Election Expenditure

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I entirely agree with the principle that the noble Lord has just enunciated. I was looking at the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act 1883, which enshrined the principle to which he referred. The preamble states that,

“if its provisions are honestly carried out, the length of a man’s purse will not, as now, be such an important factor”.

I am afraid that a woman’s purse did not get a mention, it being 1883. The text continued,

“and the way will be opened for many men of talent, with small means, to take part in the government of the country, who have been hitherto deterred from seeking a seat in the House of Commons by the great expense which a contest entails”.

That principle is timeless, even if the language may not be.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that while guidance, codes and statutory instruments may deliver some of the change we need, it is only through primary legislation that we will get the electoral law fit for purpose?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

That is why, in my Answer, I said that in the first instance, the code of practice will provide greater clarity for those taking part in our democratic process. At the meeting attended by the noble Lord and six other noble Lords yesterday, the point was made that there may be some inconsistency in the primary legislation, which may need addressing. What I have said does not preclude a more radical look at primary legislation, as the noble Lord suggested.

Social Housing

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I thank and congratulate my noble friend Lord Whitty on securing the debate. I draw the attention of the House to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Osamor on her excellent maiden speech; I look forward to hearing from her many more times. She brings a wealth of experience to our debates, as we heard today, and I am delighted to welcome her.

We all accept, I think, that we are in the middle of a housing crisis. Today’s debate is focused on the part of the housing crisis in which we see people in the most desperate need imaginable. You would have hoped that the Government would have focused their primary policy action there, but that is not the case and this failure is paid for by the taxpayer through increased housing benefit bills and other costs.

The Government understand that there is a problem. I accept entirely that successive Governments have not done as much as they should have. However, we have a crisis and despite all the evidence before them, the Government cannot bring themselves to take measures that would make a real difference to help those in the most desperate need and, at the same time, reduce costs and make housing more affordable for all, across all tenures. They are caught up in starter homes, pushing more right to buy with no programme for the replacement of the social homes lost, and the ridiculously named “affordable rent” model, which is totally unaffordable for many people. The result is a booming housing benefit bill and an increasing private rented sector with no real support for local authorities to deal with the rogues that operate at the bad end of the market; I am well aware that many excellent private landlords also want the rogues dealt with.

We need to hear more from the Government on a real commitment to building more social homes on proper social rents: a commitment that also involves housing associations being enabled to do the same and being encouraged to live up to and return to their founding principles—a commitment to make housing costs cheaper for everyone, whatever the tenure. The noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist, raised the issue of community trusts and offsite-manufactured housing. I agree with her that such initiatives can make an important contribution to housing needs. I also think that the co-operative sector could play a much bigger role in an expanded sector, providing much-needed social homes where tenants have direct and real control over their homes.

The Prime Minister deserves credit for dropping—certainly quietly forgetting about—some of the worst provisions of the dreaded Housing and Planning Act, which must be a contender for one of the worst pieces of legislation. Written on the back of a cigarette packet, it was the biggest piece of ideological rubbish brought forward by the Government in recent years. We will all be better off for a commitment from the Government. I just do not understand why the Government are so reluctant to do more of what could make a real difference. To be fair, the Government have taken a positive step with the lifting of the borrowing cap to enable councils to build more homes. I congratulate them on that, but we need local authorities to be able to keep 100% of the receipts for council homes sold under right to buy. The Government should at least do that, if they are not going to suspend right to buy, as has happened in Scotland and Wales.

I want to see a rise in home ownership but not a decline in the council homes available for rent. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was right to point out that the intent behind the right-to-buy policy was probably to increase home ownership, but 40 years on many of those homes have found their way into the private rented sector and, in an act of madness, councils are having to rent back the homes they sold in the first place at vastly increased prices. It is a matter of regret for us all.

As I have told the House before, like my noble friends Lord Bassam and Lady Donaghy, I grew up in council properties; in my case, in the Borough of Southwark, on the Aylesbury and Pelier estates, which are very close to where the noble Lord, Lord Hayward—he is on his place on the Government Benches—now lives. The properties I lived in as a child were warm, safe and dry; they were good for our family and helped us to thrive, as the noble Lord, Lord Porter, made reference to in his speech.

The noble Lord, Lord Bird, was absolutely right when he described council housing in the 1960s and 1970s, and my own experience was very similar. We had teachers, office workers, young families, retired people and unemployed people all living together. That is not the situation now on many of our council estates. Moving forward to today, I and all my siblings are home owners and we recognise how lucky we were as children to have a decent home to live in. My noble friend Lord Sawyer was right to say that the story now is often one of pain, misery and suffering. I think that life is very tough for people with young families trying to make ends meet while paying the market rent for a private rented property or, as I have said, the unaffordable affordable rent model. The year before last, I actually wrote an article for the Fabian Society about how living in a council home had helped my family to thrive. At this point, I should mention that I serve on the executive committee of the society.

Looking at government statistics, we have new housing completions in 2017-18 reaching 163,000, a 16% increase on the previous year, but looking at the figures in detail, only 27,410 were built by housing associations and just 1,700 by local authorities. One must ask how many of those homes that were built in the social sector will be let at truly affordable rents. I fear not enough, even among the small number of homes being built.

The noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Corriegarth, made an interesting contribution, although I did not agree with very much of it. However, I agree with him that prevention is better than cure, but to deliver that we need to see more initiatives, policies and resources being targeted at prevention; otherwise, the taxpayer and society as a whole will pay many times over for this policy failure. We need to deal with the problem in the first place.

The removal of the borrowing cap is obviously welcome, but that on its own will produce around only an additional 9,000 homes each year, nowhere near the 100,000 social homes that I believe need to be built every year to deal with this problem. My noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe made the point about the need for new social homes to be genuinely affordable. As I said earlier in my contribution, this is a really important point.

Can the noble Lord tell the House whether the Government will look at removing housing borrowing from contributing to public debt? What plans do they have for local authorities with no housing revenue account to enable them to access borrowing in order to build homes to meet local housing need? The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, also made a good point about looking at making more use of brownfield sites. We need to do much more of that.

