Local Government: Provisional Finance Settlement
Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Hanham(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for pointing out good news relating to the housing figures. We have been very aware—everybody else in the House will be aware—that a lot of the economy needs a boost and much of that boost will come from housing and housing construction. I am very pleased about the figures in the north-east, which is perhaps one area in the country where we particularly need to see new housing—not only to ensure that there is housing but because it will stimulate the economy even more in that part of the world.
The new homes bonus is part of the funding stream. It is not ring-fenced but it does relate to the number of houses that are being built and so would add to local authorities’ revenue. If the number of planning permissions has increased in the north-east as well, that is good, as there has been a lot of criticism that planning permissions are somewhat slow in being granted. Therefore, I thank my noble friend for those points.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Statement, although it did not give me much comfort. Can she tell the House what advice she has for the London fire authority? I think that potentially up to 17 fire stations in London could close, and up to six of those would be in south London—Woolwich, Downham, New Cross, Southwark, Peckham and Clapham. As a south London resident, I wonder where a fire engine would come from if you needed the fire services in the future. What words of comfort does the Minister have for the fire authority and what are we going to do about this?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the Government have been espousing this situation for several years and discussing it with the Local Government Association. I have addressed various elements of local government on the need to make efficiency savings and had discussions with groups of local authorities, which are already coming together to see what can be done. I am not sure there are any helpful figures I can give my noble friend. The only thing I can do is reassure him that this is very much government policy which has been promulgated to local government and that many areas of local government are already carrying it out and demonstrating that it is a valuable way of making efficiencies.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, can the Minister say when she thinks Sir Ken Knight will report on his chief fire officer review?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, he has been asked to do it and I suspect I can provide the noble Lord with the date the inquiry is to start.
Housing: Rented Homes
Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Hanham(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to deal with the shortage of homes for rent.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, the Government are committed to the provision of affordable housing and are investing nearly £4.5 billion to help deliver up to 170,000 new affordable homes, mainly for rent, by April 2015 in England. This is more than the 150,000 originally estimated and means that the Government will be able to deliver more affordable homes in that timescale than had originally been anticipated.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, we have the lamentable failure of the Government on new homes for rent. There is also the impact of 80 per cent of market rent, which means that a family of two adults and two children living in the London Borough of Newham needs an income of £48,000 a year to afford a home without claiming universal credit. Does the noble Baroness understand that, because of the lack of joined-up thinking across government and failed policies, hard-working families are paying the price?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, that scoops up a whole lot of things, some of which are not entirely to do with me. The universal credit is not part of my department, although I recognise that the housing benefit goes towards the contribution of housing facilities. We are trying to provide, and will provide, affordable housing for as many people as we can. The universal credit and the amount of money paid in housing benefit is something that my noble friend Lord Freud will deal with in due course.
Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Community Infrastructure Levy Functions) Order 2011
Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Hanham
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, the community infrastructure levy allows local authorities to choose to charge a levy on new development in their area in order to raise funds needed to meet the demands of hosting that development and, in turn, to enable growth. The levy was introduced by the previous Government through the Planning Act 2008. Part 2 of that Act provides for regulations to allow the imposition of the levy. The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 made the first use of those powers bringing the levy into effect from 6 April 2010.
The instrument before the Committee today allows local authorities, if they so wish, to contract other parties to deliver most of the activities they carry out under the community infrastructure levy regulations. The draft instrument is entirely consistent with other contracting-out legislation, made under the same powers, for contracting out of functions concerning the administration and enforcement of the business improvement district levy and council tax and non-domestic rates. Both instruments were considered by this Committee.
The objective of the order is to provide levy authorities with the scope to contract out specified functions and thereby give them the means to meet their responsibility to ensure best value. The order is of interest primarily to community infrastructure levy charging and collecting authorities. We consulted the Local Government Association and representatives of other levy authorities which welcomed the approach proposed by the draft order.
Where an authority chooses to contract another body to undertake a function, that body then does so on the authority’s behalf; that is, the contractor acts as an agent of the authority to undertake the function it is contracted to deliver. Article 3 makes this fact clear by requiring that where a contractor, in doing the work that the authority has contracted him to do, enters into an agreement with another person, that agreement has to make it clear that the agreement is between the authority and the person, not the contractor and the person.
