Rent Officers (Housing Benefit and Universal Credit Functions) (Modification) Order 2023

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, like others, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for tabling her Motion and wish her a speedy recovery. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for moving the Motion on her behalf. I say at the outset that I think I agree with every word that every noble Lord has said so far in this short debate on the regulations before us.

When local housing allowances were introduced in 2008, the aim was to reach up to the 50th percentile of all rents in a broad rental area. In other words, people on benefits could afford to live in the cheapest half of rented properties in the area that they live in. However, from 2011, that all changed. First, LHA rates were downgraded to the cheapest 30% of local properties. Then, rather than moving with rent levels, LHA rates were uprated by inflation, then by just 1% and, finally, they were frozen in 2016. The result was that, by 2020, LHA rates bore no connection to the actual rents in local areas. In 2020, the Government restored them to the 30th percentile, only to then freeze them in cash terms. This year, although Ministers finally agreed to raise most benefits by inflation, they excluded LHA rates. The effect of this freeze is seen in a growing gap between the actual rents that people pay and the amount of housing support that they can receive—an approach that the Institute for Fiscal Studies said was

“arbitrary and unfair, and its consequences will only become more bizarre over time.”

There is deep and widespread concern in the housing world about the effects of this policy. The Northern Housing Consortium told Ministers that

“a continued freeze on LHA would make it even harder for existing private renters to make ends meet, risking homelessness and making it increasingly difficult for local authorities to discharge their homelessness duties effectively.”

It reported in the Northern Housing Monitor 2022 that only 7% of rental adverts were affordable to those reliant on LHA in the north. The National Residential Landlords Association says that the LHA rate freeze has

“led to the proportion of landlords letting to tenants in receipt of benefits falling over the past decade.”

If supply falls, demand does not, if only because there is no alternative. The Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, in its report on the private rented sector in February—my noble friend Lady Lister made reference to this report—concluded that the failure to ensure LHA rates keep pace with market rents

“is quite obviously making the private rented sector even less affordable for many people who are only there because the social housing sector has been cut back and can no longer accommodate them.”

That is the problem.

Unsurprisingly, given high inflation and the pressure on supply, while LHA rates are frozen in cash terms, private sector rents have continued to rise, so the gap is getting bigger year on year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that, compared with uprating LHAs to match local rents, the freeze will reduce support for nearly 1.1 million households by an average of £50 per month, saving the Government more than £650 million in 2023-24. That is on top of the amount that people were already having to find as a top-up. Over 800,000 households in the private rented sector face a shortfall between their rent and their local housing allowance, including over half of all universal credit households who rent privately. The Institute for Fiscal Studies further says that

“two-thirds of lower income privately renting households must cover at least a quarter of their rent from sources other than housing support.”

The House of Commons Library briefing, which has been referred to in this debate, says that, from April 2023, on average, households will need to top up their rent by

“just under £750 a year.”

People in households with a disabled person are more likely to be hit by LHA shortfalls. Paul Sylvester, head of housing operations at Bristol City Council, told the Work and Pensions Select Committee in 2021 that half the households they saw with a shortfall included a disabled person. They were increasingly seeing disabled people forced to use their disability benefits to cover the rent top-up, rather than what the benefits were meant for. Can the Minister say whether the Government have looked at the impact of this policy on disabled people specifically? And the problems are not equally distributed. The IFS cites the example that, while the 30th percentile of rents in Bristol is £100 more than in Newbury, the amount of housing support that those who live in Bristol can receive is £12.50 less than those who live in Newbury can receive. How can this be right? Can the Minister please explain?

I have no doubt that the Minister will try to suggest that there is not a problem, because anyone who is struggling can always request a discretionary housing payment: other noble Lords referred to this in their contributions. But let us be clear: a discretionary fund for one-off payments is not the answer. In any case, a report by Shelter published in February—again, this has been referred to—found that the Government’s own data showed that councils were already struggling to keep up with demand. It says:

“Some were on the brink of running out of funding—31 English councils had spent three quarters or more of their allocation before the winter started”.


It points out that the problem is especially bad in certain regions. Take the north-east: Sunderland, Gateshead and Northumberland spent more than 90% of their allocation by the end of September 2022, and none of this is surprising given that DHP funding was cut by £40 million in this financial year. At a time when inflation is dangerously high and food bank use is at record levels, how do Ministers expect those on low incomes to find ever larger sums to top up their rent?

We see from the figures that homelessness is soaring. Rough sleeping is up by 74% since 2010 and by 26% in the last year; there has been an 83% rise in the number of children now living in temporary accommodation as a result of homelessness. One in 23 children in London is now homeless. The squeeze on local housing allowance is undoubtedly a major driving factor in this situation. It is also hitting local authorities and the taxpayer, as evidence suggests that more people have been forced into expensive temporary accommodation. Can the noble Viscount tell the House what assessment the Government have made of this wider cost to the public purse of the LHA freeze?

Investment in social housing is by far the best solution to this crisis. That is the way to ensure that low-income families can have a secure and affordable home to live in, and a better-managed private rented sector would also be good for tenants. Ministers have promised action for years, but what have we seen? Not a lot. All these things would be better for the public purse too. In the meantime, freezing the local housing allowance makes no sense whatever and serves only to make a bad situation worse.

I ask the noble Viscount whether he might like to join me one day and go out to some of the London boroughs to look at the quality of the accommodation we are asking people to live in. As the noble Lord said, people are being asked to live in the most appalling accommodation, so I hope he will join me. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, came out with me a couple of years ago. It is quite shocking where we expect families to live, so I hope the noble Viscount will accept the invitation to come out with me some day in the next few months. Anyway, I look forward to what he will say in response to this debate.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)]

My Lords, I start by taking up the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. This is a fairly straightforward answer: it is a yes. I would very much appreciate the opportunity to join him and whoever else he might care to bring along to see for myself what is happening. It is very much what I would like to do—genuinely.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for initiating this debate on the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit & Universal Credit Functions) (Modification) Order 2023. This annual legislation informs rent officers in the Valuation Office Agency, the VOA, and rent services in Scotland and Wales of the level at which to set local housing allowance, LHA, rates from April 2023. I also add my voice to those of other noble Lords in wishing the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, a speedy recovery from her illness—as the House is aware, the debate was down in her name.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am glad the noble Viscount mentioned fairness to the taxpayer, as it is not only about the sums of money—our whole point is that the Government are not spending it very wisely. If they looked and listened a bit more, they could spend it more effectively and get better value for money for the taxpayer. It is no good saying that they want to spend money wisely. They are not spending money wisely and that is causing huge grief for people. I do not understand why they will not address that. They need to work across departments, address the issues and spend the money better.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I absolutely have listened to the noble Lord, but how Governments spend money and whether they spend it wisely is a subjective issue wherever it is spent. We want and need to spend it wisely and on the most vulnerable.

Islamophobia

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Thursday 13th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

There are a couple of points there. The IHRA definition is widely accepted internationally and, by adopting this non-binding definition, we underline the UK Government’s determination to tackle anti-Semitism wherever it occurs. On my noble friend’s other point, as she will know, Islamophobia is a complex matter and there are different views in this House on the issue. There has been strong opposition to the adoption of the all-party definition from a wide range of organisations, including Civitas, Policy Exchange, the Barnabas Fund and the Henry Jackson Society. It is an ongoing issue and discussions are continuing.

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

My Lords, there are some appalling examples of the Muslim community being harassed and suffering racial abuse. Why will the Government not adopt this definition when it has been adopted by hundreds of organisations, including many local authorities and police forces and, I think I am right in saying—perhaps the Minister can confirm it—by the Conservative Party in Scotland? We need to hear much more from the noble Lord and his party about how they will deal with this appalling abuse.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

The noble Lord has picked up on what I just said: it is a challenging issue. I can reassure him that we intend to move as quickly as possible to come to a definition. As I said, it is important to discuss this fully and make sure that we get it right.

Northamptonshire (Structural Changes) Order 2019

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Grand Committee

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I hear what my noble friend says, but I do not agree with him on this. There are several reasons for that. Of course he will expect me to say that; I will say it. We see a fresh start for the people of Northamptonshire. It will provide new councils in which local people can have confidence, providing effective, modern and sustainable services. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I thank the leaders of the eight—not seven—Northamptonshire councils and the commissioners for the leadership that they have shown to take us to this point.

On the lack of unanimity and there being one council —Corby—that was not entirely on board, it has consistently shown great strength of purpose in nearly supporting things, so when we say that it is not entirely unanimous, Corby was behind many of the issues. Perhaps a letter is required to give a little more information on that.

One of the most important things in this process is consultation. The local consultation described the majorities in favour as overwhelming, with 74% support overall and 77% and 70% in West Northamptonshire and North Northamptonshire respectively. I do not want to be drawn in on the names—I do not think that I can comment on that—but I take the noble Lord’s point on the names that were given.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Where are West Northamptonshire and North Northamptonshire? They are dreadful, dreadful names. The Government could certainly have done something about that. Northampton got its charter in 1189. They are dreadful, dreadful names. Something much better should have been done.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I think that I heard “dreadful” at least four times. I say, perhaps as a reassurance—although I do not think that it will wash with the noble Lord—that the names have been chosen locally. Admittedly there was no competition, but they were chosen locally rather than being imposed on them.