One of the most shocking things we have seen in recent years is the rising number of people who are homeless. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford paid tribute to the work of churches and faith communities in supporting homeless people, and I join with him in paying my own tribute. Homelessness is of course in plain sight outside this Palace. My noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe told the House about the homeless person who last year died literally feet away from this House. I think that that is absolutely tragic. Indeed, you cannot walk from a mainline station to get to the Palace without seeing homeless people sitting in doorways through these bitterly cold nights. It is a shocking and shameful scandal that has grown substantially since 2010. Despite the Homelessness Reduction Act, unless we provide realistic money to local authorities to pay for interventions and thus deliver on their new obligations, what is a well-intentioned piece of legislation will not have the impact it could have to help towards solving the tragedy of homelessness.

I also think that housing policy and good intentions are often frustrated by the work of other departments and a lack of joined-up thinking across government. This is a trap that all Governments can fall into. I think that the actions of the Department for Work and Pensions need to be looked at carefully to see the damage that they are inflicting on other government programmes and initiatives. Can the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, tell the House how the policy decisions and proposals are discussed across government in order to avoid these problems?

In conclusion, I thank my noble friend for bringing this Motion before us. It has been an excellent debate with great contributions from across the House. We all want to solve this problem and we want to support the Government in doing that.

Constitutional Convention

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock for tabling this Motion for debate today. I join other noble Lords in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for his diligent and exemplary service in both Houses, totalling 54 years. I have had the privilege of benefiting from the noble Lord’s wise counsel during my eight years as a Member of your Lordships’ House. I agree with other noble Lords that he will be much missed on all sides of the House.

Despite what else is going on in the political sphere—or perhaps because of it—it is good to have this debate today. Since 1997 in particular there has been considerable constitutional change in the United Kingdom. Most of it has been very welcome and needed and has made our country better. The devolution settlements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were long overdue. It is a tragedy that the Northern Ireland Assembly is presently suspended and, like other noble Lords, I hope that an agreement can be reached to get it up and running again soon.

The establishment of the Greater London Authority, the Mayor of London and the London Assembly has been very welcome. I agree with my noble friend Lord Adonis about the success of the office of the Mayor of London and the London Assembly. I pay tribute to the members of the London Assembly. They do a very good job holding the mayor—of whatever political persuasion—to account each and every day. The establishment of the Supreme Court and the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law were also welcome initiatives.

Not so welcome, in my opinion, have been the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and the English votes for English laws procedure in the House of Commons, which my noble friend Lord Foulkes also referred to. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, that there has to be a holistic approach to constitutional reform and the fact that there has not been has helped create the problems we face today. The decision in 2015 to have English votes for English laws highlights that we have not completed the constitutional changes needed and have left ourselves with a particular problem in England. Most noble Lords who spoke accepted that there is an issue there. So this debate is very welcome in that context.

My noble friend Lord Foulkes spoke about the need for a constitutional convention and he makes a very powerful case. Whether it is a convention or a convocation, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, I do not really mind. We have to accept that we have a serious problem and we need to deal with it.

Our present Brexit crisis means that the Government are doing little else. That is a problem for us all. From what I can see, there is no strategic thinking about what changes are needed in the governance of the United Kingdom, no analysis of the problems, and no looking at how we can meet the challenges that we face and how we can do things in a better way that gives our citizens better engagement, understanding and ownership, and a feeling that that their views matter.

Nowhere is that more of a problem that in the present arrangements in England. I agree with my noble friend Lord Murphy about devolution in England —the lack of it, the problems that has caused and the urgent need for this to be readdressed. Many noble Lords made comments about the derisory powers of city leaders and mayors in comparison with those of their European counterparts. Boris Johnson is not a man I often agree with, but even he made the case for the additional devolution of fiscal powers to London during his term of office many years ago, although of course even he was unsuccessful in achieving that.

I also contend that the failure to deal with the issues in England has created much greater pressure on the union. I very much agree with the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House, which observed that while there had been devolution of power elsewhere in the United Kingdom, England was a centralised unit, and:

“As a result, there is dissatisfaction within England with the current territorial constitution”.


I believe that a lot of our problems can be tracked back to one central issue. My noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock referred to the comments made by the Mayor of Liverpool about this being a top-down agenda. We have heard that he has left the board of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership. When George Osborne was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he looked at the whole question of where power is and created the northern powerhouse initiative. He sought to devolve powers—we can argue whether he was right or wrong—and to reorganise governance arrangements. I did not agree with all this but today, with his departure from government and now from the House of Commons, it has stalled. There appears to be no reforming zeal anywhere in government. There is no interest in the Treasury. There is no interest in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to move this forward. There is definitely no interest in Downing Street for this agenda. The combined authority/metro mayor model is flawed and confused and now lacks a champion in government.

I remember a contribution to a previous debate by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—he is not in his place today—in which he told us that where he lives in Cambridgeshire, there are actually five tiers of local government: the metro mayor and the combined authority, the police and crime commissioner, the county council, the district council and the parish council. That is no way to deliver services and to be accountable to the local electorate.

To be fair, there is not much thinking in my own party on this at the moment. We need to look at these things. One of the benefits of being in opposition—there are not many—is that you can look at these matters, do some thinking, bring something forward and challenge ideas. That is important and we need to do that. The Member for Oldham West and Royton in the other place, Mr Jim McMahon MP, has begun some important work looking at the devolution settlement for England. As an Opposition we need to be coming forward with ideas to meet the challenges of governance that we face today. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hain’s comments about devolution in England and how we need to develop things. He also referred to the Member for Wigan in the other place, Lisa Nandy MP, and the important work she is doing looking at towns and how they can feel isolated and not engaged.

There is also a big job to be done by think tanks and organisations such as the Fabian Society, a much-respected organisation on the left of British politics, which has been affiliated to the Labour Party since its formation. If you look at our 1997 manifesto, the society had great influence on the issues we fought and won that election on. I should also make it clear that I have been a member of the society for 30 years and serve on its executive committee.

Thinking in other political parties is important as well. We need to make sure that political parties and organisations aligned with them also think about these things. No one party or organisation is the source of all good ideas. In the 2017 general election the Labour Party supported a constitutional convention as a way forward. Getting some sort of body together to consider these very important issues is a very welcome idea. It should comprise representatives of political parties, civil society and academia. We may need a number of different organisations to consider these questions urgently, because it cannot be just a body or a group of people who are seen to be detached. The issue of real citizen engagement has to be central to the work that any convention or convocation does.