It is possible to contract out only functions that an authority can delegate to a committee, sub-committee or officer, not functions that the authority itself must carry out. Where legislation requires a meeting of the authority—or, in the case of the Mayor of London, the mayor—to approve, that function cannot be contracted out. Article 4 of the draft order reflects these restrictions and reiterates that such functions may not be contracted to another party. The effect is that an authority cannot contract out its functions to propose, implement or withdraw a community infrastructure levy charge in its area or delegate its power to ask a court to consider imprisoning a levy debtor.
These safeguards mean that decisions concerning whether to raise a charge, including at what level the charge should be set and whether to continue to do so, are for the authority and it cannot delegate it. The draft instrument has no effect concerning the spending of levy receipts; the community infrastructure levy regulations already provide for authorities to pass funds to any person they choose and, where they do so, the authority remains responsible for ensuring they are applied appropriately. The functions that this order allows to be contracted out include: gathering evidence to support consideration of whether and at what rate to apply a charge; the administration of the charge, including processes for notifying, collecting and enforcing liabilities; and the administration of the resultant funds.
The order provides local authorities with the flexibility to ensure that their responsibilities are delivered in the most effective and efficient manner possible, be that in-house or through another party. It allows for a competitive process to be undertaken, which will provide authorities with the scope to drive down costs and drive up standards. Importantly, the order does not allow for decisions concerning whether and at what rate to charge a levy on development in an area to be delegated or create scope for another body to spend the proceeds.
I am satisfied that the order is compatible with the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, the order itself is not controversial, so I do not envisage a long debate on it. However, I have a few brief comments to make. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has advised the Grand Committee, primary powers were taken in the Planning Act 2008 to enable the Government to make regulations allowing local planning authorities to set a levy for their area to be paid by the owners and developers of land in order to contribute to the provision of the infrastructure needed to support development or planning in their area. The process was being determined, but the general election got in the way. Local authorities will have the ability to outsource all or part of their functions related to the levy, except where they are specifically prevented from contracting out that function.
I am aware that there has been a consultation process and that all the responses support this preferred option. I have one question for the noble Baroness which revolves around the review. I see that the review of the levy itself is scheduled for 2015. Is the noble Baroness satisfied that that will be soon enough, and were local authorities consulted on that particular point?
West Northamptonshire Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) (Amendment) Order 2011
Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Hanham
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, as noble Lords will be aware, this is one of only three urban development corporations in the UK and the only one outside London. West Northamptonshire Development Corporation has a number of wide-ranging powers. These come under three clear headings: investment, planning and development. The corporation has brought considerable sums of money into the local community, in excess of £70 million. It determines strategic planning applications and has wide-ranging powers, including the ability to acquire, manage and sell land and property.
As I have advised noble Lords before, in my previous occupation I spent many happy years in the East Midlands. It is an area I know reasonably well, but obviously not as well as the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, although I do of course agree with the remarks he just made to the Grand Committee. The purpose of the order is to reduce the size of the board from 11 to seven members in addition to the chair and deputy chair. I am content with that, but I would like to confirm one thing, although I am sure the answer will be yes. Have the local authorities been consulted and are they happy with this? Obviously, if they are, I am content with the order.
Finally, I thank the officials at the department. A couple of days ago I asked them some questions about this and a previous order. I got the information back very quickly and I was very happy with that.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the general support for these orders and I understand very well about the close interest of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, in this area. Regarding the flooding, I cannot do anything about his bales of hay, I am afraid. The corporation will need to talk to the relevant bodies, including the Environment Agency and any local people who are affected, so I hope he will be reassured about that. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his response. Yes, the local authorities have been consulted. They are now going to be the major presence on the corporation, so they will be content with that. I thank the noble Lord for his comments about the department; we are always very happy to help.
Localism Bill
Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Hanham(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, Amendments 54, 55 and 56 are technical amendments that ensure, in line with our original policy intention, that where a fixed-term assured shorthold tenancy is demoted, the tenant can be given another fixed-term tenancy upon successful completion of the demotion period.
Without these amendments, such tenants would automatically become periodic assured “lifetime” tenants on successful completion of the demotion period. That would clearly be unfair—in effect, a reward for behaving anti-socially in the past—and mean that private registered providers would in practice be unlikely to demote fixed-term tenancies, rather than simply seeking to evict for anti-social behaviour. These amendments ensure that private registered providers of social housing who demote fixed term assured tenants are in the same position as local authorities who demote flexible tenants. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I accept that these government amendments are to correct a drafting error. I am pleased that someone spotted it before the Bill left your Lordships’ House. Well done to whoever did that. It would be regrettable if we had had to waste valuable parliamentary time correcting this error at a later stage if it had passed into law. The substantive amendment clarifies that a fixed-term tenant should get another fixed-term tenancy on successful completion of the demotion period. From these Benches we have no objection whatever to that. Time is getting on and I will leave it there.
