back to this on Report, but it is certainly one of the examples of what could come forward.

[Lord Greaves]

That was very interesting and we are making a bit of progress. I will put a particular instance to the Minister. It is based on real life, but I shall not say where it is. There was a big application for 500 houses—that is huge by east Lancashire standards. It has outline planning permission. As part of that, it required details of access. The highways authority—it is a two-tier area, so a county council—was required to approve access off not only an existing main road, but I think the roundabout on to that road. It also required a contribution towards improvements to a roundabout further down the road to increase its capacity on to the motorway. That all happened at the outline planning stage. Where would that happen under PIP and technical details? When will it happen? What is the process by which it would happen? Would that be part of declaring that that piece of land was okay for permission in principle, or would it have to wait for technical details?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the noble Lord will know that outline planning permission is entirely different from permission in principle, but if a site required significant infrastructure investment to access it, it is unlikely that that would be a simple permission in principle site.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, the effects, implications and consequences of the planning in principle and technical details regime for consultation with ordinary members of the public, whether they are residents, members of interested groups or whatever, is one of the more alarming parts of the proposed PIP system. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, on tabling Amendment 96ZBA.

My Amendment 100ZAZC is about notifications and publicity. This is something that we need to get to the bottom of before this matter leaves your Lordships’ House—although I do not imagine before it leaves Committee—and not wait for the consultation. What is set out in the technical consultation document is not very satisfactory. I will explain why in a minute.

My amendment would insert a new subsection into Section 65 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It says:

“A development order which makes provision under subsection (1)”,

in setting up the new permission in principle system,

“must also provide that … any requirements relating to applications for outline planning permission also apply to applications for planning in principle”.

The technical document suggests that that is the Government’s view, too, although I can see huge problems with consulting residents over permission in principle, because they will come up with all kinds of comments, objections and concerns that will be ruled out of order as nothing to do with the very limited parameters of permission in principle. There will be problems, but I think that what the Government propose to do is okay as it stands.

Any requirements relating to applications for approval of reserved matters also apply to applications for technical details consent. This is a matter for alarm and I will come to it in a minute. My amendment states:

“when compiling a register under section 14A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004”,

—that is, a brownfield register—

“the local planning authority must have regard to the requirements for notices, publicity and the issue of certificates that apply to applications for planning permission and carry out procedures to the same effect”.

If a local authority is setting up a brownfield register, and if at least part of that register is going automatically to grant permission in principle, the requirements for putting a notice on a piece of brownfield land and writing to immediate neighbours—or whatever it is that the local planning authority would do if this were an ordinary planning application—must apply. If they do not know it is happening, by the time it has happened it will be too late. It will not be the same as a local plan, where there are at least general attempts to publicise it and to get people to say what they think about it. In the case of just putting a piece of land on a brownfield register, the systems for telling people what is happening and giving them the chance to have their say must be the same as if this were a planning permission.

My amendment continues:

“a local planning authority that is proposing to make site allocations for use of land in a local development plan that would, if made, result in the granting of permission in principle, must carry out notifications and publicity equivalent to that which is required when an application is made for outline planning permission.””.

Earlier, the Minister said there was evidence that lots of people were getting involved in local plans nowadays and that that was very successful. It is true at neighbourhood plan level, but I do not believe it is true at local development plan level—a process which tends to take place remote from most people. Unless people are told directly that a particular piece of land is going to be allocated for housing in the local plan, they will not get involved and then, by the time they want to be involved, it will be too late.

So what is wrong with the technical consultation? The government document reads:

“Before an application for technical details consent is determined, we do not propose to require by secondary legislation that local planning authorities consult with the community and others before making a decision”.

It goes on to say that local authorities can do so if they wish:

“While we think that it is important for appropriate further engagement to take place at the technical details consent stage, we consider that centrally mandating what should be done risks unnecessarily repeating engagement and takes away an important local flexibility”.

This is very dangerous. It means that a local planning authority simply will not have to do all the usual neighbour notification and public consultation that it has to for a planning application, even if it is a reserved matter. If this happens, it will mean that a lot of people will not know what is being proposed and will not have the opportunity to have their say. It will reduce very substantially the effective involvement in local planning applications that takes place at the moment. I hope that the Government will seriously reconsider this.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I turn first to Amendment 96ZBA. The NPPF and our planning practice guidance stress the importance of early pre-app engagement. Under the current planning application process, applicants often voluntarily engage with local communities when developing their proposals. This can help ensure that development is locally supported and makes for a more positive application process. In the same way, applicants will be able to engage the community, as they often do, in their detailed design at technical details consent stage.

We introduced compulsory pre-app consultation for onshore wind development above an appropriate threshold through provisions in the Localism Act 2011. This was to ensure that early community engagement took place to improve the quality of proposed onshore wind development, helping to ameliorate local community concerns and perceptions towards these types of projects. We have not extended the compulsory pre-app development to any other type of planning permission, and therefore I do not see the case for extending it to technical details consent.