The Library briefing was very helpful. I was interested to read about the work of Professor Hazell and Dr Renwick and agree with them that,

“genuine, well-grounded deliberation does not take place spontaneously”.

To go down this route would take considerable planning but could produce recommendations that are reasoned and coherent and, most importantly, address the issues that need addressing. Their Blueprint for a UK Constitutional Convention is a good piece of work and could form the basis of how we move forward, notwithstanding the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport about how we deliver constitutional change in our country. As I said earlier, however, there also needs to be thinking within the political parties and I suspect—unless the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, surprises us all when he responds—that the Government are at present not persuaded as to the merits of these proposals from my noble friend Lord Foulkes. There is plenty of time for us in the political parties to consider these issues carefully and maybe to persuade the Government at a later date.

I thank my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock for bringing his Motion forward today. It has been a very useful debate and I look forward to the response from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham.

Verify: Digital Identity System

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I would not describe the service in quite the terms that the noble Lord has just used. Progress is being made towards the target of 25 million users by 2020. It is not the case that HMRC is not using Verify. Noble Lords who want to can upload their self-assessment tax return using Verify, and if they so wish they can check their income tax account using Verify. More and more government services are now subscribing to Verify; the MoD recently added an additional service, and some 18 services are now available. It is not the case that we are abdicating the whole thing to the private sector. Verify, which is a government service, will continue to provide a digital identity service to the public sector, and it is talking to the NHS and to local government in order to continue to broaden the base.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House clearly what went wrong?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I challenge the premise on which the noble Lord based his question. Verify was launched in 2016 and, as I said in my initial reply, now has 3 million subscribers who have completed 8 million transactions. I signed up to Verify over the weekend and, if noble Lords have not, I suggest that they make themselves familiar with this new and innovative service.

Tenant Fees Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 20th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 29 and 30 and in support of Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. I thank the Minister for all the meetings with him and his officials and for the meeting today on guidance. I look forward to continuing to meet to make sure that we do what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, described and make sure that the Bill is beautifully polished before it receives Royal Assent.

Amendment 27 would cap the change of sharer charge to £50 and Amendment 29 would avoid exorbitant charges to end a tenancy. Amendment 30 would avoid what I hope is an unintended consequence, which is that paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 allows landlords to insist on all the rent for the remainder of the fixed term. It aims to make the provision a little more tenant friendly by limiting the tenant’s liability for the rent to the point at which the property is relet.

Regarding a change of tenant, if a sharer moves out, it is normally their and the remaining housemates’ responsibility to find a replacement. The alternatives are for the remaining housemates to pay rent on an empty bedroom or for them all to move out, with the associated costs. Currently the fees associated with changing a tenant are comparable to those of starting a new tenancy. Indeed, Generation Rent recorded an average of £248 in its research. This reflects the limited options available to tenants rather than the actual costs involved. As the tenants tend to do all the marketing though sites such as Gumtree and SpareRoom, the landlord’s costs are limited to the referencing process. Even then, the existing tenants have an incentive to find a new housemate who will pass the referencing process and whom they can rely on to pay a regular rent.

If there is to be a fee, it should reflect the landlord’s or the agent’s reduced cost in that circumstance. The Bill as drafted says that the charge is capped at £50, but it still allows landlords to charge more than that—so it is not really a cap but more of a floor. The possibility remains that landlords would charge as much as they could. A true cap would not permit fees above a specified sum.

I turn to Amendments 29 and 30. People will always need to move unexpectedly in circumstances where their personal or professional life changes. The Government have recognised this through their proposed longer-tenancies model, which we welcome, giving tenants the flexibility to exit the tenancy without penalty before the fixed period ends. However, paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 allows landlords to insist on all the rent for the rest of the fixed term, which is unnecessary if they are able to relet the property, has the potential to create financial hardship for tenants and could even see some people trapped in difficult relationships. The amendments would limit the tenant’s liability for the rent until the point when the property was relet, which should take place within a reasonable timeframe. I very much appreciate that there is a little more clarity in terms of the draft guidance at the moment, but that is of course draft guidance and I am seeking to probe what can be in the Bill regarding this issue.

Regarding costs at the end of a tenancy, no one makes the decision to move lightly. To end your tenancy early would mean that you face significant changes in your personal or professional life. The Bill should therefore limit the cost of this where possible. As it currently stands, my understanding is that it would appear to make a tenant leaving a tenancy liable for the rent for the remainder of the fixed term, plus the costs of remarketing the property. A tenant moving out could pay all of this and the landlord could still get a new tenant within a month of the tenancy. The landlord therefore could possibly receive several months of double rent through sheer luck. To make it more of a level playing field and limit the departing tenant’s liability, the Bill should apply a reasonableness test. As soon as the property has a new tenant, the former tenant’s liability should end, and the landlord should have an obligation to deal reasonably with any request to leave. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, as this is my first contribution to the proceedings, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

This group of amendments covers Schedule 1 to the Bill, specifically around issues of changing or terminating the tenancy agreement. Amendment 28 is in my name and I have also put my name to Amendments 29 and 30, while I support the intention behind Amendment 27 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Thornhill. Amendment 27 would cap the amount that could be charged for a change in tenancy to £50, and that seems very reasonable. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, said, otherwise the £50 becomes a floor rather than a ceiling. The problem with the clause as worded is that it leaves the way open for a large amount to be charged. I think that that is unfair and not reasonable.

My Amendment 28 seeks to ensure that in a situation where the only change is that of a tenant, a charge cannot be made. I hope that the Government will agree that there is no loss of rental income if you are just replacing one name with another, and to allow a charge to be made in that situation seems very unfair.

Amendment 29 would require the landlord to react reasonably to any request for an early exit, including when taking steps to relet the property. If they do not do so, this payment would be a prohibited payment, for all the reasons that we have heard in this short debate. Amendment 30 seeks to provide better clarification than is provided by the schedule as presently worded.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

31: Schedule 1, page 26, line 3, at end insert—
“( ) In the case of a payment to a landlord, such a payment is a permitted payment only if the landlord is required by the tenancy agreement to review the contract or contracts annually and make arrangements to switch tariffs or suppliers if this would be beneficial to the tenant.”