Localism Bill
Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Hanham(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, we have had an interesting debate at this late hour on this group of amendments. I can offer the Government some measure of support tonight, as there is lots to welcome in their proposals here, and they have clearly listened to the concerns expressed in the House.
The origin of some of the proposals can, of course, be found in the previous Administration. Amendment 201A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, is not an amendment that we on these Benches can support, although his Amendment 202A , requiring the Secretary of State to publish criteria by which an asset must be assessed in order to be defined as being of community value, could be of some merit, as is the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the more or less general support for what we have done, and, in my turn, I thank all those who have diligently attended meetings—not only the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, but my noble friends Lord Gardiner, Lord Cathcart and Lord Howard of Rising. I fear that I may have forgotten someone but there have been great consultations, mostly over the summer, and I am very grateful for the time that noble Lords have put in to ensure that these provisions do not have the unintended consequences that were anticipated.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, was the only person to pose questions and perhaps I may turn to those. His amendment would give landowners 60 days to request the local authority to carry out an internal review of its decision to list an asset. We are now going to move from 28 days to six weeks, which is a bit longer, but we think that that will give a landowner time to decide whether he needs to appeal the decision. The details of the procedures for carrying out an internal review, including who can do it, will, I am afraid, be in regulations. I am sure that we will have an opportunity to talk about this further before then, but it is anticipated that that is what will happen.
The process will be that the landowner will first be contacted by the local authority if the land has been nominated by a community group. Therefore, in practice, landowners will have been aware of the process well before they receive the formal notice of the local authority’s decision. Once a review has been requested, it is proposed that the local authority will have six weeks to conduct the review. We also intend to provide in the regulations that, if a local authority and the landowner agree, this period can be extended. Therefore, I think that flexibility is built into that system.
I was also asked who can nominate an asset and about the voluntary and community body. Conditions will be set out in the regulations to demonstrate a local connection. The intention is to ensure that such groups are genuinely concerned with the social well-being benefit of their community and that they are based in the relevant community or neighbourhood. This may include unincorporated groups, so as to allow groups that have recently been set up to help save an asset. There are many examples that have already taken place where people have set up a group to try to save their pub or an asset. We know that that can and has happened. We do not feel that we ought to stand in the way of such groups. However, we will look to see whether we need to place stricter requirements on them as to whether they need to be incorporated or recognised, very much as the noble Lord has said. I will come back to him on that as we make those regulations.
I am extremely grateful to all those who have given their time to do this. I hope that we have more or less answered their concerns. I know you can never be 100 per cent sure—there is bound to be somebody round about who does not think we have quite gone far enough—but I think we have addressed all of the concerns that were raised.
Localism Bill
Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Hanham(13 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, it has been a very interesting and helpful debate, mostly coming from people who understand the process in place at the moment. There has been a lot of talk about arbitration. However, this is not about arbitration; it is about resolution. It is about somebody having a problem and needing it resolved. They need somebody to write a letter to the housing chairman. They need somebody to write a letter because they have been through the process and they have not got a reasonable answer. As former councillors, we have all done precisely this and made sure that there is some means of resolving a problem for tenants. To say that councillors, MPs, and now tenants cannot do this seems absurd.
One of the reasons for suggesting that people take their complaints through one of those filters—if that is what they are—is, as my noble friend Lord Tope said, that there is a strong belief that removing housing by and large from the direct control and interest of councils and taking it to ALMOs and housing associations means that councillors and MPs become disconnected from the problems. Councillors in particular ought to know what is going on in the housing stock in their borough. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, knows exactly what she is doing and has a very good complaints procedure. I am not sure that is true of every ALMO or even of the way council properties are run. So we want to reconnect councillors and MPs with what is going wrong within their area. Can we dump the suggestion of arbitration? Nobody is asking them to arbitrate. We are asking them to resolve a problem. If they cannot resolve the problem, they would be required to pass the matter on to the Local Government Ombudsman with the agreement of the complainant.