I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, that we envisage that the technical details consent stage will draw on the existing planning application process, including arrangements for publicity. We are currently consulting on the application process for technical details consent. We welcome the views and expertise of noble Lords to help us to develop arrangements set out in secondary legislation. As regards the consultation on technical details consent, we do not explicitly propose to require that local authorities consult on an application for technical details consent, but we are seeking views on encouraging consultation to take place through statutory guidance to the extent that local authorities consider appropriate views.

Amendment 100ZAZC would add publicity and consultation requirements before a grant of permission in principle. I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured to hear that we intend to set out publicity and consultation requirements before a grant of permission in principle. The Bill already provides for us to set this out in secondary legislation. This will be the case whether permission in principle is granted through a locally prepared plan or on application.

We are also currently consulting on the application process for technical details consent. As I set out in relation to Amendment 96ZB, we envisage that technical details consent will draw from the existing planning application process. However, because the permission in principle followed by the technical details consent is a new route in obtaining planning permission, it would be inappropriate to place a requirement in the Bill that fully duplicated the current outline and reserved matters stage. As I mentioned, we will set out the application process for technical details consent in secondary legislation once our current consultation closes. I would be extremely interested to hear noble Lords’ views on how to strike the balance between the permission in principle and the technical details consent stage.

Amendment 96F is intended to ensure that local communities and others are consulted by local authorities before land is included in their registers. I understand the noble Lord’s concern and agree that an appropriate level of consultation will be important when authorities are preparing and updating their registers. However, local authorities will be expected to assess the suitability of all relevant sites for inclusion in their registers. As part of that process, we will also expect them to identify which of those sites they consider suitable for permission in principle for housing. Where an authority proposes to grant permission in principle for housing on sites in registers, consultation will be mandatory. As I said earlier, regulations will set out the procedures to be followed. Where authorities do not intend to grant permission in principle for a site included in a register, we propose to give them discretion to consult their local communities and interested parties about those sites. This approach recognises that local planning authorities are best placed to determine whether consultation would be helpful, and it provides authorities with flexibility to adapt their approach in particular circumstances. I hope that with those comments, noble Lords will feel free not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I tabled this as a sweep-up, in case we had missed something. I am not sure there is anything, but there may be one or two things. I was going to put it in a group, but the Labour Party said they wanted to keep it separate. Perhaps they have got something to say.

A couple of questions have occurred to me during the debate. One of the curiosities of getting planning permission is that anybody can apply for it for any piece of land. Is that also going to apply to permission in principle? That is something for the Minister to think about.

The second question is slightly more substantive. We are told that permission in principle is just for housing, in the Bill or anywhere else. There may be other things associated with housing development, such as shops or local offices, but so long as it is housing led that is okay. In local development plans, allocations of land are usually for housing. In most cases, they do not say “housing with shops”. When it comes to applying for planning permission, if people want a little area in the middle of the housing with two or three shops, everyone says that is wonderful and gives permission for it. How will permission in principle work in terms of categories? Will it have to be in the local plan, or the brownfield site register, that it is housing with associated ancillary things? If so, categories in local plans are going to have to be substantially revised. I just thought of that question and it seems to be a practical thing that needs to be looked at.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I confirm to the noble Lord that it would have to be categorised as housing-led development. For permission in principle to be granted, it would have to be categorised by size, location and type of development. I hope that reassures the noble Lord.

I hope that, through the course of this evening, I have been able to demonstrate that, rather than removing the role of local authorities and communities, the true aim of the measure is to help them in developing their plans. I have given assurances that the choice of where and to what permission in principle is granted is a local one, taken by local authorities or neighbourhood forums through their existing plan-making process. I hope the noble Lord now feels able to withdraw his opposition to Clause 136.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, unlike some of the younger people in this Chamber tonight, I have run out of energy, so I will simply move the first amendment in this group. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the amendments.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, Clause 140 ensures that the likely financial benefits of certain development proposals will be made public when a local planning authority is considering whether to grant planning permission. It applies only to reports, with a recommendation about how a planning application should be decided going to a planning committee or the full authority. It requires local planning authorities to make arrangements for the reports to include a list of certain financial benefits which are likely to be obtained by the authority as a result of the proposed development being completed.

The financial benefits to be listed include local finance considerations, payments under the community infrastructure levy and government grants, or any other benefit set out by the Secretary of State in secondary legislation.

The Secretary of State will also have the power to require a financial benefit to be recorded where it is payable to a person or body other than to the authority making the planning determination. There are powers to set out in regulations any further information about a financial benefit which must be recorded in a planning report—for example, an estimate of the amount.

Not setting out in public the potential financial benefits of planning applications during the decision-making process impacts negatively on local transparency. It prevents local communities understanding the benefits that development can bring to their local area. Therefore, we amended the national planning policy guidance to make it clear that local finance considerations may be cited for information in planning committee reports, even where they are not material to the decision. Despite this change, our concerns remain.

