Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention and Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) and (Levy Account Basis of Distribution) Regulations 2019

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Beecham

Monday 18th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my local government interests as vice-president of the LGA and as a councillor in Newcastle.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred to the present situation in respect of business rates. There is a bland assumption by the Government that there is a uniform approach to what can be raised locally, either by domestic rates or business rates, but that is not the position. The amounts that can be generated vary considerably between authorities and the Government have paid little attention to that disparity, in terms of either council tax or business rates.

The Government are making much of the £180 million they are going to restore to authorities. That is £100 million less than the loss that Newcastle City Council alone has sustained in grants from central government since 2010. It is a pitifully small amount and will make little difference to the efforts of local councils—of all political characters—to maintain local services. This is not a substantial change in favour of local government and the Government have to look again at the wider issues of funding a sector of the economy which has been substantially underfunded for the last eight years.

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

My Lords, as the Minister said, the regulations are technical and in that sense I am happy to support them as they stand. I concur with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and my noble friend Lord Beecham and I am sure the Minister will respond to the points raised.

The only issue I want to raise concerns Northamptonshire being in the list of council areas that are involved in this scheme. I know the county council is the precept authority, or the collecting authority, but equally it is a council in crisis. The local government reorganisation is happening because the county council has effectively almost gone broke. Is the Minister confident that we should be doing this in this area, in view of the problems that have been widely reported over the past year? That said, I am very happy to support the regulations.

Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Amendment) Order 2018

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as yet another vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a member of Newcastle City Council. Although it is good to hear from my noble friend Lord Smith that they are satisfied with the setup in Manchester and can rely on the current elected Mayor of Manchester not to exercise what is in effect a power of veto, which may not always be the case. Heaven forfend, but we might even get a Conservative or Liberal Democrat Mayor of Manchester elected separately from the constituent councils, in which case one can conceive of certain circumstances which might lead to conflict. So I share the reservations raised about that as a general principle. If Manchester is satisfied with it, so be it, but I should be wary of seeing that provision made in any other authority, and any members who are approached in that light should look carefully at that.

On remuneration, I wonder whether it is intended that this should simply come into force now with no retrospection. It would seem rather unfair if people had devoted considerable time up to now with no remuneration. If possible, it should be open to the authority to pay them, if it thought it reasonable. It would not be a duty to do so in any case, but it is invidious if those who have served already are not to be compensated to some extent as, presumably, they may well be in future.

My other question is whether any of these changes should be generalised and applied to all the combined authorities. If not, there will be a differential pattern up and down the country, particularly in relation to the remuneration of councillors. It would be helpful to know whether the Government will look at that, rather than bringing a succession of individual pieces of secondary legislation to give the power across the piece. I would be interested to know whether the Government have considered that or will consider it. If not, I suspect that we will spend time in this Room on a number of occasions simply repeating debates on the provision of a power that might be better conferred at the outset. It would not be a requirement, but I believe that the process of conferring the power should be simplified. Perhaps the Minister will think about that and get back to me and others in due course.

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

My Lords, I draw to the attention of the Committee my relevant registered interests as a councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I have read the order and the Explanatory Memorandum. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, the proposal that the mayor has to be on the winning side for a vote to be carried means that the mayor has a veto. I hear what my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh says. He is a member of the combined authority, so I accept his expertise on these matters. If Manchester is happy with it, then so be it, but it is an odd way of working—it seems a bit cumbersome. As I say, if that is how it wants to work, we are fine with it. It means that, in effect, the mayor has a veto. Another way of operating would be to let the mayor take the decision.

A couple of points have come out of the debate. My noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh mentioned the Bus Services Act. I remember that, during the debates on the Bill, the Government were insistent that you had to have a mayor in order to get the bus franchising powers automatically. That was a big issue. Many of us could not understand why you had to have a mayor, but the Government were insistent. It is regrettable that, although the Act has been on the statute book for about a year, we have not moved forward on this. This is not a good place to be. Perhaps the Minister can come back to us on that, because I believe that it is important for authorities outside London to have powers to control their bus services—the fares, the routes and the timetables. Those powers exist in London, where we have a good bus service, and are very attractive to combined authorities.

My noble friend Lord Beecham referred to the differential pattern in the combined authorities. Manchester seems to have the most powers. Others are different, but can evolve over time. I believe that local government in England has a problem. It is a bit of a mess. We have all sorts of tiers of local government. Buckinghamshire is going to become two unitaries and there will also be two unitaries in Northamptonshire. I recall in one debate the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, listing the five authorities that potentially regulate where he lives in Cambridgeshire. It looks to me to be a bit of a mess now. At some point, we will have to look at what we want for local government in England outside London. This patchwork is not necessarily the right way to go.

I am happy with both parts of the order. The proposal for the remuneration of independent members seems sensible and I agree with it.

Insolvency of Registered Providers of Social Housing Regulations 2018

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer again to my relevant interests. Has there been any consultation with, for example, the Local Government Association about the possible role of local housing authorities in this situation? In other words, could they be another potential source—I am not sure what phrase I am looking for here—for taking over the responsibility, as opposed to it necessarily being another housing association? In certain areas it might be more feasible for the local housing authority to do that. If the Government have not considered that, could they now take a look at it?

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

My Lords, I draw the Grand Committee’s attention to my relevant interests, which I mentioned on the previous order. I am always slightly concerned when I hear mention of the dreaded Housing and Planning Act; it really is one of the worst and most ill-thought-out pieces of legislation that any Government have put on the statute book in recent times. Unfortunately, I regularly have to remind noble Lords of that. I think it is a terrible piece of legislation.

Having said that, I read the regulations and their Explanatory Memorandum before today’s Committee and I am happy to support them as far as they go. As we have heard, they seek to extend a new protection regime that already applies to registered social housing providers that are companies to registered societies and charitable incorporated organisations. I am happy to support that.