I shall go further on the consultation. The Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust and Healthwatch Northamptonshire support a reduction in the number of councils. They both welcome the closer integration possible as a result of having to engage with fewer authorities, and agree that this is a positive opportunity for change to secure a sustainable future. The Northamptonshire police and crime commissioner is supportive and stated that the

“creation of unitary authorities would bring about clarity for the public and present opportunities for greater co-ordination, realisation of efficiencies and simpler partnership working.”

Finally, the Northamptonshire County Association of Local Councils reported that an overwhelming majority of town and parish councillors supported the principle of unitary authorities being established. We should not dismiss the opinions of local people in this respect. This allows me to pick up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about taking “local” out of “local government”. I point out to her that the new parish and town councils are in the process of being established, including in Kettering, Northampton and Wellingborough—note those names. I welcome and encourage this as an important way to strengthen local democracy and enable decisions to be taken to reflect the needs of local communities. I do not agree entirely with the noble Baroness that the local is being taken out the process. In my view, we still have some very robust local democracy.

I will pick up another point made by the noble Baroness about the role of councillors in the cabinet system. I think her point was that only 10 were making decisions, as opposed to the other 93—sorry, 89; my maths is bad. It will be for the new councils to determine the role of councillors and to ensure that all councillors can take a full role in representing their residents and ensuring an effective local democracy.

Furthermore, as to the size of wards, for the election in May 2020, each ward, which are county electoral divisions, will have three members. For the next election in May 2025, we expect the independent boundary commission to undertake a full electoral review. It is for the commission to decide the number of councillors and the size of wards. Experience shows that the new unitary councils establish strong and effective arrangements at parish and community levels, to add a little more to what I said. We would expect the new Northamptonshire councils to follow best practice—as, for example, in the unitary Wiltshire Council, led by my noble friend Lady Scott, if I may spare her blushes.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, spoke and expressed concerns about process. My guess is that a letter will better satisfy him, but the start of the process was the independent inspector. The proposal made follows exactly the inspector’s recommendation. The consideration behind the inspector’s recommendation was that a new start was needed, with two new councils. In the inspector’s view, two unitaries best met this aim and the criteria for unitary local government: improving local government; a credible geography with a population substantially in excess of 300,000; and a good deal of support. That penultimate figure perhaps answers the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. To clarify, the figure is substantially in excess of 300,000. A unitary county would risk being seen as replicating and rewarding a failing county.

The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, spoke about Cumbria with great passion, for obvious reasons. The position in Cumbria is all about a devolution deal. It is for Cumbria to decide whether it wishes to have a devolution deal; initial discussions are continuing. Major deals have involved a mayoral combined authority. If Cumbria wished to have a mayor deal with a mayoral combined authority, it would point to a simplification of current local government structures: establishing unitary councils. We know that there are different local views about unitary structures for Cumbria. As I am sure the noble Lord will tell me, discussions are continuing. We will want to hear more from the local area in this respect.

The noble Lord made points about the elected mayors. The idea of elected mayors arises in major devolution deals where substantial powers and budgets are devolved over a functional economic area. An elected mayor is seen as providing a strong single point of accountability for the exercise of those powers and for managing those budgets. That elected mayor can be a combined authority mayor if there is more than one authority in the functional economic area, or if that area comprises a single unitary council or an elected mayor of that council.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I used to keep saying these things when the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, was the Minister: the idea is that these things just evolve, but it always looks like a confused mess to me. Local government looks like a real mess in England outside of London. It is all over the place and I really do not think this is good. I know it is not the Minister’s fault, but the department is not clear on what it is trying to achieve. I remember discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who lives in Cambridge. He described all the tiers of government in his county—and next door, there was just one tier. It is just shambolic.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I cannot agree with the noble Lord. Surely, he would agree that there is good sense in talking to the locals to work through the issues and to get their buy-in to what they want, within the parameters I have set out. I cannot see the problem with that. Already, a format is evolving: that this is the wish of local people all around the country, particularly up north, where 37% of people are under the aegis of mayoral authorities; that this is actually what local people want.

This is not so much a philosophical thing, but as the noble Lord will know, we have announced the devolution White Paper. This is an opportunity to reflect and review. I do not know what is going to be in it or what will come out of it, but we are going to look at all aspects of local government in the White Paper, which will be produced in due course. I hope it will help to allay the noble Lord’s fears. It might answer the question of my noble friend Lord Deben as to why Northamptonshire is treated differently from Cornwall. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. For example, discussions are going on in North Yorkshire about York being a unitary. Cornwall, as we know, is treated differently. It is important to come back to the point that this has got to be driven by local people deciding what they wish.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Again, I would agree with that statement, but the problem is that it is not the case. The Minister says that local people can decide, but they are given only one or two options. The Government are not letting them decide; they are narrowing down the options to a specific number and ruling things out before people get the chance to decide. They are setting a rigid framework and saying, “You can have that or nothing at all”. That is not letting local people decide, and that is the basic problem.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I take note of what the noble Lord has said. Actually, it falls in line with what I said at the beginning, which is that a letter is due. I will do my best to set out our approach in more detail, because there is sense in what we are doing. This is not a scattergun approach and nor is it chaotic.

I want to answer a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, concerning Northamptonshire and the new arrangements. He asked: why not one or three unitaries, rather than two? The inspector recommended that a two-unitary solution was best because a one-unitary council was perceived as replicating and rewarding the failing county council, and three was seen as not meeting the criteria on credible geography with councils of adequate size.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

I urge the Government to look again at the issue of consulting. I fully agree that it is about consulting local communities, local people. I have a problem when we take too much notice of those district and county authorities that are still there. With the greatest respect, they are trying to protect themselves, their officers—which is understandable —their members and their authority. Their views are sometimes challenged by that. It should be local communities that make the decision, not the local authorities within them.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I promise that this will be my last comment. The argument that we could not have a unitary authority for the whole county because it would be seen as rewarding the county council that has failed is rather weak. There was a failure of political leadership. The way to deal with that is to remove the people and not let them stand again. Not going forward with the one-council option because it could be seen as a replica of the failed county council is a weak reason.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I pledge to write on that point and to tie it in with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. I have not addressed the review of savings made. In my letter, I will attempt to give the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, a response on that matter and address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, on the position of ministerial powers. That comes down to giving a coherent view of how ministerial powers juxtapose with local ones.

I hope that that is helpful and that I have addressed the many points raised. As I said, a letter will be coming that fully addresses the points that were made. Once again, I thank noble Lords for their contributions.

Homelessness

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Thursday 23rd January 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to reducing homelessness and rough sleeping. No one should ever have to sleep rough. That is why this Government aim to end the blight of rough sleeping by the end of this Parliament and will continue to fully implement the Homelessness Reduction Act. The Government recently announced a further £422 million in funding to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping in 2020-21, an increase of £54 million on 2019-20.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that Answer. Could he set out for the House why homelessness has increased so dramatically in the last 10 years, particularly—shockingly—with 726 people losing their lives in 2018?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I am very aware of the deaths related to rough sleeping in particular, rather than homelessness. It is a highly complex area, but the Government’s ambitions are set out in our manifesto. Ministers and officials from across the Government are working closely together to scale up our successful programmes, such as the rough sleepers initiative, and devise new interventions to meet the manifesto commitments. The 83 areas supported by our rough sleepers initiative showed an overall decrease of 19%. There is light at the end of the tunnel.

UK Holocaust Memorial

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Monday 20th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. That is why the memorial exhibition and learning centre will explore the role of Britain’s Parliament and democratic institutions in the Holocaust— what we did and what more we could have done to tackle the persecution of the Jewish people and other groups.

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

My Lords, I endorse the comments of the noble Viscount in answering this Question. I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, along with the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, and others, is a trustee of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust. Does the noble Viscount agree that it is welcome that the learning centre will focus not just on the Holocaust but on all other genocides and that it is important that we do not forget the horrors of the past?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

Yes, indeed. I repeat what I said earlier: the learning centre, which still requires a lot of input, will focus on the Holocaust but will also cover other genocides.

Housing: Rental Market

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Monday 28th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

On the subject of possible registration, we welcome Airbnb’s plans to hold a national discussion on this matter and we are engaging with it and other similar stakeholders on their proposals. Perhaps I may say that local authorities already have powers to take action against issues such as noise, anti-social behaviour or the accumulation of rubbish, as my noble friend has pointed out, that may arise in relation to short-term properties. I would urge anyone with such a complaint to take it to their local authority. We want to encourage responsible short-term letting where hosts behave in accordance with the law and with respect for both their guests’ safety and their neighbours’ peace.

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

My Lords, I refer the House to my relevant interests. Is the noble Viscount saying that he does not accept that there is a problem here which needs to be dealt with?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

No, I am not saying that there is no problem. We take the view that we welcome the voluntary approach. We are encouraging the Short Term Accommodation Association to drive up standards. Its self-regulatory measures to date include the Safe, Clean and Legal accreditation scheme in partnership with Quality in Tourism, its collaboration with Westminster City Council to develop and promote the considerate short-term lets charter and its members’ voluntary imposition of checks to help enforce the 90-day limit in London only.