I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. We recognise that the Housing Ombudsman does an extremely good job. There is no doubt about that. It is responsive and it knows what it is doing. This is not about trying to exclude the ombudsman from the system. But the Housing Ombudsman has an enormous case load which went up by 72 per cent between 2007-08 and 2009-10. Maybe that reflects the fact that there are more complaints coming forward about housing, which could be dealt with locally if there was the opportunity to do so. An additional 11 per cent of complaints have been made in the past year.
We want to ensure that the ombudsman is not the first port of call. We do not want the immediate response to be, “Oh, I’m going off to the ombudsman”. There should be a step before that; namely, going to one’s tenants panel, a councillor or an MP and seeing whether the matter can first be resolved through them.
A dual-track model currently applies to complaints to the Local Government Ombudsman. In practice, although the ombudsman does not collect detailed statistics, complaints are almost always submitted directly to the ombudsman and not via local councillors. Therefore, we are not convinced that this model will help local complaint resolution.
I have listened carefully to what has been said and I know that these matters have been raised over a number of weeks. I understand what has been said about discussions passing a last barrier point between the council or tenants panel to the ombudsman. I am not clear that dual track increases the number of ways of resolving complaints, but I have heard what has been said. Bearing in mind what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Tope, and my noble friends Lord True and Lady Eaton, who all see the advantage of an initial stage, I am happy to look again at the second stage and how a matter would get to the ombudsman. I give a commitment to do that before the next stage of the Bill so that we can discuss how we think that could take over. We feel that this would be a good way to proceed. I hope that both my noble friends and the noble Lords opposite will be content for us to see whether there is a way through here without absolutely undermining the provisions that the Government wish to introduce. The Government believe that local people who are associated with local housing and have become disconnected from it should be aware of what is going on and be capable of dealing with a lot of the problems that tenants have without them having to approach the ombudsman.
My offer is one of discussions to see whether there is a way through. If we have not found one by Third Reading, we will be able to deal with the matter then. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, does the Minister accept that what has been proposed would enable tenants to keep their right to decide whether they want to go through their councillor or MP or go directly to the ombudsman? What the Government are proposing denies them that choice. That is the problem that we have on this side of the House.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I do not think that it denies them the choice. I am happy to look into how the passing from one to the other can be done. We think that there should be an initial stage. Often, those initial stages work: a councillor intervenes; they see what is going on; and the matter is resolved at that level. If that does not happen and somebody goes directly to the ombudsman, it is very difficult for councillors and tenants panels to know exactly what people are thinking. People do not always want to go to the ombudsman and would quite like somebody to deal with the matter at a local level. That is why we think the initial responsibility for getting matters put right lies with one of those three groups. I am very happy to look at how we can deal with the question of whether it is a requirement for the MP or local councillor to be the final arbiter of when a matter is passed on to the local ombudsman.
Localism Bill
Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Hanham
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I moved these amendments on the last day before the Summer Recess and we are back to them again on the first day after the Recess. These are two very important amendments and, as I told the House on 20 July, the Opposition have considerable concerns about this section of the Bill as presently drafted. The Bill enables local authorities to decide what class of person qualifies for housing in their areas. My amendments seek to protect existing tenants to make it absolutely clear that they qualify automatically as a secure tenant if they move through the local authority allocation scheme.
I have tabled these amendments because at present it is not clear that tenants have any protection and, as it stands, the effect of the Bill may be to block up the system. As people progress through life, if they have children and then grow up and move on, often they want, and are prepared, to downsize the accommodation they are living in. This would mean that they can live in a property that is more suitable to their present circumstances. That is good for them and good for the local community at the same time, as it frees up much-needed accommodation with a large number of bedrooms and other amenities, which can then be used to help people in housing need. But no one will even consider downsizing in that way if the consequence could be that they lose their secure tenant status. Of what possible benefit would it be to them? If you are in your late 50s and it is just the two of you and you have downsized, all of a sudden you could be on a flexible tenancy for, one hopes, five years, because the council has followed the guidance and not tried to give you a shorter tenancy. Why would anyone want to do that? There is no incentive to do that; it would just cause risk and worry to you, as you start to think about retirement and taking things a bit easier.
One of the most worrying aspects here is the law of unintended consequences. You may be trying to solve a problem and make matters worse. It is also worrying that, taken with the proposal to cut housing benefit for people who are under-occupying, this could be seen as a two-pronged attack on some of the most vulnerable people in social housing and in social need. We on these Benches oppose that strongly.