Our intention is not to interfere in the considerations taken into account when planning decisions are made. The effect of this measure, which will not be onerous on local planning authorities, will simply be to make local communities more fully aware of financial benefits which are otherwise non-material to planning decisions and help them understand better the wider impact of development. We are consulting on how we might use the delegated powers included in this clause; for example, on prescribing council tax and business rate revenue, and Section 106 payments, as financial benefits to be listed.

I shall not thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his amendment because he did not speak to it, but in thinking what he might have said—I struggle to do so at this hour—I should point out that the measure would apply to all planning reports, not just those going to planning committees as set out in Clause 140. Local planning authorities would be required to list any financial benefits or costs received or incurred by not just themselves but any other person. They would also be required to provide any information about the financial costs or benefits without any limits to or guidance about what should be provided. The amendment would introduce substantial ambiguity and huge burdens for local planning authorities. The breadth of information required would be significantly onerous, so the amendment would not result in a proportionate approach.

Amendments 100ZABB and 100ZABL would extend our approach and require all reports, with a recommendation, to set out the financial benefits and not just those going to a planning committee or the full authority for a decision. We chose to apply this measure to committee reports, as these will be published in advance and are the most accessible and transparent to local communities and therefore the most appropriate for the likely benefits to be recorded in. Applications determined at planning committees are also likely to be the larger developments, where we imagine the largest financial benefits to be. While reports for planning applications decided under delegated powers are made publicly available, our understanding is that that is generally only after a decision is taken and only where a member of the public requests the information.

Amendments 100ZABC, 100ZABE, 100ZABG, 100ZABH and 100ZABK would require local planning authorities to list the costs likely to be incurred as a result of development. The noble Lord’s amendments do not include a definition of costs. Therefore local authorities would be required to list any cost that might arise from development. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, our intention is for minimum burdens to be placed on authorities, which these amendments would not bring. Where, for example, significant infrastructure would be needed to support a proposed new development, this would be a material consideration and therefore already covered in some detail in planning reports.

Amendment 100ZABF would extend the scope of the clause to require local planning authorities to list the financial benefits likely to be obtained by anybody as a result of the grant of a planning permission. It would significantly increase the scope of the clause. We are consulting on how we might use this power, but our intention is for it to be used sparingly.

Amendments 100ZABD, 100ZABJ and 100ZABM—which I am sure are designed to tax me at this hour of the night—would remove the Secretary of State’s power to define in regulations the financial benefits that should be listed in reports. Again, removing this flexibility would require local planning authorities to list all financial benefits, which we do not feel is a proportionate approach. I hope that, with these reassurances, the noble Lord will not press his amendments.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I am lost in admiration at the vigour and energy that the Minister still has at this time. Having said that, I am grateful for her full response and beg leave to withdraw the first amendment in the group.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Greaves and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I hope to answer the noble Lord’s points as fully as I can. I know that if I do not, he will intervene again.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, perhaps it is my fault that I have not noticed yet, but while we are on the question of the 40-year age limit, will the Minister tell me whether the cut-off will apply to a person trying to buy a house at the time they make an offer or the time they complete?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it will be at the time they complete. That is when they become the owner of the house.

[Lord Greaves]

That is an interesting answer and I am grateful for it. May I suggest that we find a way of discussing this and thinking about it further, because if we think about the practicalities of buying houses, the answer that has just been given has all kinds of implications?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I appreciate that. I keep coming back to the point that this is to address a specific demographic in the market that has been disenfranchised from home ownership.

To return to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, I understand the frustration of the Committee. I understand particularly that when the House is frustrated by not receiving regulations, that then takes time that we should be taking to discuss the Bill. However, I also see the need for the consultation to be meaningful. I would not want to delay Report but I am happy to meet noble Lords once the consultation has been published, which they might find helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

I am not qualified to take part in these legal technicalities but this is clearly something that needs sorting out. If the Government are going to stop people buying a starter home and letting it during the five-year period, will they also be prevented from keeping it empty? For example, if I bought a starter home worth £250,000, having received a discount of £50,000, and with two years to go I unavoidably had to move somewhere else and could not live in that house, it would be altogether financially more beneficial to me to simply leave it empty for two years and pay the council tax on it rather than to sell it and lose the £50,000. What will the position be in that situation?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Theoretically a person could, within the five-year period, have to move somewhere else and therefore the house could be left empty for two years. The question is whether they sell that property within the five years. The person that the noble Lord is talking about would not sell the property; he would simply go elsewhere for work or for whatever purpose.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, there are all sorts of theoretical circumstances that we can put ourselves in but people may well move permanently—they may move to another part of the world or to another part of England where there are some jobs, unlike in parts of the north of England. Under those circumstances, they would not come back to the house and it would clearly be in their interests to leave it empty for two years. Therefore, the number of empty properties in that area would increase for purely bureaucratic reasons. All you have to do is leave the house empty for a couple of years, then sell it and make a profit of perhaps £45,000. That does not seem sensible. If the Government have not thought out the problem, they ought to do so and come back and tell us whether there is a solution to it.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the matter here is resale. I will certainly write to the noble Lord to clarify the issue if that is okay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Perhaps I may take that point away because, like other noble Lords, I am no legal expert. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked about the Help to Buy scheme being used to purchase a starter home. We are certainly exploring whether it can be used but as yet no decisions have been made.