Homeless People: Prevention of Deaths

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, first, I draw to the attention of the House my relevant interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the Minister for repeating the answer to the Urgent Question given in the other place earlier today.

We have seen a huge rise in rough sleeping. We can see it in in every town and city in this country. This simply was not the case 10 years ago. Just look at Westminster tube station—I come in via the tube station almost every day; I have been in this House nearly 10 years—and it just was not the case. Every day now there are more and more homeless people in the tube station. It is absolutely appalling and shameful in one of the richest countries in the world.

There is the widest possible agreement—from homeless charities to the National Audit Office to cross-party Select Committees—that government policy has not helped in this respect. Today’s figures from the Office for National Statistics show that 726 homeless people died last year. That is up by half in the last five years.

I have two questions for the Minister. First, does he accept that the £10 million in respect of the cold weather fund will be insufficient and that further funds will have to be provided for this fund? Secondly, will he agree to meet me and a delegation of local government leaders and charities to discuss the inadequate levels of funding being provided for the Homelessness Reduction Act? It is a good bit of legislation, but we need funds to make it work.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the rest of the House that one death in this way is one too many. I am very sorry to report that there was one further death in Wiltshire last night, which noble Lords may have heard of.

I will answer the noble Lord’s two questions. First, on the £10 million, we believe that this is enough, but clearly this is such a serious matter that we will keep this very much under review, but this is a figure that has taken account of the statistics. Secondly, of course I would be very pleased to meet the noble Lord and anybody else he cared to bring along to discuss the level of funding for this important matter.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Monday 4th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to a group of amendments to Clause 4 and Schedule 2. Amendments 54 to 64 and Amendment 75 relate to the period which must expire before services can be provided under local service contracts. The Bill as introduced provides that at least six months must expire between a contract being awarded and provision of the relevant service, with the aim of providing a suitable period of transition for bus operators. These amendments do not change the policy but merely tidy up the Bill to ensure that this provision is clear.

Amendment 65 makes it clear that where a franchising scheme is varied to add an area which relates to another local authority, that authority must play an active part in the variation processes. This corrects the drafting of the Bill but does not change the policy intention. It has always been the Government’s intention that authorities that will have a franchising scheme covering the whole or part of their combined area should play a part in making or varying the scheme.

Amendment 76 amends the Local Transport Act 2008 to remove provisions relating to quality contract schemes for areas in England which were inserted into the Transport Act 2000. My noble friend Lord Ahmad wrote to noble Lords on 16 June providing notice of the government amendments he would be bringing forward in Committee. That note provides a fuller explanation of the precise changes to the Bill. My noble friend and I are of course happy to discuss these amendments further with colleagues if there are any concerns. I beg to move Amendment 54.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I have no problem with the amendment but I want some further clarification. As I said in our previous discussion on our first day in Committee, we have a whole raft of government amendments and I do not understand why this issue was not sorted out before the Bill came to your Lordships’ House. Yes, the amendment adds the word “minimum”—Amendment 55 is similar—but these are tidying-up amendments and we are at the start of the Bill, not the end. It has been nowhere other than with the department and in this House. I am sure that the noble Lord listens to what all noble Lords say in this House, but it seems that a bit more work should have been done with Ministers before the Bill ever appeared here. Why we are getting these Bills so early, and why was this issue not sorted out before the Bill arrived here?

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

That is a very reasonable comment. My noble friend Lord Ahmad was asked a similar question during consideration of a previous amendment, and I recall his answer. I will give the same answer, which I hope will be accepted: this Bill has been work in progress. A lot of the time, Bills are not absolutely perfect when they are presented. I will be quite open and honest in saying that it is simply a tidying-up process. I hope the noble Lord will accept that explanation.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I accept that it is a tidying-up exercise, but my point is that I am surprised that this could not have been sorted out in advance, given that, as we have heard, this Bill has been a long time coming and in preparation in the department. These are not major issues that have been found during our debates: it is just a question of missing words, for example. I could go through the whole raft of government amendments—none is anything major. So I do not understand why we are finding within a matter of days that odd words and phrases that should have been included in the first place are missing from a Bill that, we are told, has been months in preparation, and was due last year.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I am not sure that my follow-up is going to give any further clarity. I simply point out that the Bill as introduced was not sufficiently clear on these points, and these amendments help to bring clarity. It is more fine-tuning and tweaking than anything particularly major.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

That is fine. I will not pursue the point further, but for the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and say that the Bill was not sufficiently clear, when it has been at least months in preparation, is not the best way to introduce legislation. I will leave it there.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Wednesday 4th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, this House can rightly press the Government to strengthen energy standards where it is possible and cost-effective to do so. I note the well-intentioned comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Krebs, but it is right that we first do a full and comprehensive review of the evidence. That is our firm intention. Simply imposing standards without such a review risks making homes unviable in some parts of the country and raising construction costs to a point where they may simply be unaffordable for small homebuilders. The Federation of Master Builders, which represents 13,000 small and medium-sized builders, said last week in response to Amendment 108 that the Lords is showing,

“a reckless lack of realism and concern for consequences of heavy-handed regulation”.

Let us show the Federation of Master Builders that this House is not reckless and that any future changes to standards will be based on a full review of evidence and be cost-effective.

I would like to pick up on a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, about the cumulative cost—that is, the £3,000 figure per household. The cost of meeting the level proposed for a semi-detached home is around £3,000, as has been said, but if that is scaled up for all home types over a year—flats are less costly but detached homes cost more—it would result in a cumulative cost of around £200 million per annum to the homebuilding industry. That reinforces our argument for a full review and with that in mind, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her Motion.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The noble Viscount has relied on the Federation of Master Builders now for every debate on this issue. Before he sits down, could he remind us, as I cannot remember, of the number of organisations that, to the contrary, think these measures are very welcome?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I deliberately use the Federation of Master Builders because it is prominent in the industry. I could quote other organisations and would be very happy to provide the noble Lord with a list of them. There is certainly a mood to ensure that there is not this chilling effect, particularly on small builders. We need to build more houses.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I would be interested to see a list of those other organisations. Up to now, all I have heard from such organisations is that they support these measures. The noble Viscount has relied from day one on the Federation of Master Builders and nothing else.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

As I say, I am very happy indeed to write to the noble Lord with a full and further list.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, as we have heard, the amendment would ensure that new homes are built with sustainable drainage systems, helping to protect home owners against flooding, helping communities and delivering wider environmental benefits. This issue has been discussed as we have gone through the Bill both in Committee and on Report, and it is disappointing that the Government are again rejecting the amendment. There is no problem with monitoring where were are with SUDS—whether they are included and why they are not included, the issue around developing a site and why costs might mean that you cannot do it. We need a lot more information here, and I do not understand why the Government do not want to do this. The measures are low cost and would deliver flood-resilient homes, which is something that we all want to support. We have all seen the heart-breaking scenes of people’s homes being flooded. Why would you want to build homes that are at risk of flooding? It is really very strange.

The Minister talked about cost and bureaucracy and said, “Let’s wait and see”. I am afraid that that does not stack up. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, all the water companies have supported this, but there are also other bodies. Essex County Council is fully in support of it, and I think that that is a Tory-controlled authority—it is certainly not Labour controlled. Hampshire County Council is fully in support of it, and it is certainly not Labour controlled; I think it is Conservative controlled. There are many other bodies; everyone is saying that this is something that we should do, so I do not understand why the Government are still resisting it. I hope the Minister will look at this more favourably and change his mind.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting and short debate, and I shall be brief. I hope that noble Lords will accept that, while we join them in supporting the use of sustainable drainage, there are flaws that make the proposed new clause simply unworkable, and a potentially serious impediment to the delivery of new homes. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, we have heard the arguments at some length during the Bill, and I can only reiterate our position that we will review the impacts of the current planning policy on sustainable drainage. That is a definite reassurance.

On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, raised on why by building now we might be storing up problems for later, when determining planning applications, local planning authorities are expected to ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere. In areas at risk of flooding, they should ensure that priority is given to the use of sustainable drainage systems. There is also an expectation that sustainable drainage systems will be provided in all new major developments, unless demonstrated to be inappropriate. A site-specific flood risk assessment is required for planning applications for a development likely to be affected by local sources of flooding, and should look at all forms of flood risk, including from surface water. The developer is responsible for providing effective drainage already to serve the development and agreeing it with the local planning authority. I hope that, with the continuing reassurance about looking very closely at the issue in our review, noble Lords will reject the amendment.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Wednesday 27th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my declared interests, and also declare that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham. I see the Minister’s point—that the amendments appear, on the face of it, to be minor and technical. But my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has raised an issue, and I hope that we get a response from the Minister. None of us would want to agree something today that had unintended consequences at a later date.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I hope I can provide some clarity. It is true that the amendments are minor and technical, but let me try to explain. The purpose of the amendment is to make it explicit in the legislation that Clause 54 does not apply to individuals engaged in property management work under a contract of employment. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, may remember that on Report we made a number of amendments to the housing administration section of the Bill, and unfortunately, during this process the definition of housing administration objectives became inaccurate. This amendment corrects the definition.