In the other place, Mr Andrew Stunell, the Liberal Democrat Member for Hazel Grove and a ministerial colleague of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, at the Department for Communities and Local Government, recognised that these proposals would cause concern. He spoke about what any sensible landlord would do, but the problem is that people sometimes do stupid things and social landlords and local housing authorities are no exception to that rule. Also, I do not think it is a sensible way to legislate—with our fingers crossed, saying, “Don’t worry, it will never happen”. If we go on like that, we will very quickly be able to point to new examples of exactly that happening. If the Government have no intention of seeing secure tenants offered flexible tenancies when they move, they should accept my amendments, because to do otherwise gives a clear signal that they are either not thinking the problem through or in fact that is exactly what they really intend. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, when I stood up last time I was remiss in not welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, to his full-time position on the Front Bench. He is very welcome indeed and I hope that he is going to enjoy it. He may not enjoy the start of it, though; I fully understand what he is saying on this amendment but I also think that a bit of flexibility within the provisions is required.
We do not think that it is necessary to legislate to prevent local authorities from ever disqualifying transferring tenants. There may be exceptional circumstances where, for example, tenants have not paid their rent or there is some problem associated with the transfer, but by and large, under practically all circumstances, we would expect transferring tenants to be transferred without trouble. The noble Lord mentioned downsizing to a smaller flat, moving from a bigger flat to a smaller one or moving because of work from one place to another. We would expect all those to go without any difficulty at all and without the local authority having to make any exceptions.
As I say, though, there might just be exceptions. The only one that I will give the noble Lord at the moment is that there might be rent arrears that need to be paid off before the tenants move. Flexibility for the local authority in those circumstances would be removed by this amendment. We are producing secondary legislation that will outline when local authorities can and cannot prevent people transferring. If there were any evidence that local authorities were disqualifying transferring tenants inappropriately, that would be covered by that secondary legislation, which will not be on hand immediately but is coming.
I believe that the provisions as currently drafted are correct and that the proposed provisions are unnecessary. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that he can withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hanham
The local authority has flexibility at present so it would be able to prevent the transfer. The wording will mean that it is fully understood that the transferring tenants will perhaps not be able to transfer under those circumstances.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Before the Minister sits down again, when does she expect to see drafts of the guidance that she referred to?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I will seek advice about that as it was not in my notes. I will tell the noble Lord about that as soon as that information appears, whether on this amendment or another one.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the Minister, and I am grateful for her kind remarks at the start of this debate. Hopefully, we will get a response on the guidance later on. Her remarks have given me some comfort and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, briefly, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. This is a welcome group of amendments that are intended to give homeless households additional protection to that proposed under the Bill.
As I said before, we have a housing crisis. Homelessness is one of the many symptoms of that. We need to ensure that appropriate procedures are in place to protect people who find themselves in distressed or difficult situations. In some cases, two years may be more than adequate, but there will be cases where that is not appropriate, and we should look at how we can make further provision for those situations. Of course, it is very likely that homeless households that need to make use of the provision will include some of the most vulnerable individuals with whom local authorities have to deal. If the Minister is not minded to accept the amendment, perhaps she can reassure us that the matter will be kept under review following implementation of the initiatives on homelessness in the Bill.
I add that if the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, were minded to test the opinion of the House, he would find support on these Benches. I also make the point that the Government Chief Whip reminded the House earlier that we have additional time, but otherwise this is a normal Report. If the opinion of the House is not tested at this point, we are running out of options.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed to the debate. We recognise that the homelessness duty is one of the major responsibilities of local authorities. However, I resist the amendment to extend the duty to five years, on the basis that often two years is sufficient. People who face homelessness need suitable accommodation, but that is often supportable within the private rented sector. As has already been said, the homelessness duty involves reasonable preference for people on the priority list who need housing. They need suitable accommodation, but not always social housing. The amendment would be unfair to other households on the waiting list that need social housing, which would have to wait longer to have their housing needs met.
One purpose behind the Bill is to allow local authorities much more flexibility in the use of the accommodation they have and in how they can fulfil their obligation to house people—not only homeless people, but those who are on their waiting list. Sometimes, two years is quite sufficient to let people who have been homeless start to find their way forward.