[Lord Greaves]

Just to wrap up this point if we can, when might decisions be made? The point is that if there is a 20% discount on a starter home and a potential 20% discount in certain circumstances through the Help to Buy scheme, somebody could get a 40% discount out of public funds on the house they buy. That seems rather a lot, and I would like an answer to that question before we finish with this Bill.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, Help to Buy is a government loan guarantee scheme as opposed to a discount, but I shall be happy to discuss that further and, as I said, to bring forward in due course government thinking on Help to Buy being used for a starter home.

Putting the sales and letting restrictions in regulations will give us flexibility to amend the restrictions, should this be required in the future. It will also give the opportunity to consult with key stakeholders to ensure the regulations operate fairly and effectively, which is what we all want. Restrictions in any legislation will not prevent gaming at the local level, much as we would want it to, but I reassure noble Lords that we will be working with builders, lenders and local government to secure the best possible mechanism to ensure that starter homes are for owner-occupiers only. We are working to secure a practical mechanism that can be agreed with all parties to ensure that starter homes are real homes for those who will enjoy living in them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, asked a question about second-home owners. I cannot remember what it was but I have something written down in my notes. Would she mind repeating the question?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, unfortunately you cannot really stop that, much as we would like to see a perfect housing system in which there is no abuse. Noble Lords have given many examples of when, once the five or however many years are up, in subsequent years some of these houses could be used as second homes. I wish it were not the case but, unfortunately, it is. The point is that they will go back into the market as a supply of houses for people to live in in the future.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I apologise, but these are new houses and therefore subject to new planning permission. Could it not be attached to the planning permission that they should not be used as second homes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness made the point that they would not be able to access these properties; they will.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I am sorry to keep saying this, but I shall keep saying it until the Government start to engage in the discussion. There are parts of the country where the housing market is stagnant, where there are real housing problems, but they are not the inability of a particular demographic—in this case, people under 40—to access the market. As I demonstrated earlier, where a lot of good-quality properties are already available for the same price as new two and three-bedroom semis would sell for, if they were starter homes and attracted the 20% discount, the introduction of starter homes is likely to have a severely disruptive effect on the whole housing market. There may be answers to this, but for the Minister to suggest that the demographic of under-40s is excluded in the same way in all parts of the country is simply not true. Moreover, the solution being put forward is, as I say, likely to have a severely disruptive effect on the whole housing market and potentially do more harm than good.

This is not particularly my view; it is one that has been put to me strongly by our local council officials who are involved in all this. They are the ones dealing with empty properties and trying to get new build going right across the field: housing officers, planning officers and senior council officers. They say that this proposal as it stands will do more harm than good, possibly far more harm than good, and actually will not seriously improve the prospects of the under-40s to get their own homes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I shall take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, first. He has talked today, as he did the other day, about empty homes in Pendle—I am assuming he means Pendle or Colne or Brierfield—

[Lord Greaves]

I am sorry; I do refer to the place I know best, but this is not about a single place in England. We have the same sort of housing market across a range of areas, many of which are in the north of England, but there are some in the Midlands, the south-west and others in amazing places where I did not really know that this problem existed. It is generally those places where the housing market is stagnant, and there are quite a lot of them about.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I shall reiterate the point I made the other day. The noble Lord is absolutely right to say that the housing market is stagnant in some parts of the north-west of England and employment is not like it is in the rest of the country. I think that the interventions that the Government have made in, for example, transport and infrastructure will put some of those areas back on their feet again, playing their economic part in the country.

Coming back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, about cash buyers, I do not know a single person aged under 40 who is a cash buyer, although of course there will be some. But our overriding principle here is that we do not want to disenfranchise people who work hard from the housing market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the effect of introducing 1 million more new homes into the housing market by 2021 will be to increase supply, which should, first, deal with some of the problems of demand and, secondly, start to moderate house prices in a way that has not been the case over the past few decades.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I realise that I am ploughing a different furrow from other noble Lords in these interventions, but I have to say with all due deference to the Minister that my concerns about our local housing market and that of many other areas are not answered by her saying that the Government are going to introduce better infrastructure and invest at that sort of level. If that happens it will be extremely welcome. There is not much sign of it in east Lancashire at the moment, but even if there were, investing in infrastructure takes time. There is no doubt that it takes 10 to 15 years and has a long-term payback. As I understand it, we are talking about the housing market over the next few years. Building new roads, reinstating railways and doing all the other things that people are talking about under the heading of the northern powerhouse will not have any significant effect on our housing market and that of many other parts of the north of England in the next five years. Meanwhile, we have to deal with the problems that result from a stagnant, fragile, flat housing market next year, the year after and so on.