To give a little more detail, it may help the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Campbell-Savours, if I say that I believe that officers are defined as directors or executive members of a company. Given that this is technical, it would be wise if I gave a fuller answer than the one I am giving at the Dispatch Box now, so I will write to all noble Lords with a description.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

The amendment says:

“But a person is not a property manager for the purposes of this Part if the person engages in English property management work in the course of that person’s employment under a contract of employment”.

A director of a company involved could have taken the decision that led to the banning but, as far as I can see, would not be responsible under this clause. Is that the intention, or am I simply misunderstanding what the Bill says? I think we should have a bit more information while the Bill is in this form, on Third Reading, because this is our final opportunity.

Social Housing

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Wednesday 27th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

Well, we will be delivering 90,000 affordable home starts in London by 2021, and 20 housing zones have been designated. It is important that we deliver on those.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my declaration in the Register of Lords’ Interests and declare that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham. The figures cited by my noble friend highlight the problem, and the soaring costs borne by the taxpayer. When are the Government going to get to grips with rents in the private rented sector?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

The private rented sector is also an important part of this. I am not quite sure what the noble Lord means by getting a grip but, again, that is part of the process of building more houses and making sure that we have houses that people want to live in at a reasonable rent.

Housing: Co-operative Housing

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Monday 25th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the register of interests. I am also a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and director of a co-op which does not operate in the housing sector.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, the Government continue to support the community-led housing sector, including housing co-operatives, because we want to see communities more in control of decisions that affect them, including the delivery and management of their homes. The March Budget confirmed that £60 million a year from additional receipts from higher stamp duty rates on additional residential properties will be redirected into rural and coastal areas for community-supported housing.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, to support the growth of the co-operative housing sector, what plans do the Government have to legislate to create co-operative housing as a tenure in its own right and what plans do they have to make it easier for land to be made available to build co-operative housing to deal with the housing crisis and provide much needed affordable housing?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I recognise that, by his own admission, the noble Lord has been in the co-operative movement all his adult life, part of that as a Peer. We recognise that co-operative housing and community land trusts in their various forms play an important role in satisfying the demand for housing. They are very individual and bespoke, and are perhaps more of a challenge to promote one against the other. We will look carefully at a pilot that is going on in Wales before taking any further action, but we otherwise very much promote the idea of co-operatives.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Wednesday 20th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as this is my first contribution to Report today, I refer noble Lords to my declaration of interests and confirm that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham. I join other noble Lords in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, back to your Lordships’ House. She has been much missed and is very welcome here today.

The issues raised in these two amendments were discussed in Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, is knowledgeable on these matters and it is always worth listening to and taking note of what she says on a variety of matters, particularly concerning leaseholders.

We on these Benches largely welcome the spirit of what is proposed here, but I am not convinced that it strikes the right balance. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Beecham raised issues in respect of the wording, specifically use of the term “buyer” in proposed new subsection (1) in Amendment 102, and asked what majority would be required. Equally, on Amendment 101, concerns were raised about the practicalities by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. How do you deal with a situation where 51%, a simple majority, want to make a change, but 49% strongly oppose it? I understand fully the noble Baroness’s point about 100%, because of course that would be impossible to achieve. However, at this stage, I think that we need to come up with another mechanism or formula to address the concerns raised in the amendment. I hope that the Government will be much more amenable to finding a way forward and not give the response that the noble Baroness had from the previous four Ministers.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Gardner for her amendments on leasehold, which have led to a short and informative debate. I want to take this opportunity to thank my noble friend for her tireless efforts and dedicated service in raising issues on behalf of those in the leasehold sector.

As we have heard, Amendment 101 would modify a lease where leaseholders have exercised the right to manage. As a leaseholder herself, my noble friend will appreciate the benefits and the associated responsibilities of acquiring and exercising the right to manage. However, this amendment, although introduced with the best intentions, would not achieve what its intended purpose appears to be.

As noble Lords will know, the right to manage allows leaseholders of flats to take over, by means of a right-to-manage company, the freeholder’s or landlord’s management responsibilities. Where the right to manage has been exercised, the amendment would allow leases to be modified in relation to communal services or general safeguards if a majority of eligible leaseholders voted in favour of the modifications. A lease can be varied only by mutual agreement of all the parties to the lease, or by reference to a tribunal or court. If one or more leaseholders believe that their lease in a block needs to be varied, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 already allows them to seek a variation from a tribunal, in particular circumstances, or a court.

The amendment tabled states that if a leaseholder or their proxy fails to vote, they will be deemed to have voted in favour of a proposal to vary a lease. I hope my noble friend agrees there may be many reasons why a leaseholder or their proxy could not partake in a vote. The amendment appears to be somewhat undemocratic in extrapolating a leaseholder’s non-vote to be a vote in favour for a proposal that would affect an individual’s property rights. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I believe the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, raised this concern when the matter was discussed in Committee. However, I appreciate that my noble friend Lady Gardner has strong views and genuine frustrations on this. I would welcome the opportunity to meet her outside this Chamber to look at the voting procedure in right to manage and to consider, if necessary with the wider leasehold sector, whether any legislative or other changes are needed to address her concerns.

My noble friend mentioned that she did not really know whether majority should be defined as just over 50% or upwards. That leads me to believe that further discussion is needed. She also mentioned the question of 100% agreement. Again, I believe it was mentioned in Committee that the question of not being able to do anything without 100% agreement is not the case, because the right to manage companies need a majority of directors at a meeting of directors and 100% is needed only for the variation to the lease.

I am sure my noble friend will agree that it is important that we seek a greater understanding of the issue raised. I hope she will join us in looking at this in the wider context of the legislative framework on leasehold and the right to manage, and that we do not rush to make a change to the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, hit the nail on the head when she said that this was a challenging and complex issue. Although she did not say this, I believe this is something that should not be rushed and we should look into it in a lot more detail.

Amendment 102 was also debated in Committee and raised by my noble friend Lady Gardner. As I said, I agree with my noble friend on the importance of there being sufficient funds available for the repair and maintenance of leasehold blocks. Sinking funds can indeed play an important role in mitigating large, one-off service charge demands. However, as I set out in Committee, I believe that these concerns are unfounded. This amendment, while well intentioned, would conflict with existing requirements and responsibilities under the terms of the lease and the existing legal contract between the freeholder and leaseholder.

A lease provides for the collection of service charges for the maintenance of the block. In many cases, provision is also made for money to be collected to support a sinking fund. Where it does not—this is important—legislation makes it possible to seek a variation of the lease to provide for a sinking fund. It is sensible, clear and workable for the person responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the building also to be responsible for any sinking fund. Separating this responsibility would create conflict and confusion with the existing lease, as would trying to dovetail separate responsibilities with the existing arrangements. Importantly, legislation enables the freeholder to be held to account on service charges, including any sinking fund. Leaseholders have the right to challenge the reasonableness of service charge amounts being sought, whether for day-to- day use or towards a sinking fund.

My noble friend raised the matter of a sinking fund and those with very small incomes, which is a fair point. Additional payments into sinking funds could be extremely difficult for those on small fixed incomes and it would not be right to force them to have a sinking fund if it was not already implicit in the lease when the funds may not be needed immediately or for many years.

I should like to address a matter that was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. He said that you cannot get an agreement from absentee freeholders or leaseholders. But if there is no sinking fund or any lease variation and leaseholders cannot get agreement, they can go to the First-tier Tribunal. I hope that reassures him.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, was extremely helpful in debates on this matter in Committee and he raises an important point. That leads me to say that, as a result of this debate and the debate in Committee, we now want to work closely with my noble friend Lady Gardner and all those interested in the sector to consider the complexities of these detailed issues. We need to balance the rights of all parties and consider how well the existing routes to push necessary repairs or vary leases work through the First-tier Tribunal and look at how all the aspects are working. I would like, with the Minister, to meet my noble friend Lady Gardner to discuss this issue, and I am sure that all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate would be most welcome to attend. I hope that, with my assurance to take these issues forward and look at the complexities, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

If the House will indulge me, that offer is welcome, but it is fair to say that no one could accuse either this Government or previous Governments going back many years of any haste in dealing with these matters. I hope that we shall finally see some progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, can the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, say a little more about these amendments? As has been said, on the face of it they could be interpreted as giving considerable power to the Secretary of State or the Mayor of London. Can the Minister also confirm that in the case of London they will be exercised only by the Mayor of London and will not be exercised by the Secretary of State as well? Can he also explain further, as the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, outlined, what he sees are the circumstances when the use of such powers would need to be considered, and can he tell us, for the benefit of the House, how they complement localism? It seems that localism is spoken of less and less from the Government Benches as we discuss these Bills and these issues. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, outlined very carefully a number of very detailed questions and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to those as well.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their interventions in this very short debate. I hope that I will be able to address the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, in particular, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy.