I am aware that this has come about following discussions between the department and the lending sector. I am also aware of the issue of the Cosmopolitan Housing Group in the north-west of England, which has had problems. Although in the end they were resolved, they have highlighted some weaknesses in the statutory provisions governing insolvency in a registered provider of social housing. Many providers now have to make other arrangements regarding how they do their business and have to cross-subsidise things, which exposes them to more risk, so I am happy to support the regulations before us.

Paragraph 10.3 in the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument. However, an assessment of impact will be published alongside this instrument”.


I have it here. Can the Minister tell me the difference between an impact assessment and an assessment of impact? Certainly this one is easier to read than the others; perhaps that is the difference. Can he tell us the status of it compared to impact assessment? Are they the same and, if not, why has this arrived? I would be keen to understand that. Having said that, I understand the regulations and am happy to agree them.

Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2018

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Beecham

Thursday 1st February 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, as we have heard, the regulations before your Lordships’ House this afternoon provide for the imposition of financial penalties for giving false information in respect of a proposal and also provide for an appeal against the imposition or the amount of a financial penalty. I am happy to support these proposals, and in doing so draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests in the register, namely being a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Many years ago, in the 1980s, I was a member of a rating appeals tribunal and I agree with the Explanatory Notes, which state in paragraph 7.3 that little supporting evidence was supplied, what came in came in late, and most appeals,

“did not result in either an appeal hearing or a change to the rating list”.

That was what used to go on in the appeals I used to attend—it was certainly my experience serving on a tribunal in London. Looking at the papers there seem to be only two levels of fine. I thought that the purpose of any fine is to provide an element of deterrent. I am not convinced that these levels actually do that: perhaps a sliding scale would have been better, or some link to a rateable value, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, made reference to. I do not think that any large corporation will be the least bit worried about a £500 fine.

Paragraphs 8.1 and 8.5 of the Explanatory Notes refer to the number of responses to various consultations. Will the noble Lord give the House some more information about the range of responses received, as the notes have only such phrases as “the majority of respondents recognised”, and “many businesses accepted”. A bit more clarity would be useful for us to understand the range of responses that the department actually received. I accept the point, as set out in paragraph 8.6, that,

“in line with other parts of the tax system, ratepayers have a responsibility to take reasonable care when providing information in relation to their tax affairs”,

but coming back to my earlier point, I am not sure a £500 fine helps in any way to focus the mind of a large company or corporation in that respect. I am sure that all companies do these things properly, but if one were to decide that it could gain some advantage by not doing so, it might risk taking a punt. The worst it could get would be a £500 fine but if it got away with it, it might gain many thousands of pounds in a reduced business rate bill. Will the noble Lord address that?

I assume, since there is nothing about it in the papers, that there is no link to inflation, so these figures will wither on the vine, as it were, until the regulations are brought back here in a few years to be uprated. So I am not convinced that the sanctions are strong enough. Having said that, I support them in principle and I look forward to the noble Lord’s response.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I endorse what other noble Lords have said, particularly my noble friend on the Front Bench. I do not dissent from anything that has been said—I certainly endorse his views about the frankly ridiculously low levels of penalty for failing to comply with the requirements, given the amount of rates that will necessarily be involved in so many cases. My question is about the system more generally. There is well known to be a huge backlog of appeals across the country. That is difficult for local councils to manage because dealing with these issues requires expenditure in its own terms. What are the Government doing to speed up the process of dealing with appeals? Will they make resources available to local authorities to do that? It is an injustice to the local community if these decisions are delayed and is actually not very good for businesses anyway, because they ought to be clear what the position is. Yet for many years delays have taken place and proceedings are very costly.

I ought to remind the House of my local government interests, as a local authority member and, like several Members of this House, an honorary vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Fire and Rescue Functions) Order 2017

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure the mayoral system will be interesting—possibly in the Chinese sense—but if it is likely to work anywhere, it will undoubtedly be Manchester. I want to raise a couple of issues with the Minister.

First, of course the Government would like to see combined police and fire authorities. There are places where that might be suitable. But I take it that where there is a different view locally—as there would be in the north-east, for example, where we have different boundaries for the different services—there will not be any compulsion on authorities to go in that direction.

I am sorry to say that, having been spending my time on the next statutory instrument, I have forgotten what my second point was. Perhaps I will approach the Minister afterwards.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I make my usual declaration of interests as in the register; specifically that I am a local councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The two orders before us I have no issue with, and my comments will be correspondingly brief. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh, who is a member of the authority, are the experts here.

As we have heard, the orders transfer fire and rescue functions and police and crime commissioner functions to the mayor for Greater Manchester. I am pleased that we are having an election for this position on the first Thursday in May. These functions will then be transferred to this new elected person to be accountable for the delivery of these very important services to people living in the Greater Manchester area. At the same time, the office of police and crime commissioner and the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority will both be abolished.

I record my thanks to Tony Lloyd, who has been the PCC for Greater Manchester since 2012. Before that he was a Member of the other place for 29 years, for both Stretford and Manchester Central. In that time, he also served as the chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party, which is an interesting job to hold down, and he managed to hold it for six years until he left this place to become the PCC.

[Lord Beecham]

Escaped.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Escaped, yes. Anyway, it is important to put that on record. For both policing and fire and rescue services, specific functions can be exercised only by the mayor, although they will be able to appoint a deputy mayor for policing and crime.

The issue I have with these devolution deals in general—not this one specifically—is that I sometimes feel they are a little unclear and you get a sort of patchwork. I accept the point that areas can work with what they think they can cope with. Certainly, in this area, the Greater Manchester mayor will have considerable powers, in many respects similar to those of the Mayor of London. They will also have powers in respect of the health service.

I am sure the three noble Lords present today fully understand all the functions the mayor will take over, but I am not convinced that every Member of your Lordships’ House is fully aware, or members of the general public living in Greater Manchester and other places. We need to have a much wider discussion about where we are going with local government and all these functions. It is time for the Government to consider producing a Green Paper to enable proper debate about these functions in England. I have approved a number of these orders in recent weeks in this Room and the Chamber. They are all different and sometimes you cannot work out why. We need a discussion about where we are going with local government. All these positions are important, and it is important to have democratic control. Let us not forget that the individuals involved will be spending huge sums of council tax payers’ and taxpayers’ money. We must be clear who is there, why they are doing it and how we engage with them. But that is a discussion for another time.