I am not trying to be awkward about this. If starter homes are a wonderful thing, I am all for them. But what I am saying is that in these parts of the country the introduction of starter homes risks having a disruptive effect on the existing housing market. While starter homes might be built if anyone can be found to build them, which is a question in itself, the result may well be that the rest of the housing market in the area becomes even more depressed than it is at the moment. That will mean more empty properties and a general reluctance on the part of developers to build, whether for social rent, private rent or owner-occupation. If the return from building houses either through selling them or from rents is less than all the costs put together of building them, they are not going to be built. Because of this bonus—this subsidy—we might get some starter homes, but that will put a severe damper on the rest of the housing market.

All I am asking is for the Government to discuss this with people on the ground in areas like those I have mentioned. We should set up a mechanism for doing this and see how it works, and then perhaps bring forward different rules, exceptions or whatever it might be—or just reach an understanding between us—to see how things can be improved. There is no point in having a starter homes policy or anything else in areas where it is actually going to make things worse.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Greaves and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not agree with much of what the noble Lord said. Obviously, the mix of tenures is essential, whether it is starter home level, shared ownership, affordable rents or social rents, and a number of funding streams are available for the different types of tenure. I think that the noble Lord and I may be saying the same thing but in a different way. I hope that the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

Before the noble Lord does that, and I have no doubt that he will, the Minister made some interesting remarks about the importance of neighbourhood planning in relation to starter homes. At some stage in Committee, she said that there are now 1,600 neighbourhood plans at some stage of gestation. A few of these have been adopted but none of them will be busying themselves at the moment with starter homes, because starter homes are still being discussed in this Committee. What will be the process of neighbourhood planning in relation to starter homes? Will starter homes be put into the mix of that large number of neighbourhood plans that are still being worked out and will go to inspection and referendum, et cetera? Or will it require a process of amendment and change in adopted neighbourhood plans to cater for starter homes, which is, of course, a time-consuming and bureaucratic process? Will there be a presumption that in areas with neighbourhood plans, which are strongly biased towards rural areas and places with parish councils, there will be no starter homes until the neighbourhood planning process has dealt with how many there should be and where they should be?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I think it will be done through amended neighbourhood plans. It also may be done through the NPPF. I will need to come back to the noble Lord on that, because the mechanism is important. I probably would have known the answer about six hours ago but, at this time of the day, I do not know.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do apologise—I was trying to give him credit because I disagree with him on quite a lot of things. But he knows what I mean.

[Lord Greaves]

I think that the Minister was trying to stir up trouble on these Benches—I would not dare to contradict my noble friend Lady Grender.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I was not trying to stir up trouble—honestly, my Lords, it is getting a bit late for that. Amendment 50F is, I think, the appropriate one, which the noble Lord articulated very well. It would seem to be quite strange for the Secretary of State to produce an infrastructure plan as part of the starter-homes programme.

We particularly want to see local authorities and infrastructure providers planning positively for the broad infrastructure needs of their areas as part of local plan-making, and our starter homes reforms will not change this. In particular, local planning authorities will still be able to secure Section 106 contributions—which we spoke about earlier—for site-specific infrastructure improvements required for development, including new roads or financial contributions to local schools. Finally, we have announced a £1.2 billion fund to ensure that sites are prepared and have suitable infrastructure on site. This will support delivery of starter homes on brownfield land.

A couple of noble Lords talked about design, and I wholeheartedly agree about innovative and energy-efficient design. The Government have a design panel looking specifically at avoiding, I suppose, some of the mistakes of the past and providing far more innovative designs for the huge number of houses that we are expecting to deliver.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy, Lord Beecham, Lord Kerslake, and Lord Best—in fact, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has gone so I will not thank him—for explaining why they have concerns about Clause 6. This direction would state that the incompatible policy must not be taken into account when certain planning decisions are taken. The remaining local development documents would not be affected and the local planning authority may still have regard to these in its decision-making in the usual way. The compliance direction would not apply to policies forming part of neighbourhood plans and the local plan. Communities would continue to shape development in the area. This is a reasonable and balanced approach.

The compliance direction must set out the Secretary of State’s reasoning for making the direction and must be published. A copy must be given to the local planning authority and the compliance direction would remain in force until revoked by a further direction given by the Secretary of State. We will set out very clear guidance on the operation of the duties so that all local planning authorities are fully aware of what they need to do to comply with them. I will reassure noble Lords at this point that the compliance direction is a backstop provision. It will only be used in limited circumstances where the local planning authority is in breach of its starter-home duties and we envisage that it would be rarely used

The Secretary of State will decide whether to issue the compliance direction based on information within the monitoring reports that local planning authorities are required to produce under Clause 5. There will be the opportunity for councils to submit further evidence to the Secretary of State and any exceptional circumstances could be considered at this point. It will only be revoked by a further direction if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the local planning authority has taken adequate steps to meet its duty.