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendments 31 and 32 in my name seek to add two new sub-paragraphs to paragraph 8 of Schedule 1. The schedule is concerned with permitted payments and paragraph 8 is concerned with payments in respect of utilities. Amendment 31 seeks to place a requirement on the landlord to review the various utility contracts and switch tariffs or suppliers to one that would be the most beneficial to the tenant.

We are all aware that the utility market is competitive and that there is a whole range of offers and deals. If the landlord or letting agent is able to make a charge for utilities, it is not unreasonable to require them to do something about getting the best deal and the best value for the benefit of their tenant. Looking at the market to see what is available is not too onerous a task and a reasonable obligation.

Amendment 32 proposes that the amount charged to the tenant must be the reasonable costs incurred, and any excess would be a prohibited payment. This amendment seeks to close a potential loophole by restricting what can be charged to reasonable costs incurred. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, the Countess of Lytton is clearly even more formidable than the noble Earl.

I too have a lot of sympathy with these amendments, but I believe there are already sufficient existing protections—not in this Bill but in other legislation—which address the concerns raised by noble Lords. Landlords who resell energy to their tenants for domestic use are governed by maximum resale price provisions set by Ofgem under Section 44 of the Electricity Act 1989 and Section 37 of the Gas Act 1986. This prevents landlords from overcharging tenants; they cannot charge the tenant more than the landlord has paid. If the landlord does overcharge, the tenant is entitled to have the charge lowered and overpayments refunded. The tenant can also bring a claim against their landlord to the small claims court for the amount that has been overcharged plus interest. In addition, on other utilities, landlords are prohibited from overcharging tenants for the resale of water under the maximum resale price provisions set out in the Water Resale Order 2006. If the landlord does overcharge, the tenant can take legal action through the small claims court to recover any overpayment and the tenant is eligible to recover interest at a rate of twice the average base interest rate of the Bank of England for the period they have been overcharged.

Amendment 31 would specifically require landlords to review any contract held for the provision of utilities and to consider switching provider if this would be beneficial to the tenant. In the majority of cases, tenants will be responsible for paying their own energy bills; they will pay them direct to the supplier and not to the landlord. So in most cases, tenants will already have the right to choose their own supplier. The tenancy agreement will set out who is responsible for paying these charges. Where the landlord is responsible for paying the bills, they may seek to recover these costs through the rent or directly from the tenant but, as I have already explained, they are already prevented from overcharging for this for energy and water.

Through, for example, the How to Rent guide, we encourage tenants to speak to their landlord or agent if they think their utilities payments are too high or if they want to request a change of supplier. In many cases, it may be in the interest of the landlord to move to a more competitive supplier as that may help to market their property in the future.

In addition, the Government’s Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill received Royal Assent on 19 July. This requires Ofgem to implement a price cap on standard variable and default tariffs, which will guarantee protection for the 11 million households currently on the highest energy tariffs.

Against that background, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for his very helpful response. I will withdraw my amendment shortly, but I would like to check something. He helpfully set out the legislation which will prevent people from being overcharged by landlords, but I cannot recall off the top of my head whether this will be clearly laid out in the guidance so that people will be very much aware of their rights and obligations. That would go some way to allaying the fears that are behind these amendments.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Before the noble Lord sits down I would like to say that that is a very helpful suggestion. We will indeed look at the guidance to see whether that suggestion can be incorporated.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

In that case, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 31 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

33: Schedule 2, page 27, line 27, leave out paragraph 7

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, all the amendments in this group are in my name except Amendment 37, although I support that amendment as well. They seek to amend Schedule 2, which concerns holding deposits. Amendment 33 would remove from the Bill the ability for a holding deposit to be withheld if the prospective tenant is prohibited from being granted a tenancy due to the restrictions of the Immigration Act and has failed the right to rent check. It is of course a probing amendment and I look forward to the Government setting out their case to justify this part of the Bill.

Amendment 34 would strengthen paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 by adding the word “knowingly”. That is a reasonable bar to have to reach for a deposit to be lost. Otherwise, it is unfair on the prospective tenant. If you knowingly provide false and misleading information, fine, but if it is unintentional, it seems harsh that the deposit can be withheld.

Amendment 35 would allow a tenant to decide not to proceed with a tenancy by notifying the landlord or letting agent before the deadline. It gives the tenant a reasonable period in which they can change their mind and not lose the deposit. I hope the Government can respond positively to that amendment.

Amendment 36 seeks to put into the Bill a requirement, where a holding deposit is withheld, that the landlord or agent say why they are doing so; that they set out the information they believe is false or misleading and which has been relied upon to withhold the deposit; and that they explain how the tenant can challenge the decision, including how to get advice on doing so, to ensure that the decision is sound. Again, I hope that the Government can respond to this amendment because people should be able to understand why a decision has been made and be clear on whether there is anything they can do. If your deposit is withheld, it must be right that you be told why and that the reasons be set out. If you do not like the decision, you should be told where you can go to get further advice and challenge it.

The final amendment in the group, Amendment 37, has been tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Thornhill. It looks sensible and I look forward to hearing the explanation behind it. I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to the final amendment in this group, Amendment 37. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his remarks and I should say that we support his amendments.

If the Bill is rightly concerned with redressing the balance of power a little more towards tenants, this modest amendment would surely do that. Its purpose is to ensure that on payment of a holding deposit, which can sometimes be a significant amount of money, the tenant actually gets to see the tenancy agreement and therefore knows the terms of the contract that they will be asked to sign and abide by. The real question is whether there is a good reason for tenants not automatically and always being given this right. I am at a loss to understand this. In life, if we buy a product or a service, we see all the terms and conditions. We tick the “I agree” box online, while on paper we sign on the dotted line—although, like me, I suspect that we do not actually read all of the small print. The situation we are discussing would not arise in any other consumer transaction, so the amendment seeks to ensure that the same applies when people rent their home.

It is impossible for tenants to spot and negotiate out of the tenancy agreement any unfair terms if they have not received it before signing or moving into the property, the more so as they might ultimately incur default fees. Even if they receive the agreement in good time, they do not have much power to negotiate the terms because they stand to lose their holding deposit if they walk away. The ability of tenants to negotiate unfair terms out of a contract would be made just a little easier through the provision in this amendment.