First, as regards statistics—my noble friend Lord Lansley raised this issue—the majority of authorities already have a plan in place or are working on their plan. Some 70% of local authorities—the figure I have—have adopted a local plan and 84% have published a plan. The point is that where an authority is not making sufficient progress on its plan, we have been clear that we will step in—but in consultation with local people. The whole aim is to accelerate getting a plan in place. Parliament has already given the Secretary of State the power to intervene in local plan-making, so to this extent we are not doing anything new.

The Bill allows targeted intervention in plans and keeps decision-making local wherever possible while still ensuring that plans are in place. This amendment ensures that where an authority has failed to set out publicly its intention and timetable for producing a local plan, we can take action to make this information available to communities. I should also try to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that we are talking about quite a long time that local authorities have had to put a plan in place. They have had more than a decade to get their plans in place, so I regard this as being very much a last-resort issue. It is meant to be light-touch rather than bringing in a sledgehammer to crack a nut—and I hope that may help.

To go a little further, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, raised the issue of the timing as to where and when the Secretary of State might intervene. We have consulted—

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

That is absolutely correct. If it had not be clarified before, it must be clarified. It is simply a means of taking over the plan-making process, not taking over the whole plan for good—that is a very important point.

We set out our proposals for prioritised intervention, where the least progress in plan-making has been made. Where policies and plans have not been kept up to date and there is higher housing pressure, for example, intervention will have the greatest impact in accelerating local plan production. To finish on that note, the fact is that where nothing is being done, it is right that as a last resort there should be government intervention. I hope that that will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Can the noble Lord give us more information about where these areas are? Clearly he must have a list of what is going on, as the Government have clearly done some work on this.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I can certainly write to the noble Lord with that specific detail, but, clearly, we are very wise to the fact that some local authorities have not produced a plan, and therefore we want to be sure to encourage them to do so. We are bringing in the encouragement and the nudge factor here, not the sledgehammer.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Monday 18th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I can see where the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, is coming from with these amendments and I agree with virtually all the comments that have been made in this short debate. As the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Shipley, said, it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that councillors could be appointed to boards if the board thought that appropriate. If you are appointed to a board, no matter what your position is, your duty is to that board and to ensure that the organisation functions properly.

As the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, said, it is good if local authorities and housing associations have a good working relationship, but if as part of the scrutiny process a council wanted to engage with a local housing association, that would be welcome.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this very short debate. I particularly appreciate the support of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, and interventions from the noble Lords, Lord Porter and Lord True. To reiterate the background to this measure, some local authorities have rights to nominate housing association board members and act as shareholders. This could allow local authorities in a minority of housing associations to block major constitutional changes. Although local authority control was not one of the reasons why the ONS reclassified the housing associations sector, there is still a risk that this will be identified as a control and delay the reclassification of housing associations.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that councillors can be appointed to housing associations boards in their own right, provided that they do not speak on behalf of the local authorities. For my noble friend Lord Porter, I say that the clauses refer to nomination rights only. I hope that that reassures him that nothing broader is intended here.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Just for absolute clarity, can the Minister confirm that we are talking about nomination rights for directors and not nomination rights relating to tenants, as the noble Lord, Lord Porter, asked?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

Indeed, that is correct.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 95B in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham proposes to leave out the words “as an alternative” and add “in addition” to the list of the breaches in Schedule 9 to the Bill. Our reason for tabling this amendment is that the offences here do not justify being downgraded, and if left unamended the effect of the schedule would be just that: they would be downgraded. It would be helpful for me in deciding whether I should divide the House if the noble Viscount could explain very clearly why he believes that these offences should be downgraded and left to a fine by the local authority. I cannot see how that will benefit anyone, or that leaving the courts out of this process would be a good thing. I beg to move.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, as I have said in earlier Committee and Report debates, the measures in Part 5 mark the Government’s commitment to tackle rogue landlords and agents as well as poor practice and standards in the private rented sector. The amendments I shall move in the next group respond to issues raised in Committee when we debated Part 2 and were debated last week, and they clarify issues that were of concern to your Lordships.

Before then, however, Amendment 95B, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Kennedy, would allow the local authority to pursue both a civil penalty and a criminal conviction for the same housing offence. The Bill as drafted provides local housing authorities with a choice on whether they want to go down the civil penalty or prosecution route depending on the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances surrounding it.

It would be disproportionate to use both regimes in relation to the same conduct. In some less serious cases, such as a first offence involving a relatively minor breach of housing legislation or when a landlord has recognised that they need to improve and have taken steps to do so, a local authority may prefer to use the civil penalty route, but for the real rogues that operate in the sector, which we have discussed at length, prosecution will still be important as that can ultimately lead to a banning order.

We will be issuing guidance for local authorities on the workings of this and the Secretary of State will of course be able to use the database of rogue landlords and agents to get a picture of how local authorities are using their powers. I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the Minister for his response. As I said, generally the provisions in respect of the private rented sector are quite good in the Bill, with one or two exceptions; the exceptions have come with the Government’s desire to take the courts out of these processes. I have not been at all satisfied or persuaded by the comments from the Minister, so I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I now turn to Amendments 96 and 97, which have been tabled in response to issues raised by noble Lords during the course of debate. These confirm that the local housing authority will need to apply the criminal standard of proof to any action taken against a landlord or agent. Amendment 96 addresses concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee about banning order offences, which were echoed and reinforced in Committee. Amendment 97 deals with appeals to the First-tier Tribunal against financial penalties.

A local housing authority which intends to impose a financial penalty must serve a notice of intent setting out both the reason for imposing the penalty and the amount of the penalty. The reasons must reflect that the local housing authority is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offence complained of has been committed. The department will be issuing guidance to local housing authorities on financial penalties, including the circumstances in which a local authority should consider imposing such a penalty. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, we discussed these matters in Committee and, as the Minister said, they were raised by the Delegated Powers Committee as well. These are very sensible amendments and we support them.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Monday 11th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

My Lords, this is an important subject of which I have had direct personal experience. I have found that the tenancy deposit schemes are extremely thorough, rapid in dealing with matters, and fair—or perhaps even anti the landlord in my case. My situation involved a solicitor who sent in 17 pages of issues he had raised, although he had been there for five years. He was Australian and cantankerous. It was a bit of a trial of strength, but it did convince me that the present system is working very well indeed.

The other reason this issue is important is that some cunning tenants do not pay their last month’s rent. They pay all the rent until they get to the end of the tenancy and then do not make the final payment. Therefore, the deposit might be the only thing you have to pay that rent. I have often seen that happen, so the amendment really is not a good idea.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, if agreed, Amendment 35 would require a review of the tenancy deposit scheme under Sections 212 to 215 of the Housing Act 2004. The tenancy deposit schemes in England are currently protecting more than 3 million deposits on behalf of tenants, helping to raise standards in the private rented sector and ensuring that tenants are treated fairly at the end of the tenancy. Carrying out a review of the schemes would be a resource-intensive and costly exercise which would duplicate the department’s ongoing and regular governance role in monitoring and reviewing the schemes. This is not the most effective way to spend taxpayers’ money. We are satisfied that all three tenancy deposit protection schemes are providing high standards of service to tenants and landlords—and I appreciate hearing about the experience of my noble friend Lady Gardner in this respect.

Let me give some further detail. If tenants have complied with all their obligations, they will receive their deposit back within 10 days of the scheme administrator being notified of the end of the tenancy. If the landlord and tenant disagree on the amount to be returned, they can either use the alternative dispute resolution service offered by the schemes or go to court. Of the 11.5 million deposits which have been protected since the launch of the scheme, less than 2% have gone to adjudication. On average, 27% are awarded to tenants, 17% to landlords or agents—and, interestingly, 56% are split between the two sides.

Alternative dispute resolution cases are handled by independent, impartial and qualified adjudicators and decisions are made on the basis of the evidence provided by both parties. The tenancy deposit schemes are required to deal with disputed cases within 28 days and they have regularly met this performance target. I am also satisfied that the tenancy deposit protection schemes awarded contracts for new custodial schemes which commenced on 1 April have the necessary dispute resolution processes in place to ensure that tenants will continue to be treated fairly. This was a key evaluation criteria in our re-procurement exercise carried out last year.

I hope that in setting out some detail, this explanation will assure the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and other noble Lords that tenants’ deposits are and will continue to be returned to them fairly and quickly at the end of the tenancy. However, I would be happy, along with my noble friend the Minister, to speak with noble Lords outside the Chamber about any specific issues they may have about the fairness of the scheme.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, made a very good point. If tenants are acting in that way, it should be looked at, as it is totally not something that we would support. We want both landlords and tenants to be treated fairly.

The point I was making was that some tenants are not treated very fairly. They often need the deposit to put down on their next property and are under considerable pressure because of a lack of resources. So I do think that a review is necessary and I wish to test the opinion of the House on this.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Thursday 17th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I see the point that the Minister makes about public bodies and land, but I can also think of lots of scruffy plots of land all over the place that are clearly not of any strategic importance to the public body they belong to—for example, Network Rail—but are just sitting there looking pretty tatty. I can think of loads of them very close to here, and we could easily build a few houses on them. They are the type of land that we are talking about, and they should be dealt with.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

The noble Lord makes a good point but I draw his attention again to the national planning policy, in which there is a requirement for local planning authorities to look at these areas and plan proactively. There is of course now the brownfield register as well. With that, I hope there is some reassurance that progress can be made.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Not really, no. If the land is owned by Network Rail and Network Rail has no intention of doing anything with it, that is part of the problem.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

It is fair to say that we continue to work hard to press Network Rail to pick up that specific point. I believe that we have made more progress than ever before in addressing those issues. It is important that we look at all areas of land that are not being used, and that is exactly what this planning process aims to do.