Turning now to the amendment to Clause 7, Amendment 53D seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish a strategy that includes targets for reducing the number of children living in temporary accommodation with their families. Under the Homelessness Act 2002, all local housing authorities must have in place a homelessness strategy and must consult public or local authorities, voluntary organisations or other persons, as they consider appropriate.

Each housing authority records information pertaining to its statutory homelessness activities under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996. This includes the number of households and children in different types of temporary accommodation on a quarterly basis. The data are published on the GOV.UK website and allow comparison at a local authority, regional and national level. I think that it is unnecessary. Local housing authorities already record the number of children in temporary accommodation. They have clear duties to secure settled accommodation for them and must produce a homelessness strategy setting out how they will tackle the issue.

To conclude, I think that the Government’s current proposals strike the right balance. At this stage, I hope that the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

Before the noble Lord speaks, I have a question for the Minister. I am trying to work out how the compliance directions will work. Are they intended to apply to future development plan documents, including the core strategy or whatever and site allocations, or retrospectively to development plan documents that have already been historically agreed and which have things in them that conflict with the concept of starter homes?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I think that they will be for future plans, because they will include starter homes, but I will correct that if I am wrong.

[Lord Greaves]

In that case, why is it necessary to do this? Why cannot any defect in relation to starter homes be dealt with during the inspection?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, that is a very good question. Can I come back to the noble Lord on that?

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Greaves and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, I want to put this problem in a slightly wider context. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that the present system of short tenancies was bad for tenants, bad for landlords and bad for housing. It is also bad for the local community. There are areas in the north of England of cheap, mainly terraced, housing and former council estates. The houses are cheap—as I will explain later—the rents are cheap, and keeping them in a decent condition is a constant struggle for owners, for the council and for people living in them. The result of the system is that there is a high churn—that is the technical word—of tenants. Many people live in a house for only a short period. That is clearly linked to the system of tenancies.

More than 10 years ago, I was chair of the governors of the local primary school. One problem the school had was the children who were living in that kind of property. It is a traditional area of working class owner -occupation. Some 50 or 100 years ago, people bought the houses from the mills that they worked for. When I first knew the area, owner-occupation was 80% or more, but private landlords have moved in very significantly and taken over many of the properties: one-third or more in the period I am talking about. Two-thirds of the children in the school spent most of their primary education there. In that respect, it was a very stable school: children went into the nursery or infants at the age of three or four and left at 11 when they went to secondary school. However, one-third of the children turned over every year. Every year, one-third of the children in each class were new and did not stay long enough to settle, to get a proper education and have the stability of being in the same school for some time.

That is just one example. When I first knew it 40 years ago, this was a pretty stable working class community of extended families. People who bought houses there as young couples had their parents living in the next street and their grandparents round the corner or in the sheltered housing just down the road. That has been broken down. There are lots of reasons for that, but the single most important one is the growth of private sector housing at the bottom end of the market. There are some good landlords. In that area, the best ones are those who live in the street and own one or two other properties in it. Other very good landlords are those who were left a house when their parents died, look after it well and live in the same town. However, there are absentee landlords who operate through housing agents. I have had people ringing up from Bognor Regis demanding to know why, as their councillor, I was not doing something about the rotten tenants in their house who had just done a moonlight flit and taken all the copper. I had to explain that I was not their councillor but that I was concerned about the house. But I also had to ask why they put those tenants in. I said, “Well, you know what the street is like. It is like that. We are desperately trying to hang on to the good residents there, but you know what it is like”. They said, “No, we have never been there, why should we?”. It is that kind of landlord in the private rented sector which is a disaster. That is why I would tend to support this amendment, which is just one of the things that might be done.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, Amendment 29, if enacted, would introduce a minimum of three-year tenancies in the private rented sector in England and would mean that landlords would not be able to rely on the notice-only or no-fault ground for possession—known as Section 21—within the first three years of a tenancy. Tenants would be able to end the tenancy by giving, as the noble Lord said, two months’ notice at any time.

Let me make it clear that this Government are committed to building a bigger and better private rented sector which provides security and stability for tenants and flexibility for landlords. We have taken action to support the supply and quality of private rented accommodation by resisting unnecessary and unhelpful regulation while cracking down on the worst practices of some rogue landlords.

Our model tenancy agreement, introduced in September 2014, promotes longer tenancies for those landlords and tenants who want to sign up to them, but there is no one-size-fits-all approach to tenancy lengths, as noble Lords have said. Many landlords are looking to rent out a property for the longer term, but there will be some for whom letting a property is a short-term plan and who will need the property back at some point, perhaps for their own family to live in, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said. So, the system does need flexibility.