It is equally important that the Bill makes it clear that the draft tenancy agreement must meet a certain universal standard. Thus the amendment refers to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the legislation that would form the basis for the standard. The rationale is that if the tenancy agreement contained unfair terms, the tenant could ask for those to be removed. If the landlord refused to remove them, the tenant could pull out of the tenancy and claim the holding deposit back on the basis that the draft agreement did not comply with the Consumer Rights Act.

Existing government guidelines for the Act on what are and are not “unfair terms” are quite clear. They talk about transferring risks to consumers—in this case the tenant—that cannot be controlled. The tenancy agreement might be the first time the tenant gets to see what default fees the landlord is setting, and sometimes, even more significantly—and perhaps horrifically—it does not specify the level of default fees they might subsequently wish to apply. Efforts elsewhere in the Bill to define default fees more tightly might help to address these concerns, but surely it is both fair and reasonable for tenants to have some ability to negotiate the terms of their contract before signing it.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for moving his amendment.

This set of amendments deals with the treatment of holding deposits under Schedule 2 to the Bill. As I have set out on previous occasions, the purpose of a holding deposit is to enable both the landlord and the tenant to demonstrate their commitment to entering into a tenancy agreement while reference checks are undertaken. It is important that there is earnest from both parties to the agreement. As I have said on a previous occasion, it must be wrong for a landlord to have more than one agreement with a tenant; there can be only one on both sides. So that we have a case of what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, we have to be careful in looking at the amendments.

Amendments 33 to 35, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, seek to make changes to the circumstances in which landlords and agents can retain a holding deposit. From the outset of this policy, landlords and letting agents have expressed concern that tenants speculating on multiple properties might be a side-effect of the ban. That is why we are allowing a landlord to ask for a holding deposit so that tenants can demonstrate that they are sincere in their application—as I am sure they are, in the vast majority of cases. It is a pledge from the tenant to a given property. This mitigates the risk of landlords and agents being out of pocket if a tenant registers an interest, only to withdraw if something better comes along. I therefore cannot agree to Amendment 35.

We also want to ensure that landlords do not take an overly cautious approach and preselect tenants that they perceive as the most likely to pass a reference check. Permitting landlords to retain holding deposits in circumstances where a tenant fails a right-to-rent check—which I referred to in discussion on the previous amendment, moved by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes—is a key mitigation against such behaviour. I therefore cannot accept Amendment 33.

Amendment 34 suggests that a landlord or agent should refund the holding deposit only if the tenant “knowingly” provides false or misleading information. Again, I am afraid I cannot accept such an amendment, although I appreciate the spirit in which it was moved. Requiring the landlord to refund the holding deposit in these situations would be near-impossible because the landlord is unlikely to have the necessary evidence to prove whether a tenant has done something knowingly. It would simply be one party’s word against the other. Given that the landlord is liable for a significant financial fine, we believe that the inclusion of a “knowingly” test is more likely to lead to them taking a risk-averse approach, which would not help tenants. I firmly believe that the approach set out in the Bill with respect to holding deposits is the fairest to both landlords and tenants.

As I have said, I recognise the desire expressed by noble Lords for greater transparency regarding the treatment of holding deposits; I have previously indicated that I will look at that. I understand the rationale behind Amendments 36 and 37. Without a commitment on where we will end up, I am happy to look at this issue ahead of Report. I appreciate the valuable points made during the debate on these amendments and the importance for tenants of understanding how their holding deposit is handled and why it may not be returned. That seems entirely fair. I have listened to noble Lords’ concerns on these issues and will be happy to return to them on Report. I listened to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, on Amendment 37 in relation to sight of the agreement ahead of entering into it. Again, that seems to have some strength in it and I am happy to look at it.

I should say that we are making great progress; I believe that noble Lords who have looked at the guidance notes will acknowledge that. The notes, which will set out the procedures for, and the rights and obligations of, landlords and agents will provide great assistance in this area. That will support tenants in understanding how to seek appropriate redress if they are dissatisfied, including through provision of draft letters to help tenants raise concerns with their landlords and agents around the treatment of their holding deposit. As I have indicated, I am very happy that noble Lords from around the Committee should engage in this process with officials to help us to clarify points made in the guidance notes to improve them in the interests of landlords and tenants. I acknowledge that we have made some important strides in the process of making sure it is much more lucid and transparent, and less riddled with jargon.

Landlords and agents should give tenants sufficient time to understand the terms of any agreement before signing. I am clear on that. That is why the period before the deadline for agreement is there; it is intended to allow that. I will also ensure that a link to the consumer guidance on the Bill is included in the How to Rent guide. That will also help. Landlords are of course required by law to give their tenants these guides to help raise awareness. I hope those assurances enable the noble Lord and the noble Baroness not to press their amendments.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, for that thoughtful and helpful response to this short debate. I will happily withdraw my amendment shortly. Of my four amendments the most important was Amendment 36, which the noble Lord responded to in detail. I was pleased that he did so, because it is only right and fair that if your deposit is withheld you should understand why and how you can challenge that. I will certainly look at that and I hope to bring something back on Report. I thank him very much for that.

I also listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. I thought she made a very strong case for her amendment. Again, I am very pleased that the noble Lord will look at that. I hope we will have something on Report that we can all agree on. At this stage, I am very happy to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 33 withdrawn.

Cyber Threats

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, as other noble Lords have done, I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, on securing this debate. I thank him for giving the House the opportunity to debate issues of immense importance to the country.

I am sure everyone agrees that the threats posed and the risks involved mean that solutions have to be global to tackle the scale, the risk and the complexity of the challenge. There are no borders in cyberspace, no visas and no checkpoints. To meet the challenge, we have to work with partners locally, nationally and internationally, and government has to ensure that by working together we protect the United Kingdom and, with partners, protect the world from the real dangers that it faces.

We have heard in this debate about some of the threats to every part of our life: everything from the stealing of our own personal data to attacks on businesses through ransomware and other forms of cybercrime, terrorism, state-sponsored attacks on other countries’ interests and the threat of military capabilities being taken over, with devastating consequences.

It is good that the Government have developed the National Cyber Security Strategy, made a commitment to invest nearly £2 billion in cybersecurity and created the National Cyber Security Centre, which has done so much to protect everyone already. However, I wonder whether this large sum of money—and it is large—will be enough to deliver all the protections we will need.