I shall now, if I may, make some progress and turn to Amendment 89L and compulsory acquisition. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has argued—and I accept his passion on this subject—that the imperative for house building is so great that land acquired for that purpose should be acquired as cheaply as possible. There is no doubt that more houses should be built, and that cheap land would help towards that end: he makes a very fair point.

The need for housing is not, however, the only imperative in play when land is acquired by compulsion. The acquiring authority is acting in the public interest, but in return the claimants, whose land and property is being taken from them, must be treated fairly. It may help the Committee if I briefly outline the principles of compensation for land taken by compulsion.

The compensation code is underpinned by the principle of equivalence. This means that the owner should be paid neither less nor more than his loss. The code provides that land shall be purchased at its open market value, disregarding the effect of the scheme underlying the compulsory purchase. The land is valued in a construct called the “no-scheme world”, whereby any increase or decrease in value which is due to the scheme is disregarded. Land will always have its existing use value, but market value also takes into account the effect of any planning permissions that have already been granted, and also the prospect of future planning permissions. This is generally known, as I am sure the noble Lord will know, as “hope value”. In the context of compensation for compulsory purchase, all this is assessed according to the planning assumptions in the Land Compensation Act 1961, which require the valuer to assume the scheme underlying the acquisition is cancelled. Your Lordships’ House may recall that these were reformed in the Localism Act 2011.

In some situations there will be no hope value, because the individual claimant could not have obtained planning permission for some more valuable use. For example, the land might be in an isolated rural location where permission for development would have been unlikely to be granted in the absence of a comprehensive scheme requiring compulsory purchase powers. In other situations, perhaps where land is acquired near an existing settlement, there will be pre-existing prospects for development on the land—in other words, development potential which existed prior to the scheme—and the strength of those prospects will be reflected in the market value of the land.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his comments. While I do not wish to repeat my earlier comments or those made by my noble friend Lady Evans on this important issue of planning, whether neighbourhood or local, to reassure the noble Lord I reiterate that we are committed to a plan-led system with local plans at its heart.

Throughout the progression of the Bill we have heard again and again, from various organisations, of the importance of local plans that set the vision for an area and provide the framework for how housing and other essential development needs will be met. However, not every local authority has made the same progress towards getting its local plan in place. We have made clear our expectation that all local planning authorities should have a local plan in place and that the policies in those plans should be kept up to date.

I shall focus on Amendments 89AZC and 89AZD, as tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, which collectively seek to limit the Secretary of State’s power to take decisions on whether a local plan should be adopted where the Secretary of State intervenes under Section 27 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. I hope that my response can, in a moment, provide reassurance to the noble Lord that the Government are committed to working with local planning authorities to get the plans in place. At the same time, I will explain why we cannot support amendments that would in effect remove from the Secretary of State powers that he currently holds or powers that we consider necessary should the Secretary of State not be satisfied with a plan produced by a local planning authority following his direction. The Secretary of State can currently intervene under Section 27 if he thinks that a local planning authority is failing or omitting to do anything necessary to progress a development plan document—that is, the documents which comprise the local plan.

Clause 132 substitutes a new Section 27 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. This is to enable more targeted intervention in plan-making by the Secretary of State. These measures lie at the heart of our ambition to work pragmatically with local authorities to get plans in place that help to deliver the homes and jobs we need.

The amendments we propose are intended to enable the Secretary of State to return appropriate decision-making on a development plan document to a local planning authority. The noble Lord’s amendments go further in such a way that they would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to approve a local plan or to reject the document. In other words, his only action would be to direct an authority to consider adopting the document. Although I am aware of the experience that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has in local matters and local planning, I also very much take account of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Deben and the experience he has had in senior office on these matters.

I reiterate that it remains a balance and we believe that the balance is right. We want to work with authorities to get plans in place. Our proposals give the Secretary of State new options for doing this, without being too prescriptive. However, I remind the noble Lord that the Government may arrange for another body to prepare a local plan only where the local planning authority has failed to do so, despite being given every opportunity. It is a last resort.

The measures we propose provide the necessary assurance to communities and others that where an authority has not put a plan in place or ensured that a plan remains effective, we are able to take the necessary action. Not to do so would risk delaying or even preventing the growth and jobs which are so urgently needed. This action must include taking decisions on whether that plan should or should not form part of the development plan and the starting point for determining planning applications. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

May I ask the Minister a question before he sits down? I agree with the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Deben. We want local authorities to read these things, but equally we have to have a mechanism to move things forward if they are not being moved forward. Will the Minister say a little more about what will happen? How far will an authority go? What will the Secretary of State be looking for? At what point will he intervene? It would be useful to have more information.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I think that it would be wise to furnish the noble Lord with some more detail. For example, I have some charts in my left hand. Perhaps I can reassure him by saying that there is a flowchart and a process in place. I reiterate that this is meant to be light touch. This is what is behind it—light touch, but with a programme and a plan.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Viscount. For a moment, I thought that he was going to mention regulation again.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Thursday 17th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

Will the Minister say a bit more about whether he sees this as a watering-down of the provisions? Clause 115(2) seeks to remove Sections 225 and 226 of the Housing Act, which state that a “housing authority must”—it is a very clear duty. This clause would replace that with a “duty to consider”. My noble friend Lady Whitaker said that this would allow authorities to shirk their responsibilities and, as my noble friend Lady Young said, take the line of least resistance. How are we to avoid that?

Before I conclude, many noble Lords have mentioned Lord Avebury. He was a very good man and we all miss him very much. I know which side of the debate he would be on if he were in his place today. It is worth noting that just a couple of days ago, on 15 March, it was the anniversary of his famous by-election win in Orpington.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I understand the thinking behind the noble Lord’s question, but I might put it another way. He used the word “watering-down”, but it could also be said that it might lead to local authorities underestimating the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers. Again, as I hope I have made clear, that is absolutely not the case: the proposed changes to primary legislation make it clear that the needs of all those, including Gypsies and Travellers, who reside in or resort to a district are considered in the same way as before in respect of the provision of caravans, sites and moorings.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

If so, why is the change needed? Will the Minister tell us why things are not being left as they are?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I made it clear at the beginning that this is to do with simplifying the legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, Amendment 83, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, would require a local authority to have regard to the fact that a landlord had been included in the database of rogue landlords and property agents when considering an application from that landlord for a licence to operate a house in multiple occupation or selective licensing. A local authority is already required to have regard to a range of factors when deciding whether to grant a licence under the Housing Act 2004. These include whether the applicant has committed any offence involving fraud or other dishonesty, or violence or drugs, or certain serious sexual offences; practised unlawful discrimination; or contravened any provision of the law relating to housing, or of landlord and tenant law. These factors would be likely to include all the offences leading to inclusion in the database. The database will be a key source of information for local authorities when taking decisions on whether to grant a licence.

These safeguards are very important as it is essential that a local authority can be confident that a licence is granted to a landlord or agent only if they can demonstrate that they are a fit and proper person to operate a house in multiple occupation or a property subject to selective licensing, and will not pose a risk to the health and safety of their tenants, many of whom may be vulnerable. Clause 116 includes two further safeguards by providing that a local authority will also be required to have regard to whether the landlord has leave to remain in the UK, is an undischarged bankrupt or is insolvent.

The aim of Amendment 83 is to ensure that local authorities fully consider the past behaviour of landlords and agents who are applying for a licence. The Government are extremely sympathetic to this aim. To do this, local authorities need access to information about the previous activities of a landlord and to share that information across local authority boundaries. The database will be an important step forward in sharing information about convictions recorded against residential landlords and property agents. It is extremely unlikely that a local authority would be unaware of a matter leading to an entry on the database of rogue landlords and property agents when deciding if an applicant was a fit and proper person. I trust that with this explanation, the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation, which was very helpful. I will happily withdraw the amendment.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

Will the noble Viscount say a little more about the point on planning delay made by the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy? He has made that point a number of times in the Chamber. I am a member of a local authority and I do not necessarily agree with him but it is important to clarify the issue. As this is my first intervention today, I declare that I am a local councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham, a trustee—this is particularly relevant to what we are discussing—of the United St Saviour’s Charity, which runs a number of supported housing schemes in south London, and a member of the Co-operative Party.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, makes a good point. I stress that powers to speed up planning are included later in the Bill. My noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy made a good point. It is very important that we speed up planning.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

On that point, I am a member of a planning committee. Most of the planning matters go through under delegated powers; very little comes through committees now. I do not see this delay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 54A, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, has our full support. As noble Lords have heard, the amendment seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State makes regulations that will require that all new homes built after 1 January 2018 achieve the compliance standards as set out in the amendment. This is achieved by using an energy-efficient approach to building design and reducing the CO₂ emissions on-site through low and zero-carbon technologies. As noble Lords have heard, Britain has been a world leader in taking measures to reduce carbon emissions. With that in mind, it is disappointing that we have to have this debate at all. The amendment is achievable and realistic and pushes us further forward as we seek to reduce the energy demands of new homes. I very much agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, when she expressed her regret that the Government have removed the zero-carbon target for new homes.