As I said, I support the orders and I certainly wish the new Manchester mayor—whoever it is, although I hope, of course, that the Labour candidate gets elected—the very best in their new role.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I have overcome my senior moment. I wanted to ask whether any consideration had been given to ambulance trusts, which are fairly unaccountable bodies but are, of course, part of the emergency services. Has there been any discussion with either trusts or local authorities about a different relationship—keeping that phrase fairly neutral—as regards the future of that service?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I too must declare an interest as a former councillor and resident of Greater Manchester. I pay tribute to Tony Lloyd who has held the fort very well over the last couple of years in his role as interim mayor, and in all the roles he has held previously in government and local government. We have here three people who will be voting in the mayoral elections in May, so that is very good. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, mentioned turnout. I recall an experience I had in Greater Manchester of probably the worst turnout in history: the Benchill by-election back in November or December 2001, where turnout was 8%. That was a depressing low. Looking forward to the mayoral elections, I was quite sceptical about the Mayor of London, but that is not a position for which any political party is scraping round for candidates. It is very sought-after and has gained a profile over the years, and I fully expect that will happen in Greater Manchester and elsewhere. As it does, visibility will grow and accountability will become a lot more obvious.

The noble Lord, Lord Smith—I was going to call him my noble friend, but he is really—talked about blue light services being brought back down to GM. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked about ambulance trusts. It is within the gift of whichever combined authority to request collaboration in that regard, or that those matters be part of the devolved model. There are no limits to what the model may look at. That brings in the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy: that the different devolution deals are a bit of a patchwork. This is necessarily a patchwork because every area is different. For example, rural areas look very different from urban areas; they have different needs and different proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is smiling at me slightly but I said that on the then devolution Bill, and I firmly believe it. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that the Liberal Democrats grilled me on accountability and scrutiny during the passage of that Bill. We have very rigorous structures in place, certainly in Greater Manchester and, I hope, elsewhere.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked about the compulsion to combine police and fire authority areas, particularly where they are not contiguous. There is absolutely no compulsion to do that. If they are not contiguous, such a move would require structural change anyway.

I think I have answered all the questions, but if not I will certainly come back to noble Lords.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Beecham

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Thursday 23rd February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

We do not want the county council network deciding on arbitration.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I am still recovering from the shock of the support of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for anything I have said in this Chamber, particularly on this occasion. However, I am grateful for his support.

I am not sure where the Minister is leading us on situations where county councils are involved or invited to become involved, because it is not clear what happens if they decline.

Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme (England) Order 2016

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Grand Committee

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

I would not be so sure.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I come to this order with a slightly different approach and a different range of concerns from those on which I expect my noble friend will concentrate. We are now in a situation where, whatever happens to the process as outlined by the noble Baroness, the constituency boundaries at the next general election will—contrary to the recommendation of the Electoral Commission—be based on the register as it stood in December 2015. Of course, that does not mean that anyone registering since that date will not have a vote, but it means that the constituency boundaries will not necessarily reflect the, I hope, improved system of registration. Let me give an illustration of the potential differences. In my own city of Newcastle, the number on the electoral register as of last December was 183,961, and it is now 190,770, which is an increase of 6,809 or, by my calculation, an increase of 3.7% on the figure that will be the basis on which the new constituency boundaries are drawn.

The Government have introduced other significant changes, using their majority in another place, to change the whole system. I say that because local authority boundaries will become irrelevant under the new dispensation. I am wondering whether the Minister has—I do not blame her if she has not—seen the report by Lewis Baston, who is an expert in these matters. He recently produced a report for the Constitution Society in which, among other things, he states:

“As it currently stands under IER, the electoral register is too incomplete and unstable to provide a suitable basis for allocating parliamentary representation”.

He says:

“There have been noticeable levels of under-representation, which has varied with social and demographic characteristics”.

He also says:

“The use of the December 2015 purged register has also had a regional effect. London has three seats fewer than it should. Nationally, it has mainly affected urban areas, with the big core cities in particular had poor net completeness in electorate registration”.

However much that is corrected, partly as a result of the order we are discussing, it will not affect the boundaries that will apply in the next Parliament.

Lewis Baston also says:

“If the register numbers in December 2015 are inaccurate”—

they clearly were—

“the boundary review will contaminate the entire basis of the electoral system”.

He points out in relation to the discussions and debates before the boundary review was implemented that the,

“warnings made in 2014, of damage to the representation of London and the metropolitan areas, have come true and the map drawn in the 2016-18 boundary review will under-represent these areas”.

It is of course entirely coincidental that those are the areas in which the Labour Party is currently most strongly represented.

Lewis Baston goes on:

“The dramatic variations in total electorate that have taken place … between December 2012 and December 2015 undermine the idea that at any stage the electoral register is a reasonable estimate of the total local population entitled to vote”.

He cites examples demonstrating that in some places, such as Liverpool, the estimated net completeness of the register as at December 2015 is as low as 81%. By definition, it is therefore about 20% short of what the figure should really be. I repeat that that does not stop voters being registered, but it means the boundary situation has in effect been corrupted. One of the problems, as he concludes, is that there is,

“simply nothing that can be done under the current rules to rectify the problem that student constituencies are likely to be oversized (in terms of registered electors) when the election takes place”.

That is one facet of an issue which is generally of much wider application.

I am not sure whether the Minister will be able to respond to this today, but in my submission there is a very strong case for the Government to review and, indeed, to alter their decision to require the next general election, or at least any general election taking place after 2017, to be held on the basis of the boundaries as currently drawn. There is a need for a proper review of constituency boundaries to reflect the increase in the electoral register and other changes, which, I repeat, the order will help to facilitate. If the Government do not do so, they will have taken such a decision because they perceive a political advantage for the Conservative Party. That is no way in which a democratic process should be regulated, and I hope that the Government will reconsider their position. I repeat that they will return to the recommendations made by the Electoral Commission, who should be consulted in the light of the developing circumstances as we now see them.