Although I understand the spirit in which this amendment is tabled, the amendment would be counterproductive. It would overburden the market with restrictive red tape, stifling investment and the supply of rented housing at a time when we most need to encourage it. This would not help landlords or, indeed, tenants.

Let me explain. Before assured shorthold tenancies were introduced in the Housing Act 1988, the private rental market was in decline. Lifetime tenancies and regulated rents meant that being a landlord was simply not commercially viable for many property owners. But since 1988, the private rented sector has grown steadily—growing from just over 9% of the market in 1988 to 19% today. Landlords, and in most cases tenants, welcome the flexibility of the current assured shorthold tenancy regime, which does not lock either party into long-term commitments and promotes mobility.

We must be mindful that recent figures show that tenancy lengths are on average three and a half years. However, without the certainty that landlords can seek repossession when required, many would be reluctant to let their properties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the £1.6 billion to build 100,000 affordable rented homes will add to the mix of addressing supply. As noble Lords have said this afternoon, the fundamental issue of the housing market today is lack of supply. All these different types of tenure will add to the supply. I accept that we will disagree, but one cannot—

[Lord Greaves]

I wonder if I can just tempt the Minister again to say perhaps that in many parts—or even most parts—of the country that is the case? Lack of supply is not the case in areas where the market has collapsed, and we need different policies to solve the problems we have got and provide people with good homes.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not think that the noble Lord is wrong that in certain parts of the country—and I think I know the parts he is referring to—home ownership has declined because people do not want to live there. I think that some of the regeneration and transport policies and some of the policies for the northern powerhouse for rebalancing the economy will contribute to all parts of the country being able to maximise their economic potential and make people want to live there. I give the example of Salford, where MediaCity was built. That area of Salford is a very desirable place to buy.

There are a number of interventions that the Government can make that all add to the mix of a place being an attractive place to live. I have seen where transport investment suddenly has made areas that people did not want to go near—Wythenshawe—into ones where suddenly the house prices have increased dramatically. They are becoming very vibrant places in which to live because of those transport links and investment in the airport. I accept that point. We cannot just take individual government policies and criticise them. We have to take everything in the mix in terms of improving and rebalancing our economy outside the south-east while recognising that the south-east is a fantastic place to live and is the engine of this country in many ways.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Greaves and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord will know very well if he is a rogue landlord, because I will now read out the definition. It is a landlord or property agent who knowingly flouts the law by renting out unsafe and substandard accommodation. To be on the database, they will have to be convicted of certain serious offences—and, for that, they may come before your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, that is not the correct definition, with respect to the Minister, unless being banned by a First-tier Tribunal is a conviction. Perhaps it is—it is certainly a status—but it is clear that people banned by the First-tier Tribunal will be on the banned list. One assumes that they are therefore rogue landlords under the definition in the Bill, so they would not have to be convicted in a higher court of law. Yes, the Minister is nodding her head.

I will be brief. I am no friend of bad landlords—far from it. In the part of Colne that I represent, parts of those streets have been wrecked by bad landlords, and I agree that it is a clear phrase in the public mind. However, we are not talking about the public mind but about phrases that will have to be interpreted at some stage by the courts of the country. We are talking about words written into the law of the land. The use of such colloquial expressions, which are perfectly okay on breakfast-time television as the people who are denounced there deserve everything they get, will get us into trouble if we put them into the law.

If the Government are really determined to put this rather unusual and extraordinary expression into the law of the land, it ought to appear in the list of definitions at the end of Part 2 so that we have a clear definition of it, because when the Minister was asked just now she did not quite give an accurate one. At the very least, I ask that it appears in the list of definitions because words mean what they say. This is not Humpty-Dumpty land. Words actually have a meaning and, when it comes to the law, words have more of a meaning than they do in chat in the pub or on breakfast-time television. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

I have an amendment later on that refers to empty dwelling management orders, which do not work very well at the moment. If a local authority is managing a property because the owner of that property has a banning order, is it assumed that the only money the local authority can spend on the property, which may be severely substandard—that may be why the banning order is there, or may be related to it—is the money taken in rents, even if it is not sufficient to bring it up to standard? If so, do we accept that a local authority is managing a substandard property for a period of time and if not, where will the local authority get the money to put into that property?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think that comes back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, about charges on properties. The local authority cannot in any circumstances of managing that property be out of pocket, but nor would the tenants be expected to live in substandard conditions. Therefore, any money that needed to be spent on the property could be recouped by a charge on the property. I think that answers the questions of both the noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Greaves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That might be the case. The point is that the local authority could recoup the costs. I think the premise of all the questions is the local authority not being out of pocket because of its obligations to the tenants. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is shaking his head so I will let him intervene.