I do not often agree with what the Prime Minister said, but I also agree very much with the quote from him that my noble friend Lady Young read out. However, it puts the Prime Minister at odds with his Chancellor, who removed it a few days later. It will be very interesting to hear the response to that from the government Benches. The amendment will of course help to support innovation in construction by requiring high standards and will help future-proof homes, reducing the need for retrofit later, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said in his contribution. In particular, I will be interested to hear the response from the Minister to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, about the whole issue of agreements that are made and then reneged on. I will also be interested to hear the Government’s response to the very challenging points made by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, in his excellent speech.

The amendment would allow the housebuilding and supply industries, related trade associations, consumer representatives and bodies with a specific interest in environmental objectives to play their full role in being properly consulted in what is achievable and what is the way forward. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who posed the question, “Why build homes today if they are not fit for purpose tomorrow?”. I will listen with interest to the Minister’s response and I may have a few further questions depending on the Government’s position.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, first, I applaud the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for braving the Chamber today with what sounded like a few unwanted gremlins in her voice. I heard her loud and clear. I thank her for giving us the opportunity today to debate her proposed new clause, which seeks to put into primary legislation a carbon compliance standard for new homes from January 2018. The proposed carbon compliance levels are well intentioned—we all share the desire to see energy-efficient homes built that help to reduce carbon emissions and fuel bills—but the new clause is a step too far at this time. I listened very carefully to all the comments and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, pointed out, this issue has certainly been much debated in this Chamber in recent months.

Over the last Parliament, we implemented significant strengthening of the energy performance standards for new homes—a 30% improvement on requirements before 2010. These standards are reducing energy bills by £200 annually on average for a new home and saving carbon. At this stage, we need to give the homebuilding industry breathing space to build the highly energy-efficient homes already required by the recent changes to building regulations, and I will say more about that in a moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

The evidence is pretty strong from the Federation of Master Builders, but in the same letter that I shall write to other noble Lords I will include any further evidence that can be produced to back up the evidential information that we have.

The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked about the scrapping of the zero-carbon element and where else carbon savings might come from. I reassure him that we are already starting to look at heating systems in existing homes. As noble Lords will probably be aware, heat accounts for around 45% of our energy consumption. More than 1.2 million new boilers are installed in our homes every year and we want to consider whether the time is right to raise standards upon boiler replacement, and what the benefits and risks are if we do.

I will also make a point that I wanted to raise slightly earlier in this debate about being overzealous in protecting homes. There is an issue which I know has cropped up in previous debates about overheating homes. There are concerns about making homes so energy efficient and airtight that they can contribute to health issues, so DCLG is looking at that. We need to create a balance between stimulating the building of new houses and making sure that they are user-friendly for people to live in.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The Minister suggested to my noble friend Lady Hollis that people would not be able to pass on the £3,000 cost. Is he suggesting that people will be building houses and selling them for less than they cost to build? If so, it seems extraordinary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

Yes, it is at build cost rather than purchasing cost.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I assume that the builder would pass that on when they sold their houses and make sure that it was paid for when they were bought.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

The point is that the onus of the £3,000 is on the housebuilding sector.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Of course, the properties are bought at the end of the day; that is what they are built for. That is an extraordinary comment from the Minister.

Local Democracy in the United Kingdom

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Thursday 28th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to respond to what has been an interesting debate. In terms of its title it is not untypical of the type of debate for a Thursday sitting. It is clear that democracy is one of our fundamental values, along with the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. All noble Lords have consistently recognised and cherished these values in their remarks. However, we have focused primarily on one of the most important aspects, local democracy, which affects the day-to-day lives of people across the country in cities, towns and counties.

I will address some of the points—I hope all of them—raised by noble Lords, which were somewhat wide-ranging, from localism versus centralisation to a focus on voting systems. But first, I am particularly pleased to congratulate all Peers who have made maiden speeches today. In so doing, they have demonstrated a breadth of new experience, knowledge and understanding that will undoubtedly inform our debates.

My noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook clearly has deep experience of democratic local government. I know that the people of Wiltshire, a county she led successfully for many years, have much to thank her for, not least for leading the creation of the unitary Wiltshire Council in 2009. I also feel sure that her former career of cattle husbandry may also be useful for this House in some respect. More seriously, she made some passionate points about the importance of looking after families of forces personnel. That is very much noted.

The wealth of experience brought by my noble friend Lord Porter of Spalding, both as leader of South Holland District Council and now in his role as the chairman of the Local Government Association, will also raise the bar in bringing experience of local leadership into this Chamber.

The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, has played an important part in shaping the democratic governance of our country. It is very much noted that he was a Minister in the coalition Government—in the DCLG, no less—and prior to this was a shadow spokesman for his party. I was particularly struck by the fact that he had served on no less than three local authority councils and had a say in the Localism Act.

UK local government has evolved over centuries, and with the enactment of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act, which received Royal Assent today, this evolution continues. I am conscious that many in the Chamber are experts in the development of local government and representative democracy, but I believe that it is worth considering briefly just how far this has come. No noble Lord touched on this aspect.

Various forms of local government existed in Saxon and medieval times, but it was hardly democratic. The structures that we recognise today evolved from the 19th century and the previous ad hoc system of parishes and boroughs. The Reform Act 1832, which swept away rotten boroughs for parliamentary purposes, was followed by the Municipal Corporations Act 1835, which first reorganised local governance along modern lines, providing for the election of mayors, aldermen and councillors on a vote of those who occupied property.

The Local Government Act 1888 established elected county councils. The Local Government Act 1894 completed the picture by creating elected urban, rural and parish councils. This demonstrated that both a Conservative Government in 1888, led by the Marquis of Salisbury, and a Liberal Government in 1894, were committed to building more democratic and robust local government. However, I can safely state that the noble Marquis’s understanding of democracy does not otherwise chime with ours today. He thought that those who had wealth should be given the opportunity to lead. He said:

“They have the leisure for the task and can give it the close attention and preparatory study which it needs’’.

Reverting to the development of democratic local governance, perhaps its most central aspect is that it was driven locally. The 19th century acts were a response to a great movement across the country. We are all familiar with the achievements in our great cities of Birmingham—with Joseph Chamberlain as mayor—and, indeed, of Manchester. We are seeing today the same spirit with the devolution deals that areas such as Greater Manchester and the West Midlands have agreed with the Government, which will see new, powerful mayors elected in May 2017.

The process of legislative reform continued through the 20th century and into the 21st century. It supported the creation of nine unitary councils, including Wiltshire Council, which I have mentioned already. The question of unitary local government remains a live issue today—in particular, whether there should be more unitary councils. I realise that there are different views on this—often locally, and we have also heard some today in this House.

Let me be clear on the Government’s view. We believe that where an area wishes to adopt unitary structures, it should be able to do so. The Cities and Local Government Devolution Act enables fast-track unitarisation if that is wanted locally. The Secretary of State has made it clear that in exercising these powers he will maintain the preference he has shown to date for consensus in an area. This Act, which has benefited greatly from scrutiny by noble Lords, continues the process of reform. As my noble friend Lord Porter said, it enables devolution of powers and budgets to areas and democratic governance with strong and accountable mayoral leadership, exercising wide-ranging powers that were once firmly under Whitehall’s thumb. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said very succinctly that Whitehall does not always know best, and that is correct.

Democracy is something we all understand but which is hard to define—perhaps the subject of another debate—because it comes in a variety of forms. While institutions were established after the Second World War to protect and promote our core values, including democracy, they rightly did not provide a precise and universal definition of democracy. But I believe we should recognise that democracy, whether national or local, is intensely practical. Its essential characteristics are the participation of people and the institutions in which that participation can occur.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, clearly agrees about the importance of local participation. The fundamental form of participation is, of course, voting. Equally important is the participation of those who stand for elected office, including those who represent and serve their communities. I will say more about that in a moment and address the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Tyler. There is also a range of mechanisms today by which people can participate in local democratic public life.

Of course, the coalition Government led the way in strengthening local participation and direct accountability. It legislated to allow people to use social media: to film, tweet and blog council meetings. This is improving town hall transparency and local accountability. My noble friend Lord True struck a cautionary note, however, by saying that trust—that is, the trust of councillors—goes hand and hand with this, which is an important point. With greater power comes greater responsibility and the need for trust.

I turn now to local democratic institutions, which provide the framework in which democratic participation can operate effectively. This country has a long tradition of representative democratic local government, centring on councils with elected members, and, more recently, directly elected mayors. It is through these democratic local governance institutions that decisions are taken to shape our cities, towns and counties; strong and transparent local leadership can promote the economic growth of areas; and effective public services can be delivered, supporting an area’s economic, social and environmental well-being.