West Midlands Combined Authority Order 2016

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Beecham

Monday 6th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I record my local government interests and very much endorse some of the remarks made by my noble friends. Given the extension of the area now to parts not actually connected to the major authorities in what was the county of the West Midlands metropolitan area, we are apparently seeing a revival of what was the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Mercia, part of the heptarchy about which I recall reading in my copy of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle some considerable time ago. There is an interesting expression of view about this. The NAO report identifies this, with the local geography, and states in terms:

“The devolution deals agreed so far involve increasingly complex and administrative and governance configurations, and there are risks around alignment with the administrative geographical areas for other linked policies”.

That is certainly reflected in the view of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which states:

“We would also comment that the apparent ‘combination creep’ of the West Midlands arrangements to involve non-constituent councils must add to the complexity, and highlights even further the far-reaching impact of the changes to local government structures which are being taken forward through secondary legislation”.

An example of that is contained very graphically in the order which we are dealing with tonight—the precursor to the devolution deal, which is presumably the object of the Government and perhaps those who are signing up to it. The order says that:

“A decision on a question relating to any of the matters specified in sub-paragraph (6) requires both … a unanimous vote in favour by all members appointed by the constituent councils, or substitute members … present and voting on that question … and … where members appointed by the non-constituent councils or appointed from the Local Enterprise Partnerships have been given voting rights by resolution … a simple majority of all members of the combined authority who are entitled to vote on the question to be decided (including substitute members, acting in place of those members) present and voting on that question at a meeting of the Combined Authority”.

That is a wonderfully crystal-clear administrative process which everybody no doubt is expected to understand and implement. It illustrates the complexity of some of these proposals.

I want to refer to the financial issue because we have heard little about that thus far. The Government have already made clear their intention to make additional investment funding available. That sounds rather good. We are told that in the north-east there will be, over 30 years, some £30 million a year added—that is £900 million to the North East Combined Authority. Gateshead at the moment has decided not to participate in a joint authority so there will potentially be a hole in the middle of our new doughnut. That aside, even if it is not part of this deal, it is only £30 million a year of capital investment between six councils. That is £5 million a year per council. It is peanuts. It is nothing in comparison to the vast amount of money that has been lost to local government in the region.

The same goes elsewhere. The NAO report has a table of the amount of additional investment involved in the devolution deals. It expresses that both in gross and per capita terms. It is quite interesting to look at how much the per capita annual amounts run to. In the West Midlands it will be £13 per head. That is towards the bottom end of the range. The region that will get the most is the West of England with £27 per head. My own region will get £15 a head. The smallest, rather surprisingly one might have thought given the fanfare of publicity about it, will be Greater Manchester, which will get only £11 a head.

The total, which is the more interesting point in many ways, for the 15.5 million people who will be included in the areas being considered will be £246 million a year. That is not a great deal of money given the size of the population but it pales into insignificance from the existing funding which comes from the annual growth fund, which is £461 million. The total capital spending of constituent local authorities is £4.4 billion. This is a tiny fraction added to what is currently being spent. The notion that somehow there will be a great revolution in terms of investment in these areas is complete nonsense. It is a very modest addition to what is currently being spent.

There is another question, of course: how are these combined authorities and their services to be financed—in revenue, not capital, terms—since local government will essentially now have to depend on business rates? How will that system work? What elements of redistribution will ensure that those areas with a smaller business rate base will not be disadvantaged in what they will be able to gather from their local businesses compared with better-off authorities? What redistribution methods are the Government examining and when will we have an indication of how they will play out in practice?

I am certainly sympathetic to the notion of devolution, but I am concerned, to use a phrase that I have perhaps overworked in this place, that we may see an example of the Government passing the buck but not the bucks. On the face of it, from the figures in the NAO report, that is certainly likely. We have to recognise that authorities are being put in an invidious position. As my noble friends have pointed out, it is all very well to say that they do not have to have a mayor, but if they do not have a mayor they do not get the deals. That is the reality. Pretty crude blackmail is being applied. It is unfortunate, because we ought to be able to move to a more devolved system of government, entrusting locally elected, responsible people with decision-making in their area, in partnership with the Government.

I make another plea, as I have often made in this House and elsewhere, that the Government think again about their relationships with these areas and revive what a Conservative Government introduced more than 40 years ago—one of its leading Secretaries of State is in his place—when we had government regional offices, where all departments in government eventually came to be represented in an area and a constructive, constant dialogue was made between the local authorities and the various branches of government. If we are to have any kind of devolved system, we need to look again at reinstating that provision.

I hope we can make progress. I entirely endorse what my noble friends Lord Hunt and Lord Kennedy said about the undesirability of imposing a mayoral system on these areas—particularly given what was said about a police and crime commissioner elsewhere—when the mayoral role will now absorb that of the police and crime commissioner, and presumably, if the Home Secretary has her way, of the fire service as well. An enormous amount of power will be concentrated in that single pair of hands. That is a matter of concern as well. I hope that we will see some progress here.

I raised my final concern in connection with another order some time ago affecting the Sheffield region, where district councils from the counties of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire were keen to be involved because they are in Sheffield’s economic area. Therefore, for some purposes, as with the district councils in this order, they can have a connection, in this case with what we can crudely call the West Midlands, for economic and transport purposes, but will still have their connection with their own county councils—it might be a unitary council in the case of Shropshire—for other services. Yet, health and social care may well come on the agenda. They could find themselves in a position where they are between two counties. My suspicion—I may be too suspicious about this—is that this will create a backdoor reorganisation of local government and we will have new kinds of unitary authorities not corresponding to the present pattern. That is a concern to many Conservatives in local government, as well as some of the rest of us. It would be interesting if the Minister were able to comment on how the Government will approach such suggestions—it is fairly clear from the Sheffield experience that they are likely to endorse them—that would lead ultimately to a reconfiguration of local government on a scale that we have not seen in the last 25 years or so. That is creeping up on us and has not been adequately explored or debated.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My noble friend just reminded me that I should have declared my own local government interests. I do so now before the end of the debate: I am a local councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Beecham

Wednesday 27th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Agreed.