[Lord Greaves]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way when I was not asking her to. This is a new convention which perhaps we should adopt. I think the point that my noble friend Lord Foster of Bath was making is that it might be a very long time before the property is sold by the owner. It could be 50 years, by which time who knows whether local authorities will still exist? There appears to be no means by which the local authority is guaranteed to get its money back within the period of the banning order.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I hope I made the point clearly that ultimately, the local authority will get its money back. That might mean that at the end of a tenancy the local authority could force the sale of a property in order to get its money back, but the point is that the local authority can get its money back. I guess if it incurred any interest charges over the period, it can claim those back as well. But such is the level of the civil penalty that local authorities should be in a fairly good position, using penalties and other things to service any housing costs they might have and to not be left out of pocket.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I am trying to be helpful to the Minister. It would be extremely helpful if she could write to us all with some examples and figures showing how this might work in practice, both in terms of the procedure and some numbers, so that we can understand it—which we are not going to this afternoon, clearly.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I think I understood what I was saying, but I am sorry if noble Lords did not. I shall be very happy to write and explain. I always use the example of a house that costs £100, so it will probably be something around that.

Cumbria: Floods

Debate between Lord Greaves and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Wednesday 20th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. I have given the figure for the funding committed for the transport infrastructure, but over this Parliament £2.3 billion will be provided for a range of flood defence schemes, which should help to mitigate the risk. It compares with £1.7 billion in the previous Parliament and £1.5 billion in 2005-10. At this point, that is what the Government are committing.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, the points raised about the infrastructure are quite right—it is vital—but does the Minister agree that also vital are small, ongoing maintenance schemes month by month and year by year, particularly clearing leaves from gullies, plastic bags from culverts and trees that have fallen into the becks? Councils are having increasing difficulty doing that because of the funding cuts; I declare my interest as a councillor.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right that ongoing maintenance is vital. In the recent floods, we have had two things: volumes of water, and therefore surface water increasing dramatically, and an extreme weather pattern increasing during some of these disasters. That is why the Government are reviewing the flood defences that we are putting in place because, no matter what we have done before, the next event is all the more extreme.

Northern Powerhouse

Debate between Lord Greaves and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name, and remind the House of my local government interests.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the northern powerhouse is empowering local areas through devolution, bringing decision-making closer to local people. It is right that local areas are able to involve their towns and parishes as they see fit. The Government are providing additional support to those towns and parishes wishing to exercise the community rights provided by the Localism Act 2011: for example, developing neighbourhood plans, listing assets of community value and running services using the right to challenge.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, all over the north of England there are small towns and villages with town and parish councils in which the northern powerhouse is no more than a remote slogan and of little relevance or meaning. At the same time, local services are being slashed, taken apart and closed down. What advice would the Minister give on behalf of the Government to towns and parishes, and what action should they take in those circumstances?

Northern Powerhouse: Lancashire

Debate between Lord Greaves and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I remind the House of my registered local government interest.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the northern powerhouse is part of the Government’s long-term economic plan to enable the north to maximise its economic potential. Alongside wider economic growth, Lancashire will benefit from improved transport connections, an enhanced skills base, support for international trade, cultural investment and the opportunity to ask government for more devolved powers. Local projects of economic importance are currently being supported through the Lancashire growth deal and Preston and South Ribble city deal.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, Lancashire is a large, varied, attractive county stretching from the coast to the Pennine hills, where I live. It is full of countryside and attractive towns and cities. It is being deprived and stripped of resources—first the councils, then the lack of government investment and now the police. Do the Government understand that, if the northern powerhouse is going to succeed and not just be a slogan, it is going to have to cover the whole of the north of England and not just the big cities that grab everything for themselves? At the moment, we are simply being stuffed.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord’s statement. In 2014, the Lancashire Enterprise Partnership agreed one of the largest growth deals, which brought £233.9 million into Lancashire for bespoke deals. It also agreed the Preston and Lancashire city deal, which was the first Wave 2 city deal, amounting to £300 million of investment and development for infrastructure. I also do not agree with the premise that the cities are ahead of the counties, given the announcement on Cornwall in recent weeks.

Housing: Brownfield Sites

Debate between Lord Greaves and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Wednesday 3rd June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name, and remind the House of my relevant registered interests.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, we intend to require local authorities to have a register of available brownfield land that is suitable for new homes. This Government intend to create a fund to unlock sites on brownfield land for additional housing. We will continue to support the regeneration of brownfield land through a range of measures, including by announcing £200 million to help create housing zones outside of London and releasing enough public sector land for more than 150,000 homes by 2020.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, the Government’s enthusiasm for this cause is very welcome but, in areas such as mine in east Lancashire in the north of England, the problem is that we have low house prices and therefore low rent levels, and the return from building new houses simply does not cover the costs of remediation and other costs of building on brownfield sites. Do the Government understand that the need is not just for the provision of loan funding to get this off the ground but for gap funding to cover the difference in the cost between providing the houses and what you can actually sell or rent them for?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I certainly appreciate the issues in the north-west of England. I am sure that the noble Lord would join me in welcoming the initiative by the previous leader of Pendle Council, Councillor Joe Cooney, to have a £1.5 million brownfield investment fund to address some of those issues around clearing sites in order to build housing.