A number of points have been made on that matter and I should like to start with the one raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, on asylum seekers—a point also picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. For asylum seekers in this country who are homeless, the homelessness provisions require that accommodation should be in their area if reasonably practical. Only after that requirement has been tested can they be placed out of the borough but, again, there is the certainty that several factors have to be taken into account, such as location and affordability—matters that are now considered all the time. As has been said, applicants who become homeless after two years can reapply, and they will still be able to obtain support by making a fresh application for assistance, should that be necessary. Therefore, they are not abandoned at the end of two years. There is support for them and the local authority still has a responsibility towards them.
I understand the noble Lord’s desire to see that timeframe extended, but we do not think that that would be in the interests of local authorities, those who are homeless and those who are waiting for accommodation. We are satisfied that local authorities’ obligations to those who are homeless can be fulfilled satisfactorily within two years, with the expectation that if at the end of two years they still require housing they will again either be treated as though they are unintentionally homeless or be given advice and help in finding accommodation.
I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with that reply and I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may press her a tiny bit further. Her comments are welcome. Would it be possible to see an early draft of the order before Third Reading?
Baroness Hanham
I see a nod of the head. Third Reading might be before the end of September, but I seriously doubt it, so the answer is yes.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I support Amendment 16 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. The amendment seeks to make provision for non-priority-need homeless people to be afforded emergency accommodation. The charity Crisis collected considerable evidence that the homelessness service of local authorities does not always provide single people who are not in priority need with any meaningful assistance. A small extension of this provision to those who are not in priority need may be all that is needed to get people back on their feet, to help them to stay in employment and to prevent them from falling into a downward spiral. If the Government are not minded to accept the amendment, I ask the Minister to give the House an assurance that this matter will be looked at by the ministerial working party on homelessness chaired by Mr Grant Shapps MP, on which the noble Lord, Lord Freud, and the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, serve as members.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, was very brief in moving this amendment, for which I am grateful. I think that the best thing I can do is to say that I will certainly make sure that it is considered by the homelessness working party and I shall ask the Minister to take that on board. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Localism Bill
Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Hanham(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for his kind words from the Government Front Bench. They are much appreciated. The Opposition fully support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty. The proposal is strategic and practical. It sets up a context for the debate and other sections of the Bill. It provides both the Government and the local authority with valuable information for assisting the planning for housing need in the future. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to accept my noble friend’s amendment. If not, I hope that she will feel able to take it away and look at it over summer, maybe in the terms referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, in the previous amendment.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. He was sharp, swift and brief—brilliant. We will have more of the noble Lord, if we might. On the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, I am once again going to say that we do not need it. While I admire the verve with which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has presented his case, there are already statutory provisions.
Local authorities are already under statutory provisions to provide plans for the housing needs of their population and to discharge their housing functions in accordance with their strategic priories as detailed in their housing strategies. Section 13 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires local planning authorities to keep under review matters that are likely to affect the development of their area, including size, composition and distribution of the housing for their population. In addition, planning policy statement 3 and the associated guidance on strategic housing assessment make clear that local authority plans should be informed by a robust evidence base of housing need and demand in its area for market and affordable housing.
Section 87 of the Local Government Act 2003 provides a power for the Secretary of State to require all local housing authorities to have a housing strategy, so the provision is there already. It is well understood that local authorities should be more than clear about the requirements in their area in this regard. The current guidance on local housing strategies in England stresses that the local housing strategy is the local housing authority’s vision for housing in its area. It should set out objectives, targets and policies on how the authority intends to manage and deliver its strategic housing role, and provides an overarching framework against which the authority considers and formulates other policies on more specific housing issues. That is the strength of my argument in saying that we do not need the amendment. However, I understand the concern that lies behind it and behind the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. We are dramatically underhoused.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has drawn attention to the limited housebuilding that has occurred over a number of years. Last year we had one of the lowest housebuilding programmes since 1923. We are trying to boost housebuilding. We have introduced the new homes bonus and are trying to encourage building through various means such as shared ownership and buy now pay later schemes. There are all sorts of plans to increase housing but you cannot do it overnight; it takes time to develop. However, there is no misunderstanding on the part of this Government that housing and a housing strategy are needed. With the assurance that this amendment is not necessary for the reasons I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of Amendment 173B moved by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and on other welcome amendments in this group.