[Lord Beecham]

My noble friend is anticipating the result, I hope correctly. This amendment deals with one aspect of the pay-to-stay provisions which have been very controversial. I shall reiterate briefly that the rationale for the provisions is based on a myth; namely, that council housing in particular is subsidised and therefore people with what is regarded as a high income are being subsidised by the taxpayer. In fact, of course, the housing revenue accounts of councils are not subsidised. Councils are obliged to balance the books and do so through the rent system. Paradoxically, however, what we may find under the pay-to-stay provisions is that the so-called high-income residents will be subsidising the taxpayer, rather than the other way round, because the money raised from the increase to be applied will go to the Treasury.

In a useful discussion with the Secretary of State and the Minister, I suggested that at the very least there should be some indexation of the income levels to reflect the increases which one anticipates will continue to take place in the consumer prices index. The amendment seeks to provide that this could take place on the basis of a triennial review to update the levels by the rise, if there is one, in CPI. That seems reasonable and the Secretary of State thought so too. I had hoped that the Government might come forward with an amendment, but they have not done so. I assume, however, that their view has not changed and I trust that the noble Baroness will—

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Beecham

Thursday 17th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, as this is my first proper intervention in today's proceedings, notwithstanding the questions I asked in the previous debate, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests and also declare that I am a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham.

I should also say in this opening contribution, as I have voiced in previous debates, that our proper consideration of this Bill and all its clauses and schedules is made all the more difficult because of the poor handling of the Bill through Parliament by the Government. I do not feel that it is going to be any better today. It is a scandal how poorly prepared the Government are. At every session we are either highlighting new problems or discovering new issues that will make the implementation of the measures in the Bill even more difficult to deliver.

This Bill should have been proposed in the Queen’s Speech in May this year, having had proper pre-legislative scrutiny in this Session of Parliament. I should further add that running three days of Committee in a row next week is not, in my opinion, ensuring that we get the best out of these debates. It makes preparation for debates difficult and the scrutiny process very difficult.

With today’s Committee day and then three days next week—and, I understand, proposals for two of the first three days when we return after Easter being reserved for Report, it means that, including today’s debate, the main business in six of the next seven days in your Lordships’ House will be the Housing and Planning Bill. It is not a good way to proceed; not a good way to make legislation; not a good way to treat Parliament; not a good way to treat local authorities which are trying to understand what is happening and interject with their views; not a good way to treat the voluntary sector which is trying to keep up with what is going on and give its views; and not a good way for the Government to be seen to be taking on board the views expressed to them, and hopefully responding to them. It is all unsatisfactory and all of the Government’s own making.

[Lord Beecham]

Also, not very good for the Minister.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I agree entirely. It is not good for the Minister or indeed for all Members of your Lordships’ House; there are many Members who have been here all the time for these debates.

Amendment 83 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham is quite simple in its intention and, hopefully, will cause the Government no problems at all. That said, I often think that my amendments will help the Government and improve the legislation and should be of no concern at all, but so far I have not been able to persuade them of that fact. Still, we carry on in the hope that on Report the issues and concerns that we have raised will be responded to, because, although we do not like the Bill, we fully understand our role as a revising Chamber in seeking to improve the Bill before it becomes an Act of Parliament.

The amendment seeks to add, in an additional clause, that those with an entry on the database of rogue landlords and letting agents cannot be granted an HMO licence. A house in multiple occupation is a property rented by at least three people who are not from one family but who share facilities such as the bathroom and the kitchen. A licence is required if the property is rented out to five or more people who are from more than one family, the property is at least three storeys high and tenants share facilities such as the toilet, the bathroom or the kitchen. It is important that people identified as rogue landlords should be specifically unable to rent out properties as houses in multiple occupation and should be prevented from obtaining a licence to rent out such properties. My amendment is clear, straightforward and simple. I look forward to the Government’s response, and I beg to move.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Beecham

Monday 14th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Can the Minister repeat for the Committee what the Government’s problem is with Amendment 69A? It would not stop them doing anything. It is just a sunset clause and would provide them with the ability, if they proceed with the policy and find an issue with it, to stop it. If they wanted to carry on, they would bring forward the affirmative regulations to do so. I do not see what the major problem is. If the Minister could repeat her reasons, it would be very helpful.

[Lord Beecham]

Before the noble Baroness answers my noble friend, perhaps I may add to his question—it is the same point but viewed from a slightly different angle. If it turns out that the scheme is not working, on the face of it that would require the Government to bring in primary legislation to change the duty. What the amendment offers is a way of dealing with matters, if required, by secondary legislation, where that difficulty is much less—in fact, we complain about it being less much of the time. In this case, it would surely be a better way of dealing with it than imposing a duty to come back with primary legislation if the scheme proved not to be working properly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