I will address a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about his concern that there is a danger that too much localism and too many disjointed groups could be confusing. He asked who was in charge of the little platoons. That caused me to have a little smile, because my maiden speech six years ago focused on the big society and little platoons. There is really no simple answer to this question, though, because the great variety of little platoons are communities, and those within them are taking action for the community’s benefit. In all cases the key principles, whatever the precise arrangements, are openness, transparency and public accountability.

That leads nicely to the interesting comments made by the right reverend Prelates. I will pick up what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said in his gentle trot—if I may put it that way—around the country. He has clearly had much experience of working with local authorities. He pointed out the importance of local democracy, in particular focusing on the value of parish councils. I was particularly struck by his focus on community action partnerships and how it is important that there did not necessarily need to be a clear leader: they all worked symbiotically together, supported by the local authority. I was struck by the 3,200 projects that he mentioned. His comments were supported by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, who also believed passionately in local democracy and supported the concept of local mayors. I picked up his point that there can be too much negativity at times.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, focused on financial pressures. I want to address directly the question of funding. He said that local authorities were facing unprecedented financial pressures and that local democracy was being eroded. Councils have indeed worked hard over the past five years to deliver a better deal for local taxpayers. Local government accounts for around a quarter of all public spending and every bit of the public sector must play its part in tackling the deficit, which is well known. However, devolution is giving local leaders sweeping new powers and millions of pounds of investment to boost local growth. In addition, by the end of this Parliament councils will keep 100% of local taxes, including all £26 billion from business rates.

A similar theme was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Low and Tyler, concerning the subject of local government funding. The noble Lord, Lord Low, asked whether the Government had assessed the effect of the reductions in funding on discretionary services. Local authorities have more spending power. It is set to be flat in cash from £44.5 billion in 2015-16 to £44.3 billion in 2019-20. Councils will have about £200 billion to spend on local services over this period. The Government have recently consulted on the proposed finance settlement and will carefully consider all responses received before taking final decisions, but these points were well made.

The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, raised the concern in his maiden speech that the Government might backslide out of commitments being made now on the devolution of powers to the combined authorities. But the deals that have been agreed with areas will also be enshrined in legislation that will come to this House. I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured that he will be able to continue to hold the Government to account in that respect.

The noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Storey, raised the issue of education and the link to local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised in particular the point about councils’ powers potentially being taken away. In discussions about the power that local people and communities might have, we should not necessarily equate local power with council powers. Power in local communities is not always about empowering councils. For example, successive Governments have sought to put decisions and power into schools themselves, with their governors taking responsibility. Regional education commissioners are not the people responsible for running schools, but, rather, part of the accountability mechanism for holding those responsible to account so that communities can have confidence in their schools and in those who run them.

I promised to turn to the subject of voting. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, stated quite strongly his wish to move to a proportional system of voting. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, raised the same subject. I took it as read that he was not exactly in favour of STV but was seeking change. After this debate I might seek clarification from him.

I would like to state that there should be a strong defence of first past the post. It is a well-established system. It provides a clear and well-understood link between constituents and their elected representatives. I believe that proportional representation weakens that link. Proportional systems more often lead to councils or, indeed, Parliament not having a clear majority party. The result is that the programme followed by the Executive—a coalition—is not something that anyone voted for: rather, it is often a mish-mash of policies hammered out behind closed doors, which I argue is hardly democratic.

As for the one-party state issue that was raised, ensuring that councils are truly open, transparent and accountable in their decision-making is the key point. This is something that the Conservative-led coalition Government vigorously acted on. This included legislating to make council meetings more open, by allowing citizen journalists to report on meetings by filming, tweeting or blogging.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked who was in charge of decisions on local taxation. It was the coalition Government who gave local people a direct local voice on the council tax in place of centralised capping. Where a council now wishes to set a council tax which could be considered excessive, it is no longer prevented from doing so by central capping: it can ask local people in a referendum if they wish to pay the council tax.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked whether powers were being centralised. This was also mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Beecham. But I would argue that the Government’s policy is quite the opposite of shrinking the powers that local councils have. Our manifesto commitment is to devolve wide-ranging powers and budgets. The Cities and Local Government Devolution Act, which received Royal Assent today, as mentioned earlier, provides new powers for conferring on district and county councils and on combined authorities the powers of a new public authority, including those of Ministers and government departments. The devolution deals we have concluded with areas such as Greater Manchester, Cornwall, Teesside and the West Midlands demonstrate our commitment to devolving powers. In Greater Manchester, these include transport, responsibility for a franchised bus service and new housing powers. In Cornwall, further education, training and learning provision for adults will be reshaped, and there will be new powers for franchising bus services.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred to a need for a constitutional convention. This point has been raised in a variety of debates in recent months. As the noble Lord will be aware, the question of a constitutional convention was discussed during the passage through this House of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill. The Government’s position is that such a convention is alien to our tradition of taking a step-by-step approach to reform, is not necessary and would risk simply being a talking shop.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, made some interesting comments. She will know of my own personal interest in culture within this country, so I was particularly struck that she took a different tack in her remarks. I noted the points that she made about localism, the importance of culture, of the BBC’s Salford move and of UTCs, of which I am a passionate advocate. I agree with her that the creative industries remain an incredibly important part of our tradition. The birthright belongs to us, I think she said, and I agree with that.

I fear that I am running out of time. In concluding, I will sum up by making three key points at the end of this particularly interesting debate. I believe that the majority of speakers stressed that having a vibrant and effective local democracy was important for this country. Secondly, empowering local areas is about not just empowering councils; there needs to be devolution below councils. Finally, the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act represents a huge step change in local governance. I thank all noble Lords for their interesting comments.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Will the noble Viscount say something about the unfairness that will be created by allowing all councils to keep their business rates? There are huge pressures on local government and this risks making the situation much worse in some authorities. I think about my own authority of Lewisham and its obligations and about the rate base of other boroughs. The noble Viscount mentioned that he would address that.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

In addressing the noble Lord’s point, I say that I believe that there is no unfairness. We are passing responsibility down to local people for them to make decisions about these important matters rather than having a centralised approach.

Consumer Protection

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Monday 11th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what legislation or other proposals they have to update the protections for consumers from unfair practices.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, rogue traders who mislead and bully consumers, some of whom are the most vulnerable in our communities, are a blight on society. Research by Consumer Focus found that they cause more than £3 billion-worth of detriment to consumers each year. The Government recently announced legislation to make it simpler and clearer for consumers to fight back by giving them new rights to seek redress and, where appropriate, compensation for the damage that they cause.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, we have range of people and companies ripping off people who play fair: those who mis-sell PPI, rogue claims management companies, dodgy builders, people selling fake goods and people breaching copyrights. For a whole range of services, the Government use premium-rate phone lines so that when people phone for help and advice they pay over the odds for the privilege. For example, when bereaved people phone the Bereavement Service for help and advice they are charged over the odds. Is not the Minister ashamed of that? When are the Government going to put people first?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

We agree that it is inappropriate for vulnerable people to pay high charges for accessing vital public services, and we are clear that a more consistent approach is needed. The Cabinet Office now runs a cross-departmental group to consider customer telephone lines. This group has made some good progress in drafting guidance on prefix number selection and establishing best practice. We will publish the guidance and have a standing remit to ensure that it is kept up to date.

Supermarkets: Pricing

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Monday 14th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the major supermarkets on delivering simple and clear pricing for consumers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)]

The Government agree that supermarket prices should be clear so that consumers can make informed choices. The Minister for Employment Relations and Consumer Affairs held a working group meeting with the supermarkets in May to discuss unit pricing and clarity of shelf-edge labels. We are working closely with the supermarkets and look forward to their continued positive engagement to make improvements that help consumers compare pricing information.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

Does the noble Viscount not realise that we have a cost of living crisis in this country? Can he tell the House why the Government are not doing more to ensure that consumers are properly informed of the cost of everyday essentials?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I should reassure the noble Lord that we are doing much. Since the working group in May, BIS has continued to engage with supermarkets to explore where further improvements can be made, and has agreed to work with supermarkets to identify barriers to doing this. We are aware that there is a bite on household spending and we are doing as much as we can to deal with that.

Payday Loans

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what further action they plan to take to tackle the issue of payday lending.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie)]

As I highlighted in last week’s debate, the Government are deeply concerned at the evidence of consumer harm in the payday loans market. That is why the Government and regulators have jointly announced a strong action plan, with both immediate and longer-term measures. Tough enforcement and compliance action by the OFT now, combined with a move to a new regulatory regime equipped to deliver robust consumer protections in the future, will tackle the real concerns about this market.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and I both called for a summit on payday lending in the debate last Thursday, so on the face of it the Government’s announcement is very good news. Then we get the announcement in the CSR today of the seven-day waiting period for benefits. That must have Wonga and the rest of the payday lenders jumping for joy. What assurance can the noble Viscount give the House that the summit is not a sham exercise and that something will actually come out of it?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I welcome the noble Lord’s mention of the summit and am delighted that this will be an opportunity for the Government and regulators to take stock of progress in delivering on actions set out on 6 March. It will provide a firm forum for discussion of what more is needed to address the outstanding concerns, and I look forward the results. The announcement was made by my honourable friend Jo Swinson.