Amendment 173B adds an important protection to exempt vulnerable and older people from flexible tenancies. Amendment 173CA in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, adds an additional protection to extend those terms from two to seven years. Amendment 173CB in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, seeks to have protection regarding previous tenancy arrangements. In his Amendment 173D the noble Lord, Lord Best, also seeks to add a protection for the review decision so that it proceeds,
“on the basis of a presumption that a new flexible tenancy for a term at least equivalent to the current or previous”,
terms of the tenancy. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, highlighted in his amendment the exemptions for vulnerable or older people from flexible tenancies.
As I said in my previous remarks, the Opposition are very concerned about this Bill, and particularly this housing section. We very much hope that the Government are listening to what has been said in the House today. I hope that the Minister can either accept these amendments or give the House an assurance that she is going to take them away, reflect on them, and bring these matters back at Report.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, before I respond to the debate, I move the government amendments that are in my name—
Localism Bill
Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Hanham(13 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Beecham’s comments on Amendment 64. I am not a supporter of term limits. I think that it is up to parties and their candidates, and then it is for the voters to tell them who they want to elect. If the Minister can give us some clarification about term limits, that would be useful.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for this little exchange. I will see what I can do. Amendment 64, as the noble Lord said, seeks to remove the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations changing the term of office of elected mayors. This is an important power that allows for transitional arrangements to be made following the first election of mayors. In October 2001, when a number of mayoral elections were held, the Secretary of State was able to vary the mayors’ terms of office so that the second elections were held in May, and in some local authority areas the mayor’s term was varied to enable the mayoral elections to be held at the same time as local government elections. We believe that it is important that this power, which has been available to the Government since 2000, is retained.
Amendment 65 is unnecessary as regulations made under new Section 9HN can relate only to the conduct of mayoral elections, and changes to electoral law or regulations cannot be made for any other purpose under this power.
The noble Lord has queried the provision at new Section 9HN(5). The Secretary of State is able to make regulations placing limitations on election expenses. However, in most cases he must do so only following a recommendation from the Electoral Commission. The only exception when a commission recommendation is not necessary is where the Secretary of State makes changes to any limits in line with inflation. That would mean an upgrading of the mayor’s election expenses owing to the fact that there had been inflation, which of course we do not have at the moment so it would not be necessary. The noble Lord asked what “money” relates to here. It means election expenses, which can be uprated by the Secretary of State. Again, this replicates provisions in the Local Government Act 2000.
Amendment 67 seeks to require regulations made by the Secretary of State under new Section 9ID on the election, terms of office and filling of vacancies of executive leaders to be subject to the affirmative procedure. We envisage that any regulations made under this section would be used for transitional purposes when a change in governance arrangements takes place. Furthermore, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, having completed its review of the Bill, is satisfied with the level of parliamentary scrutiny of regulations made under new Section 9ID. We are therefore not convinced that the existing arrangements in the 2000 Act, whereby such provisions have been subject to the negative procedure, should be changed. That remains the situation.
On the question of deputy mayors, Amendments 86 and 87, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seek to require the mayor to gain the agreement of his or her cabinet when appointing their deputy mayor. The Government’s view is that the decision about who to appoint as their deputy mayor should be a decision for the mayor alone. It seems unnecessary for a directly elected mayor, accountable to the electorate of an entire local authority area, to have to seek the agreement of a cabinet, the members of which they themselves have appointed, to determine who the deputy mayor should be.
Amendment 87ZA seeks to remove an elected mayor’s ability, if he or she wishes, to appoint an assistant. Such assistants can currently fulfil a similar role to those carried out by political assistants to the main political groups on the council. Given the significant role that elected mayors play in their local communities—taking key strategic decisions, acting as ambassador for the area and facilitating effective partnerships are just part of what they do—then, in the same way as leaders are supported by political assistants, elected mayors will need an assistant to effectively carry out these roles. There are currently four independent and local authority mayors in England. As such, independent mayors are ineligible to have a political assistant who works only to the main political groups on the council. Amendment 87ZA may have the effect of leaving such mayors without any access to any political support or assistance.
However, we are not saying that an elected mayor must appoint an assistant. The appointment of a mayoral assistant is entirely optional and we would expect mayors to have regard to existing support structures within the council, both political and administrative, and its financial resources when reaching a decision on whether it is necessary to appoint an assistant. The Secretary of State has, of course, no involvement in a mayor’s appointment of an assistant.
I hope that these responses are helpful and will convince the House that these amendments are unnecessary and need not be pressed.