I have a final final question for the Minister. She said that the Government are going to discuss matters with Citizens Advice and tenants groups. I very much welcome that. But are we to infer from that that until now they have not discussed the scheme and how it might work—that they will be discussing the final scheme, as it were, and how both groups might advise residents, as opposed to involving them in the first place in designing this scheme?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Perhaps I might make one final comment—it will be my last on this group. Will the Minister agree to reflect on some of the comments made in this debate and the previous debate, particularly the comments of my noble friend Lady Hollis? In the previous debate we were talking about income levels and rent levels changing almost weekly or monthly, but here the Government want a consistent level. For me, the two debates highlight some inconsistency and we need to look at that. Again, we do not want to get ourselves into difficulties in the future.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate today. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made some very important points about us all being in policy silos. That has been demonstrated by the discussions we have had in the debate this evening.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, and others, talked about the NPPF guidance, the starter home obligations and the resultant conflict which needs to be addressed very seriously by the Government. There is clearly a conflict and that cannot be right, and it will not be sustainable. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, referred to what is happening in Chichester. I had a look at the article he referred to. It went on to say that from 30% affordable housing it moved to 50% starter homes, no affordable housing, no nomination rights and no local connections—not all good news, I suggest.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, spoke about the overriding nature of the starter-home proposals in relation to other housing tenures and how this will replace much-needed social rented housing. There are real issues there about what will happen in future years, as we heard earlier. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, talked about people living in poor housing accommodation. I must say that that reminded me of my parents’ excitement when they got the letter from Southwark Council saying that we were going to be rehoused. I was about nine years old and we lived in some quite poor, damp, unsuitable property. We moved to a clean, warm, dry, safe—and, I must say, large—council flat. I am the eldest of four children. I had my own bedroom and no longer had to share with my brother. We were both delighted and the lives of the whole family improved just by moving to that new property.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, raised the important point about rising homelessness and also the increasing housing benefit bill with more homes being in the private rented sector. My noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon highlighted the importance of good social housing as part of a proper mix and the particular challenge in rural areas, as did the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. My noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham set out with her usual skill how a successful local policy on housing, properly planned and delivered, can have enormous benefits and deliver the stable communities and economic benefits that we all want to see.

This has been an interesting and useful debate, and I hope that the Minister can take back to the department our deep concern at these proposals. I hope that she will reflect fully on this debate but also on the other debates we have had today. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I wonder, having regard to other affordable issues such as affordable transport for members of the staff, whether it might be possible just to refer over the next two minutes to some information from Savills which may be relevant to our further discussions. I gather that a penny or two has dropped with the Minister.

In one of its many contributions to the debate, Savills said that as it currently stands, the biggest concern is that the starter homes policy could distort a new-home sale market without significantly increasing the number of new homes delivered overall. It explained that there was a risk that starter homes could cannibalise help-to-buy sales as well as existing open-market sales aimed at first-time buyers. Furthermore, Savills states that the classification of starter homes as a form of affordable housing under planning rules, and the duty on local authorities to promote the supply of starter homes, is likely to result in fewer homes being delivered for what is currently classified as an affordable tenure. It therefore expects to see fewer homes delivered for affordable rent.

Given the lack of detail released, it is not clear what the interaction would be between shared ownership and starter homes. Perhaps as we go forward into subsequent debates about this proposal, the Minister could give a clear indication of the detail behind these schemes. It appears that there is a clear overlap between parts of the market likely to be served by Help to Buy, starter homes and shared ownership, particularly in London. We have not heard anything as yet about Help to Buy, and the relationship of this new scheme to that and the possible impact on Help to Buy. There seems to be some thinking that the two might merge. That is a matter that perhaps the Minister might consider, either in writing or in subsequent debate.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank my noble friend. I was getting a bit nervous there; I thought he was going to intervene on me, but we are a good double act. Having said that, I think it has been a very good debate this evening. I hope that the Minister will look at this issue very carefully because it will almost certainly come back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

We have repeatedly supported the idea of votes for 16 and 17 year-olds. I think noble Lords will find that the position of the noble Lord today is a tactical one.

[Lord Beecham]

When it comes to sitting on their hands, few better exponents of that philosophy could be found than those on the Liberal Democrat Benches. They sat on their hands and colluded with the enormous damage inflicted on local government and elsewhere for five years. They are not in any position to lecture us about anything around consistency. Furthermore, it is quite clear that the Government’s unfortunate position on this has been confirmed on three or four occasions in votes at the other end. We are not in a position to change that. Noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches know that it will not change. This is gesture politics of a typical kind and we ought to have nothing whatever to do with it. When we get a change of Government, we will see a change in the voting age, not only for local authority elections but for parliamentary elections, European elections and any future referendums.

Council Tax and Non-Domestic Rating (Powers of Entry: Safeguards) (England) Order 2015

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Beecham

Monday 23rd March 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not have too many comments to make in respect of this order. When I looked at the order, I noticed the reference to the Protection of Freedoms Act. This Government seem to like some grand titles for Acts. I think also of the SARAH Bill, which my noble friend Lord Beecham did for the Opposition.

There is a lot of florid language in this order. As the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, outlined, it ensures that when officials want to get entry to a property, if they have not been allowed it they have to seek the permission of the First-tier Tribunal. I have no particular issue with that. However, I saw that no impact assessment was done on this provision. Who will bear the costs of these actions? I hope that it will not be the taxpayer or the council tax payer. Why was no impact assessment done? Is it because in reality there will be a relatively small number of cases? That would be very useful.

Will the Minister also comment a bit more on the consultation? I read it and thought it was a bit more mixed than the Minister may have outlined. Also, who were consulted? I saw that Big Brother Watch is mentioned here, but what other groups were consulted? It would be quite nice to have a list of the organisations. I assume that local authorities were included. What concern did Big Brother Watch have? It stuck out on the list. I would appreciate some answers to those questions.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, in following my noble friend and in relation to the costs which he raised, there seem to be a couple of questions. First, what is the cost assumed to be nationally of any applications that would be made to the First-tier Tribunal and how many cases is it estimated will take place? My noble friend asked upon whom the cost would fall, but would that depend on the outcome of an application or just fall upon the relevant authority? If so, would that then become part of the new burdens doctrine and would it be funded by the department itself?