To meet the challenge, we have to work with our partners at the United Nations, NATO, Interpol, the Commonwealth, other organisations we are not members of, such as the African Union, and those we are members of, including the European Union. This further highlights the madness of Brexit when the world is getting smaller and more interdependent, with greater risks, and we risk huge damage in areas of security, as we do in every other part of our life as a progressive, free, liberal, fair-minded trading nation. The Government have identified, quite rightly, that cyber is a tier 1 threat to national security, based on both the high likelihood and the high impact of such an attack. The scope of cyber risks is part of the problem as our world relies on digital technologies in every sense to deliver almost everything we need.

The noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, has huge knowledge of these issues, as the first National Security Adviser. As he said, cyber threats need a whole-society response, across the whole range of threats to the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Borwick, made important points about passwords and the basic protections we all need to be aware of in order to take proper action to protect ourselves. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, made valuable points about having the aptitude to see complex patterns and about educating the general public to spot when things go wrong. Often these are things that the general public are not aware of. Too quickly they are drawn into giving up their data, passwords and access—and have their money and data stolen, doing much harm. The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, referred to the dangers posed by weaknesses in the systems and the importance of protecting SMEs from these threats. I also agree with the points he made about simple passwords and other basic security checks, which echoed those made by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick.

My first point is about the scale and complexity of the challenge faced by the world, which I fear is not understood by many. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, about the need for an international, outcomes-based approach to governance. I also agree with the points he made about the need for partnership between the public and private sectors, in addition to partnerships between states, agencies and international organisations. One of the most disappointing things we have witnessed as the internet has developed and changed our lives so completely is the attitude of so many technology platforms, which have so often failed individuals, communities and nations in not protecting people’s data through either poor security or reckless practice. People’s data is entrusted to them but so often making money from the data has been much more important than security or data protection.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made the point that there needs to be proper redress for citizens who have suffered as a result of data breaches. I agree with him. Of course, individuals have a responsibility to protect their own data and to be their own first line of defence—their own first guardians when they go online—just as people have to do when they go about their lives generally, taking simple precautions to protect themselves. But that does not excuse poor practice by technology platforms, or companies involved in information or communications not working together and not working with Governments and agencies, nationally and internationally. They need to play their full role without excuses, helping to deliver the security we all need.

With regard to allegations concerning foreign powers, it is suggested that Russia is one of the main proponents of these cyberattacks that seek to interfere with and undermine elections and referendums here and in the United States and other countries. That is totally unacceptable. The reluctance to look at the referendum on leaving the EU is staggering when you consider the enormity of the decision, and if that decision has been stolen that surely is a matter of grave concern to every democrat. We have to ensure that our elections and referendums are safe, secure and free from unwarranted interference.

There are huge risks to business and our prosperity from cyberattacks. An organisation that I am involved in recently had its whole website cloned as thieves tried to steal information. The thieves were outside the European Union. We have taken measures and boosted our protections to stop this happening again. We are a small organisation and have been able to recover from this, but for a business this can be devastating, not only in the loss of money and income but in reputational damage and potentially the complete destruction of the business as customers lose confidence in its ability to deliver products or services safely. Who will buy products and services from a company that has developed a reputation for serious lapses in security and the protection of other people’s data? The mandatory data-breach reporting under the GDPR is a very good thing and the data generated by this will help the Information Commissioner and the Government to have greater understanding of the scale of the problem.

The large hacks and breaches in companies such as TalkTalk are the ones that get the media attention but, as I said, in much smaller organisations the disruption to operations can be just as damaging. Figures I have seen suggest that cyberattacks cost UK business £34 billion in 2016. But we have to ask: how much is business putting into resilience and preparedness? Is all the effort going into building cyber defences? If you have not prepared well and built a robust structure for the day you get a breach, you have seriously weakened your operation. This leads me back to the point I made earlier about the money the Government are putting into cybersecurity. Is the Minister satisfied that the funds being made available are adequate?

The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, told us that NATO has formally recognised cyberspace as a new frontier in defence and I hope the British Government have done that as well. My noble friends Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord West of Spithead have considerable experience in these matters from their previous roles. My noble friend Lord West made the important point about risk management: our weaknesses in basic protections are a huge risk and need to be improved. He also referred to the move to 5G and the decision about ZTE. I hope the Minister will respond to that point when he replies shortly. My noble friend Lord Browne spoke about the threat to our weapons systems and nuclear capabilities. He referred to the report from the United States. He is right to question whether we have the protections in place to ensure that our nuclear deterrent is actually a deterrent. Are we taking the military cyber threat seriously enough? My noble friend’s comments about the risk of hostile forces being able to hack into and take control of our systems deserve a specific response today but also outside the Chamber.

Will the Minister also say something about the ministerial and Cabinet-level response to these threats? Does he think that the National Security Council is nimble enough and able to provide the consideration of these important matters in a proper strategic way? Is he satisfied that we have got this right at the present time and what is the process of review to ensure that we keep up with new developments and potential new attacks? That leads me on to the issue of critical national infrastructure—not only the police and military capabilities but our NHS functions, our transport services and the delivery of food, medicines and power. Can the Minister say something about the ability to repel a cyber threat to critical infrastructure and, as with business, the resilience plans in place to deal with a successful cyberattack?

Finally, this has been an excellent debate. I thank the noble Viscount for tabling this Motion, which has enabled the House to debate an important issue, which I am sure we will return to again and again.

Third-party Election Campaigning

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, first, as other noble Lords have done, I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, for tabling this Motion for debate today. I bring to the attention of the House that I am involved as a trustee of two charities. The first is the United St Saviour’s Charity, which works with disadvantaged communities in north Southwark and has been doing so, following a bequest, since 1541. I am also involved with the Millwall Community Trust, which has not been around for quite as long but again works with communities, with young people, young men and women, in the boroughs of Southwark and Lewisham and helps them develop important skills. It is recognised as one of the earliest and most successful football charities. Neither of those charities engages in any activities that are covered by Part 2 of the Act we are debating today.

We have had the benefit of two general elections to see how the Act has operated—to see both what was stated to be the intention of the Act and the reality of the powers contained within it being in force. That benefit can inform our debates very well today. We have also had the benefit of the review undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, which was set up by the Government and published in March 2016.

The Bill that became the Act was introduced into Parliament by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, when he was in the other place as the Leader of the House of Commons. I am reminded that we were told and Members of the other place were advised, among other things, that the Bill would assist in making transparent who is lobbying whom and for what. It is fair to say that it did not turn out quite like that. The Bill was described on various occasions as hurried, badly drafted, sinister and partisan. It had a very limited focus and effect on lobbying and, as we know, was often referred to as the gagging Bill.

The Motion before us turns our attention to Part 2 of the Act, which concerns non-party campaigning. This is an area where there can be no doubt that the Act has had a major effect on the campaigning activities of charities. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, had also told the other place:

“The Government’s clear view is that nothing in the Bill should change the basic way in which third parties campaign and register with the Electoral Commission”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/9/13; col. 181.]


I contend that that clearly is not what happened and that we now find ourselves in a most regrettable position.

There have been rules about what third parties can do in elections since the introduction of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, made clear in his remarks. I agree with his comments about how campaigning has changed and am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has agreed with me many times that our laws governing elections are not fit for purpose. I hope that we see action soon from the Government to address these major failings since, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said, life has moved on. I also agree with the suggestion about having imprints in all social media now. The world has changed dramatically; we need to know who is putting this stuff out and why, and how we can get in touch with them if we need to deal with any issues of wrongdoing. It is really important that we know who is doing what.

Part 2 of the Act reduced considerably—by approximately two-thirds—the maximum overall spending limit, while widening the range of expenditure that has to be accounted for in the spending limit. It also introduced the concepts of constituency spending and targeted spending. The regulated period is one year before the general election but, as we saw last year, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act has been shown to be a weak, flimsy and easily-got-around piece of legislation. It is ridiculous and unfair that a charity campaigning on an issue could quite easily, through no fault of its own, have spent to the legal maximum before it was aware there would be a general election. How can it possibly plan like that? It is ridiculous.

It is worth pointing out that the inclusion of staffing costs in the overall expenditure limit is particularly unfair and quickly eats it up. I am sure it is particularly galling for charities and campaigners to realise that staffing costs are omitted from the national spending limits of political parties. If those costs were included, I suspect that one or two parties would find that they had spent their national campaign budget before they had actually started campaigning. Again, that is very unfair on the charities.

Overall, the Act has made it considerably harder for charities to campaign on the very core issues which are their reason for existing in the first place. My noble friend Lord Judd was absolutely right to tell the House about the engagement and experience of charities and the important work they do. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, made points about accountability and transparency, which I am happy to agree with—with the caveat that Part 2 of the Act went too far and had a damaging effect on third-party campaigning.

I also agree with the noble Lord’s comments about certain think tanks. As he said, the TaxPayers’ Alliance and the Institute for Economic Affairs, to name but two, are somewhat opaque about where their funding comes from. They spend considerable time giving their views in the media but are less open about where their funding comes from. The sooner that they are required to declare where they funding comes from, the better—that would be a welcome move.

It is right, normal and legitimate and should be welcomed in a healthy, democratic country that organisations will engage in the democratic process. The Act has damaged that and made it much harder. Registered charities cannot endorse or support a political party or candidate anyway; that is illegal. Many noble Lords made reference to the Sheila McKechnie Foundation report and the excellent work that it has done on the impact of the Act. It found that people’s voices go missing from debate, and that is not healthy.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, when he asked the Government to think again about the effects of the Act on legitimate campaigning undertaken by the voluntary sector. The noble Lord, Lord Suri, is right that where charities, people who work for them or volunteers have done wrong they must be held to account—we would all agree with that—but, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and my noble friend Lord Judd said, campaigning for change is a perfectly legitimate role for charities to undertake.

Let us be clear that campaigns and campaigners can be irritating, especially for Governments and people in power, but that is of course part of their role. It does not mean that they should not be heard. Charities feeling that it is harder to pursue their mission, or those organisations working on politically sensitive and controversial issues being particularly at risk, is not a good place for us to be. Smaller organisations are affected by the impact on coalition working, and that again is again very concerning.

It is very hard for charities to ensure that they remain on the right side of the requirements of the Act, and that has understandably led to many of them taking a very cautious approach and, in some cases, avoiding activity where there is any question of uncertainty. This has resulted in significant resources of time and money being diverted to compliance work rather than their core activities, and in some cases campaigns have stopped completely. As I have said, I think that is all very regrettable and damaging to civil society, but it is part of a wider set of activities that the Government have embarked on in recent years.

During this debate a number of noble Lords have referred to a review conducted by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots. This was a government commitment to review Part 2 of the Act after the 2015 general election, which was very welcome. The noble Lord spent a lot of time on his review, which was published in March 2016. When it was published, it was broadly welcomed by the charity and voluntary sector and by the Government. The House of Lords Select Committee on Charities described the recommendations as eminently sensible and recommended that the Government implement the review in full.

As we have heard, the proposed reforms sought to address the problem that the noble Lord identified with this part of the Act, which he believed—and I agree with him—failed to get the balance right. The noble Lord did not suggest that this part of the Act should be repealed but sought some sensible changes: a shorter regulatory period, from 12 months to four months, to help campaigners; clarification about what happens in the context of a snap general election—of course, a year later we had one, which we had to deal with; and clarification about joint working. The reforms sought to deal with some of the problems that have been identified as causing charities and the third sector real problems today.

In a recent speech Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, said:

“I want to see civil society recover its confidence to speak into our public life. The greatest social and political changes in our history have come about because independent people formed associations to press for change. If that means respectful criticism of government, so be it. … The business of civil society is society, and within the limits of charity law, you have the right to campaign, to persuade the public, and to press for change in the systems which affect the life of this country”.


I agree with every word of that quote, but it is frustrating that Matt Hancock is saying that at the same time as the Government confirm that they are not intending to legislate for any of the reforms that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, put forward.

What is the reason given? We are told that it is pressure of time in Parliament. I have been a Member of this House for only eight years, but I can confidently say that this is one of the quieter periods for legislation that I have experienced in that time. I also think that if the Government brought a Bill forward to implement the noble Lord’s reforms, it would get a very positive reception here. It would certainly not get bogged down in lots of amendments, as the Government might fear; I think it would have a very easy passage in this House. It would actually be a very positive experience for us all to have the opportunity to get away from Brexit and talk about something else, so the Government might find that such a Bill was very welcome.

I very much endorse the noble Lord’s recommendations. I also think it is really important to remove staff costs from activity that counts towards the spending limit. As I said, political parties would be really badly affected if that applied to their national campaigns in the regulated period before a general election. It is also plainly unfair that a snap general election could cause a charity to be in breach of spending limits and be at risk of sanctions primarily because it did not have a crystal ball to anticipate the calling of a general election. It is fair to say that most of the Cabinet did not know a general election would be called last year—we heard reports of them being shocked before the Prime Minister came out to announce it to the world—so why should a poor little charity have any idea what is going to happen in terms of a general election?

I very much thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, for bringing his Motion to the House today and enabling us to have this important debate.

Elections: Personation

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, the House is grateful for my noble friend’s report, Securing the Ballot, which included some 50 recommendations, nearly all of which are being pursued by the Government, including some that go directly to the issue that he raises: namely, the probity of local government. My noble friend will know better than anyone else that, if the level of corruption in a local authority reaches an unsustainable, unacceptable level, the Government can put in commissioners—which is exactly what my noble friend did with Tower Hamlets.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, why does the Minister think that so few cases have been investigated and so few prosecutions brought? Is there some failure on the part of the authorities, or is it the case that, while we must always remain vigilant and a greater police presence at polling stations is one way to do that, this crime is committed on very few occasions?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord is quite correct to say that there are relatively few convictions. According to the Electoral Commission report for the past year there were 200 allegations of personation in the past four years. He asks the good question: why is it difficult to prosecute? If you think about it, if you go to a polling station and try to vote and you find that somebody else has already voted in your name and you are disfranchised, it is quite difficult to find out who voted in your place. That may be one reason why there are relatively few prosecutions in the case of personation. The introduction of voter ID would of course reduce the risk to a minimum.

Electoral Commission

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, on 28 June and on previous occasions in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, agreed with me that our legislation on elections and referendums was not fit for purpose. But today the Minister has repeated the Answer given in the other place by the Minister for the Constitution. In the fourth paragraph, he said:

“That electoral rules have been breached is rightly a cause for concern, but that does not mean that the rules themselves were flawed”.


Are the Minister and I correct—and I think we are—or is his honourable friend the Member for Norwich North in the other place correct? We cannot both be.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

On several occasions, I have repeated a statement that my party made just over a year ago:

“There is a broad consensus that election law is fragmented, confused and unclear, with two different sets of legislation and poor guidance from the Electoral Commission”.—[Official Report, 7/6/18; col. 1403.]


As the noble Lord knows, a number of inquiries are under way that I do think we need to wait for before we decide how best to legislate. I am aware of the strong views of the Electoral Commission that the current level of sanctions is too low.

There are the DCMS inquiry into fake news, which we need to wait for, and the Intelligence and Security Committee’s inquiry into the activity of the Russians in the referendum and recent elections. There are ongoing investigations by the Electoral Commission into the referendum, and a court case is still pending. We have just had a very interesting report on referendums from UCL. I am not in favour of delay, but it makes sense to have the reports of the various inquiries that I have just referred to before we decide how best to proceed. I make it clear that the Government take extremely seriously what has been reported in the investigation out today.

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (Business Rate Supplements Functions) Order 2018

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I again remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I welcome these orders. I am a firm believer in voluntary taxation, and the system used in this case with the business rate supplement is similar to that used for business improvement districts. In that respect, it is a procedure that can command public support: if the business rate payers involved do not want to pay the money they have the right to reject it in a ballot. There is therefore a democratic process, which is very helpful.

On average, around 90% of business rate payers under any of these four orders will not be paying any additional money. Around 10% in Cambridge and 14% in Peterborough will have to pay a bit more. The Minister kindly read out the total sums of money that could be raised with a 2p in the pound levy. Clearly, rateable values vary. Could the Minister, either now or in writing, tell us the highest amount that might have to be paid by a business rate payer in each of these four areas, given that the threshold is to be a £50,000 valuation but some clearly have a higher valuation than that? Of the £35 million in the West Midlands, say, what is the highest single amount that might have to be paid by a business rate payer?

Overall, I do not think that these orders relate to the overall structure of combined authorities. There have been debates about mayors’ powers and the fact that the scrutiny systems need to be made stronger in combined authorities. Of course, in London an assembly lies behind the mayoral structure, which does not exist for the combined authorities elsewhere in England. All that having been said, the specific process relating to a business rate supplement stands on its own. It seems appropriate and should be supported.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I also draw the attention of the House to the fact that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am generally happy to support the orders before the House, but there is a point to be made about business rates. I accept that this is a supplement and in that sense it could be subject to a referendum, a plan and stuff, but there is the point about business rates in general and what business has to pay in an area. We have many questions here about the cost to business of further taxation. In the West Midlands, for example, if a further £35 million is raised, what does that do to the economy? Is that the best use of that money?

That then comes back to the whole issue of combined authorities. Where they are established, the funding provided by government is relatively small. I am sure the noble Lord will not agree, but I have made the point before to his noble friend Lord Bourne that we have this rather confusing patchwork of local government emerging in England. We need a clear structure that we will get to. I am all in favour of devolution, but I would like to understand what the plan is. Certain places will potentially have four, five or maybe six authorities, whereas in another place there will be just one. That does not seem to be very good government at all. I am all in favour of devolution, but I am not convinced that the combined authority model is the best way forward.

I am happy to support the orders, as I said. I welcome the fact that the supplementary rates will have to be subject to a ballot. That is good news, but generally there is the whole issue of business rates and the effect on businesses, particularly on the high street.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their support for the measures before the House. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that the average increase, if we go ahead with 2p in the pound, is 4% on the business rate bill, but I would like to write to the noble Lord—a generous suggestion that he made—setting out what the highest amount might be in the highest rateable-value property in a particular area.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his broad support. I know that he finds these differing structures untidy and has complained about them before, but the Government are responding to what local people want, which varies in different parts of the country so different patterns emerge. I am not sure that I can take the debate any further today. Doubtless, when we have future debates on combined authorities, I will make the same point. In the meantime, I commend the orders.