I have another question. What we are talking about here appears to be valuation for council tax purposes but what about, for example, the bedroom tax? It will presumably be necessary to inspect a property to see how many residents there are and what the position is in relation to allegedly spare rooms. There is already quite a lot of controversy, for example, about rooms adapted for disability purposes within a property. That would presumably require some kind of inspection. Is it proposed that there would have to be an application under these provisions for an inspection by a valuation officer or some other official to determine whether it is appropriate to levy the bedroom tax? I cannot quite remember the more dignified name that the Government choose to give it. Is the euphemism deployed the “supplementary room”?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I just want to say that obviously we have great respect for the noble Lord. I think that all Members here have served on local authorities in the past. Certainly, the noble Lord, Lord True, leads a council; my noble friend Lord Beecham has led a council; and I was deputy leader of a council many years ago and went back on to Lewisham council last year. Of course, I hope that we get back in May and that the position will be reversed. However, whatever happens, I have great respect for the noble Lord.

[Lord Beecham]

I hasten to add my agreement to that. However, with respect, the noble Lord has not answered a couple of the questions that I put to him. What will be the cost of the use of the valuation service and who will bear that cost? Will it be the local authority or the householder, or, to put it another way, the occupier of the property? In that event, would the cost apply only if he objected and the objection was overruled?

Legislative Reform (Community Governance Reviews) Order 2014

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Beecham

Monday 23rd March 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, outlined, this legislative reform order makes it easier to set up new town and parish councils. At present, a local authority or local campaigners petition the local authority to create a new town or parish council. A petition must meet the threshold of signatures to instigate a review. The local authority must then set the terms of reference, including the geographical area the review will cover. The review is completed within 12 months, and the final decision rests with the principal council.

A number of changes are proposed in this order, and it would be useful if the Minister will comment further on them, including the decision to reduce the proportion of people signing the petition to 7.5% and the consequent reductions in the other thresholds. Did the department consider the practicalities of having a percentage figure and a small, fixed figure for smaller authorities rather than the current scale?

In respect of reducing the 12-month period from when the review begins to when the petition is received, how much of a difference is there in reality? Will the Minister give the Grand Committee more evidence for the assertion that where a neighbourhood forum has been set up it can trigger a review? I am not sure how many neighbourhood forums have been set up in England. Can the Minister tell the Committee anything on that?

I am a local councillor in Lewisham in south London. I represent the ward of Crofton Park. We have just started the process of setting up a neighbourhood forum. If the forum gets off the ground, I am not clear whether we want to go the further stage and consider setting up a parish council. Setting up the forum is quite a challenge for local people.

I am aware that a new parish council in London—Queen’s Park, Westminster— was elected last May. Does the Minister have any assessment of how it is working? Particularly for London to get a parish council—the first one in 50 years—is interesting. If he has any comments on it, that would be helpful.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

I again endorse what my noble friend has said. I have no objection in principle to the order, but I am wondering about the evidence base which underpins it. I have been looking across a few local authorities and a large number of parish and town councils have been created and boundary changes made over the years. What scale of problem is being addressed in terms of failure to reach the requirements of the present legislation in the number signing petitions and subsequently voting on a proposal? Have many failed on that account? It would be interesting to know that.

For that matter, is there a view about the turnout in subsequent elections for town and parish councils? Does it differ significantly from the admittedly not wonderful turnout in local elections generally? Certainly in my, now very long, experience of local government, one used to hear of parish councils in which it was pretty difficult to gauge the turnout because there was none. People were regularly returned unopposed. It would be interesting to find out whether that is still the case. I do not think we are quite going to reach Athenian democracy by virtue of the implementation of these measures. I do not necessarily object to them, but I would like a little more knowledge of the factual background to the proposals and whether they are likely to make any significant difference.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Beecham

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, raised some very important issues, and mentioned claims management companies. Since I came to the House I have raised the issue many times; the more dubious end of the industry is a problem. I know that he mentioned it before, but the claims management regulation unit at the MoJ, run by Mr Kevin Roussell, does a good job on that. I pay tribute to the work that it does and say to the Government that if it had a few more resources it would be able to do an even better job. Pointless, vexatious claims waste our time and cost us money, and the more help we can give to that unit at the MoJ, the better.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I expect that other Members of your Lordships’ House will have had my experience of being called about accidents or insurance policies that I have never had, and I entirely sympathise with my noble friend’s last observations. Clearly, no one would wish dishonesty in the presentation of a claim to go without penalty. However, there are some questions to be asked about this provision. The first of those is, why should any change in the law, which we are now progressing, apply only to PI cases? The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has broadened that somewhat, and is in a sense making my case for me, because he cited a case in which there is both an alleged personal injury and an accident. However, the driver who sues for a personal injury and is deemed to have been fundamentally dishonest will of course be penalised, and rightly so—although how the penalty is levied is perhaps debatable. However, if the claim is only for the damage to the vehicle, he will not be caught by the present clause, and nor, of course, would somebody fundamentally dishonest—whatever that means; that is perhaps another issue, but let us take it as a given at the moment—in a whole variety of other claims. Why should not somebody making a claim—for example, as regards breach of contract, professional negligence or any number of claims that have a monetary element in them for some breach of duty other than involving personal injury—also be brought within the framework? It seems odd to single out this group, albeit there clearly are cases where claims management companies and the like deliberately promote false claims.

Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, I am not entirely sure that this binary system of small claims and larger claims is appropriate. What might be a small claim to me and some other Members of your Lordships’ House is not necessarily a small claim to the individual claiming £25,000. One needs to have the same approach overall. However, there is then an issue about what constitutes substantial justice, and that is also unclear.

The major issue to which my amendment is addressed is why the courts should have to strike out a claim—an argument made, up to a point, by the noble Lord, Lord Marks—in its entirety on the balance of probabilities, as opposed to the criminal standard of proof. After all, we are talking about essentially criminal behaviour—it is essentially fraud. That is unsatisfactory, particularly if a claim is to be dismissed on that basis, hence my amendment. Of course, as I informed the House in Committee, in the case of Fairclough Homes v Summers in the Supreme Court, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, said:

“It is for the court, not for Parliament, to protect the court’s process. The power to strike out is not a power to punish but to protect the court’s process”.

He said that the existing power to strike out should,

“only be exercised where it is just and proportionate to do so, which is likely to be only in very exceptional circumstances”.

One has to take that judgment into account in determining how to apply the test. I invite the Minister to reconsider whether the balance of probabilities is not a safer and better test to apply before further draconian action—which must in part be justified by fraudulent behaviour—is taken.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Beecham

Monday 14th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I will briefly mention Amendment 33, which I tabled in the light of representations from the Medical Protection Society over a range of issues. It struck me in particular that it was important to offer protection to registered medical practitioners who are exercising their clinical judgment, as opposed to other matters that they might, as it were, stray into. But where it is a matter of clinical judgment, that should surely be a defence which would displace the possibility of a prosecution for the range of offences set out in Clauses 17 to 22. I hope the Minister—I take it that it will be the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who will be dealing with this—will agree that it is important to protect clinical judgment in that way and that this amendment will be acceptable to the Government.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, at Second Reading I made reference to this and other clauses in this section of the Bill. I said I believed that the Government were attempting to,

“close the loophole that Professor Don Berwick identified in his review of the events that took place at the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust”,—[Official Report, 30/6/14; col. 1620.]

although of course these amendments have much wider implications for a wider group of employees looking after vulnerable people, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, outlined. These clauses were added late to the Bill during its passage through the Commons and I do not believe that they were looked at in any great depth there. As I said at Second Reading, it seemed odd to me that volunteers were not also included in these clauses, so I hope the noble Earl can address that in his reply.

We have wonderful people working in the caring professions here in the UK and we have wonderful volunteers helping people, but we must be clear that an abuser who exploits people could easily be in either group. Look at the horror story of the actions committed by Jimmy Savile. He was a volunteer at numerous establishments that were caring for vulnerable people. He was never an employee at any of the hospitals he visited but it appears he had power, influence and keys, and the system in place failed his victims for decades.

There is always the risk of unintended consequences and we need to be very careful that these clauses do not create a culture where healthcare professionals would have their normal, everyday clinical decisions open to criminal investigation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and my noble friend Lord Beecham outlined. I do not for one minute believe that that is the intention of the Government but we have to be very careful that that is not what is created or what people believe has been created. So the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is very welcome as she attempts to bring clarity to the issues and talks about,

“a serious and substantial departure from the duty owed by the care worker to the individual in all circumstances”,

that,

“causes the avoidable death of, or serious harm to, that individual”.

For the same reasons, my noble friend Lord Beecham and I tabled Amendment 33, which makes it clear that clinical medical judgment exercised by a registered medical practitioner is excluded.

These are very serious matters. I hope that the Minister can address the points that I have made about volunteers and the whole question of the sanctions being applied only to the most serious cases, as well as those about harming transparency and improving excellence in care made so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and my noble friend Lord Beecham.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Beecham

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

That is a very interesting response. I have heard the exact opposite from the government Bench on many other proposals.

[Lord Beecham]

I remind the Minister of the thrust of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Best—the risk that because an order is enforceable, the RSL sector is regarded as being within the public sector, with consequential adverse effects on the financial status of its expenditure in relation to the Government’s expenditure requirement.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Beecham

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, Newcastle is once again united. We are even more united now than we were under the previous Administration. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on tabling these amendments and equally congratulate those who have briefed him so thoroughly with the material that he has brought to your Lordships’ House today. He has highlighted an important area of the national housing debate which has been subordinated in recent times to the simple question of household numbers, housebuilding and the long queue of people denied access to accommodation, including first-time buyers and their problems. Much of the emphasis has been simply around numbers and the owner-occupied sector.

The real problems addressed by the noble Lord’s amendments are to be found essentially in the private rented sector, which has received insufficient attention for many years under Governments of both parties, with the result that, as the noble Lord pointed out, far too many people are living in unsatisfactory accommodation. We are living in a letters’ market, as it were. Demand for rented accommodation is going up all the time and obviously property numbers are not going up to match. Reputable organisations are anticipating additional problems when changes in housing benefit come in, and already there is some indication that private landlords are reluctant to let to housing benefit tenants. There is huge pressure within this sector. As the noble Lord pointed out, that sector has much the highest rate of disrepair and the least degree of modernisation through to decent home standards. Therefore, there is a huge need for concentration on these problems. The very basic matters to which the noble Lord referred must be an essential part of the responsibility of any landlord.

There will be a slight irony if the Government resist the amendment. If the exterior of a property was at issue, Town and Country Planning Acts would apply. Owners can be made to tidy up the outside of their property, and even paint it, whatever the length of tenure or even if it is owner-occupied; but when it comes to the inside, as the noble Lord pointed out, these powers do not exist for far too many properties. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in principle with imposing obligations on owners—in this case, renting owners—because they are applicable to all owners as far as concerns the property exterior. One might have thought that, from the point of view of safety and health, the interior is more important. It is perfectly logical that legislation should be amended in the way proposed by the noble Lord.

I will sound a cautionary note. The noble Lord referred to the availability of civil proceedings once the measures pass into law. Again, I remind noble Lords that access to the courts by this group of potential litigants is likely to be affected by the pending changes to legal aid. If current proposals go through, only under exceptional circumstances will legal aid be available to assist tenants in enforcing repair obligations of this kind. Perhaps that should be borne in mind in future debates. I hope that the noble Lord and his colleagues will join Members on all sides of your Lordships' House in investigating those steps very thoroughly, because these matters are not divisible. If we are looking at the housing situation holistically, we must look not only at obligations but also at methods of enforcement. The noble Lord touched on them. We must be sure that those methods remain available to the people who will need them.

I hope that the Minister will respond sympathetically to the suggestions contained in the amendments. I represent an area that has a significant private rented accommodation sector. There are a number of very poor landlords and a licensing scheme that is beginning to have some impact. I hope that that experience, which is reflected in many places, will be improved by the Government giving fair wind to the noble Lord's proposals.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I will speak only very briefly in this debate as the Newcastle duo—the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and my noble friend Lord Beecham—have covered the matter thoroughly. We support the thrust of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. They address real issues and I am grateful to him for raising them. I look forward to the response of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor.