Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and to explain why I have put my name to her amendment. She makes a powerful case, and what I hope sways the Minister is that her case rests very much on the policies enunciated by the DWP and the Chancellor, who are very keen to see pension funds take a broader view of their responsibilities and take account of impact and risk. Indeed, the noble Baroness has cited specific DWP regulations which make it clear that risk is something distinct that it wants pension fund trustees to take account of. What she is proposing here is consistent with the wider direction of government policy about how pension fund trustees, particularly local government pension trustees, should see their responsibilities.

My understanding of the Government’s position is that actually “financial value” already captures all that and that the noble Baroness’s amendment, which I support, is therefore unnecessary. However, I must say that I think it is unlikely, given that so much effort has taken place in the Treasury and the DWP to use some other expressions going beyond “financial value” to capture the responsibilities of trustees, that anyone would automatically accept that the formulation currently in the Bill covers this wider meaning. If the Minister is right that it is the Government’s intention and it should have this wider implication, I do not see any difficulty in making that absolutely clear by accepting this amendment. I very much hope that in the spirit of constructive review and revision of legislation, without in any way challenging the fundamental electoral mandate behind it, this amendment is a proposal that the Government can accept. It is, indeed, entirely consistent with the direction of the Government’s own policies.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 27. The Bill has effects that were not thought of in advance. Local government pension schemes and their administrators have one thought in mind, which is to protect the financial interests of the pensioners and of the funds, and this amendment just clarifies the financial aspects of that. The administrators should not be involved in any international political situation, but be there to look after the funds of the pensioners. Amendment 27 does exactly that in clarifying, which is all it is doing, what this aspect of the Bill does. Therefore, I support it from these Benches.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, on her amendment and the others in the group. I understand where they are coming from, but it seems to me that the Government’s argument that this issue is already encompassed in “financial impact” holds some sway. There are concerns that I understand, but I am not sure they are necessary. Indeed, sight should not be lost of the fact that all local government pension schemes are ultimately underwritten by the Government and taxpayers. If the stewardship of these assets were swayed by issues which the Government themselves might not be comfortable with, there are powerful reasons why that stewardship should not be swayed by the kind of considerations that the Bill seeks to ensure does not happen.

Political or moral disapproval is not the same as environmental, social and governance issues. If a board of trustees decided to boycott an investment because of the country in which it is located, based on judgments of that country which do not accord with the views of the elected Government, the duties incumbent on the Government in accordance with this Bill would be at risk. That someone might take legal action against trustees who decide that they do not wish to make certain investments because they make a political or moral judgment that is not in accordance with that of the elected Government could equally be argued the other way. Trustees, certainly local government trustees, should not be taking these decisions.

I believe that was the manifesto commitment. Private pension schemes are not part of government and therefore that is a different decision, but local authority pension assets are ultimately underwritten by government so, should there be concerns about material financial risk and impact, they ultimately rest on the Government’s underpinning them anyway. Given that, as my noble friend said, “financial value” already encompasses these issues, I am relaxed about the current wording of the Bill. I hope that noble Lords across the Committee, especially those who have worked so hard on pension issues and with whom I normally fully agree, will not be too uncomfortable with the explanations that I am trying to put forward for not using pension assets as a disguised tool for political or moral judgments in the way that could happen and which this Bill seeks to deter.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 20th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, as we are starting Committee, I will say a few things about how we should handle the Bill from now on. After Second Reading and the Commons stages, during which there were a large number of sharp criticisms from Conservatives, as well as others, about the quality of the drafting and the coverage of the Bill, I would have expected the Government, between Second Reading and Committee, to have produced a number of government amendments to clarify some of the many imprecisions in the Bill and perhaps to have arranged to meet some of us who had spoken at Second Reading. I am sorry that that has not happened, and I very much hope that, between Committee and Report, the Government will respond to some of the criticisms by bringing forward clarifying amendments, and that the Minister and the Bill team will be willing to meet with us to discuss some of the arrangements.

The lack of engagement is troubling, and the absence of government amendments at this stage is extremely worrying. I recognise that this is very much a Michael Gove Bill and that he, as Secretary of State, probably wishes to get it through, if possible, without amendment. But here we are in the amending House, and the Minister also has a duty, as a Lords Minister, to listen to and engage with the reasoned criticisms made of the many highly imprecise elements in this Bill, and to respond.

I have two amendments in this group. One raises the question of what is meant by “political or moral disapproval”, and whether the word “influenced” in the phrase

“influenced by political and moral disapproval”

is sufficient. The second, Amendment 6, refers to

“any person seeking to persuade the decision-maker”,

as well as the decision-maker.

As the Minister will know, environmental, social and corporate governance has a long history. It goes back to the Sullivan principles from the United States, which I am sure she will remember. They were formulated by Mr Sullivan, a director of General Motors, in the context of apartheid South Africa and set out a number of principles that companies and others should follow when dealing with investments and procurement. Those principles have since expanded into the whole ESG dimension, which we see actively discussed in Britain, the United States and a number of other market economy countries. The right wing in the United States is busily attacking them in favour of what one has to describe as an amoral capitalism, in which profit is the only thing you are ever allowed to think about. I recall that the first person who started attacking the Sullivan principles was Professor Milton Friedman, who strongly believed that companies have no other duties than to pursue the greatest profit possible for their shareholders.

We need to know what is meant by

“influenced by moral or political disapproval”.

My Amendment 1 suggests that it has to be very considerable in order to be a primary cause of the decision, not simply something that comes in as, or can be argued under Clause 5 to have been—we will get to that later in terms of judicial review—part of the reasons why the decision was taken.

One of our many worries about the Bill is the extent to which it opens the door to litigation through a great many of its imprecise terms. The question, therefore, is whether or not any indication of political or moral disapproval begins to get captured under the Bill, or whether this has to be the major reason why such a decision is taken.

I was very struck as I went through the impact assessment and the Explanatory Memorandum by the sheer lack of evidence that much of this has happened. We find a reference to a council that in 2014 discussed whether or not to, and that another council in 2016 discussed whether or not to. Neither of them actually did it, but they discussed it. “That is wrong and we should stop them doing things like that” seems to be a pretty thin basis on which to mount a Bill that has the sorts of penalties which this Bill begins to set out. That is very much part of our concerns.

Amendment 6 raises the question of whether it is not only the decision-maker who is going to be liable but

“any person seeking to persuade the decision-maker”.

Does that mean that the Guardian journalist who writes an editorial suggesting that this should be done is going to be caught by it? Does it mean that the lobby group that sends things to the decision-maker is going to be caught by it? Does it have to be a more direct approach? How do we identify that “any person”? This is the sort of drafting that should not appear in a Bill before this House. It has to be clarified or we shall do our utmost to remove it. I beg to move.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

I speak to exactly the same issue as did my noble friend. Mine is a simpler amendment. I work on the basis that the Bill will pass in some form or another and if one does a modest, sensible tweak to a Bill, it has a chance of being incorporated into the final version. My Amendment 2 —purely adds one word: “materially”. This would raise the threshold that needs to be met before a decision is deemed to be in breach of this prohibition. If it is not “materially”, things could be prohibited for something very minor. Having “materially” improves the Bill and makes it more logical—we are looking at things of substance, not things that are minor.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I rise merely to ask my noble friend the Minister to be very careful about her responses to this. I have a huge problem in that I cannot think of a speech that I have made in this House in which there has not been some moral content, because that is the way I think. I cannot help that. I am very concerned about the clarity with which the Bill is written. My noble friend and I go back a very long way. I have to say to her that when she was a civil servant working with me, she would not have produced a Bill like this. She would have been very angry if I had suggested that it should be as loose as all this. I am sorry to remind her of that fact. All I am interested in is that we do not unhappily and by accident cause a whole lot of legal cases that are unnecessary and which we never meant to.

I have some fundamental problems, not least with the specifics of this. I may wish at some later point to discuss the speech that was made at Second Reading by my noble friend Lord Wolfson, but the first point I want to make has nothing to do with the nature of the Bill itself or what it seeks to do. It is about precision. This is an imprecise Bill and it needs to be precise if it is not to be extremely malignant. All I ask is for my noble friend to try to understand that we need precision here, even those of us who in general do not come here with an antagonistic view. We just want to know what it is about, and you do not understand that if you merely read the Bill. I do not want this constantly to be in the courts. It would be much better to get it right now.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, after “was” insert “materially”
Member's explanatory statement
The inclusion of the word “materially” would raise the threshold that would need to be met before a decision was deemed to be in breach of this prohibition.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My amendment was of a probing nature. I am grateful to the Minister for giving more detail. As we go forward with the Bill, I shall be particularly interested to see how “materially”—the word that I tried to add—is looked at in terms of local authority pension funds. That worries me, because they make their investment decisions. There needs to be a material point, otherwise those investment decisions can be upset very easily by the Bill.

Amendment 2 not moved.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in the Jewish community, as required in the register. It is sad to have to start by deploring the name of the Bill. “Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters)” does not trip easily off the tongue. It is in fact known as the “anti-BDS Bill”. But does it actually help in combating Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions—a campaign I deplore as, in practice, it targets one nation: Israel?

We have this poorly drafted and politically motivated Bill purely so that Mr Gove can show that he supports the UK Jewish community, beleaguered as it is—and it is—by anti-Semitism. He can try to dress it up with talk of other nations being discussed at local levels, but if one googles “BDS” one sees that the

“movement works to end international support for Israel’s oppression of Palestinians and pressure Israel to comply with international law”.

I stress that these are its words, not mine. The Bill implicitly recognises who it is meant to defend, as it specifically singles out as the only nation an exemption of powers cannot be applied to as

“Israel … the Occupied Palestinian Territories, or … the Occupied Golan Heights”.

I am against BDS, which is often perceived as being—and I believe often is—anti-Semitic, and often a part of Jew hatred. Others perceive BDS as simply supporting the rights of Palestinians. We are a democracy and if an individual, or groups of individuals, want to support BDS, that is their right. The Bill seeks to stop public bodies—and we have had much discussion of what is and is not a public body—imposing their approach to, or view on, international relations.

I am concerned that the Bill, as drafted, could have a negative effect. Would there be a strong backlash to the Bill as being a freedom of speech issue? It is a freedom of speech issue. Is there a fear that it could lead to a rise in anti-Semitism as being seen, incorrectly, as a result of Jewish pressure, when it is not?

The Bill gives government the power to exempt certain countries from boycott restrictions, but it specifically does not allow the exemption of Israel, the West Bank and the Golan. Why are these the only named territories? It is not as simplistic as suggested. I was on the Golan Heights the week after they were taken from Syria to stop Syria shelling the Israeli valley below. Yes, Israel has annexed the Golan, and if you stand on that spot you can see why. There is no way it could ever be returned to Assad’s Syria. As far as the West Bank is concerned, its final status and division between Israel and the Palestinians is a matter for them to agree on.

When the Minister replies, it would be helpful if she could clarify the scope of BDS. Does it include Israel? Does it include the major Jewish settlements in the West Bank and the Golan? These settlements are generally thought of as a land swap—settlements that would be in a reconstituted, rebounded Israel. Does it include them, or all the settlements of the West Bank?

We have this Bill because some public bodies have proposed BDS motions. The Minister mentioned three when she spoke; could she tell the House how many public bodies, local authorities or whatever have actually done so? The reality is that these motions will do little to affect Israel or any other nation. However, they create a very hostile environment for local Jewish communities and create community division.

There is an argument that this Bill limits free speech, but the BDS campaign itself calls for limits on freedom of speech, preventing speeches by Israeli academics and Israeli performers, as the noble Lord, Lord Mann, mentioned. That is not mentioned anywhere in the Bill, as he said.

This is a bad Bill, which attempts to right a misjustice but could well have unseen, harmful consequences. The Local Government Association, which obviously has an interest in this, says that it does not expect the Bill to have significant effects on local authority investment or procurement practices, but it has significant concerns about the effects it will have on the operation of local government pension schemes.

I imagine that the Bill will get to Committee and beyond. We are only at Second Reading. I believe that we will see amendments. It will be very interesting to see what the amendments will be and, if they are passed by your Lordships’ House, what the reaction will be in the other place. My own judgment will depend on the final version in your Lordships’ House, as I am in favour of free speech but against the BDS movement.

Budget Statement

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Friday 12th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD) [V]]

My Lords, first I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Khan.

This is surely a Budget of unintended consequences. For two years, investment in plants and machinery will qualify for a 130% capital allowances relief, which means an extra £25 tax reduction for a spend of £100. I am sure the creative tax avoidance industry is already working on a redefinition of what is “plants and machinery”. It has been suggested that fixtures such as fire alarms, swimming pools and jacuzzis could qualify. I suppose that we could see a claim for an industrial duck house. Let us be clear: the tax relief is not only for the cost of the duck house but for more than the cost. At the same time, this Budget will drag more people into the tax net by freezing personal allowances. Then there is the increase in corporation tax—but not until 2023, so as to give enough time for business to relocate overseas.

The Government have failed to appreciate the administration burden they create, such as the implementation of the VAT reverse charge, which is a severe burden on the construction industry. I hope that the Minister can announce, at least, a suspension of the charge, reducing administration and thus rectifying the restriction to cash flow in the supply chain.

I compliment my noble friend Lord Fox on raising the lack of strategy in this Budget and the lack of noticing the problems with social care. These are the overall faults of this Budget—a Budget of unintended consequences with nice-sounding words.

Covid-19: Economy

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

My Lords, Covid presents a triple whammy to the UK’s economic prospects: supply, demand and finance have all taken a hit. We need a comprehensive, funded plan for all sectors as our response. I want to focus on skills and manufacture and the importance of equity in our response across regions and all demographic communities. We cannot leave any part of our country behind, as has been the case in recovery from previous downturns, nor can we allow existing patterns of disadvantage—as experienced, not least, by Britain’s black and ethnic minority communities—to continue. There is already some evidence to suggest that BAME applicants face continued disadvantage in accessing existing government schemes for Covid-related assistance. How is central government ensuring this is not the case? Will the Minister tell us what data is being collected and whether the Race Disparity Unit in the Cabinet Office is working with HMT on this? It needs to.

On the wider issue of manufacture, the lesson is surely that we need a strategic industrial policy that supports manufacture in the UK not only for our large global market leaders, which need to be supported with access to capital, but for small and medium-sized enterprises. Where, in the past, we have been content to outsource our orders for PPE, ventilators and other essential equipment to overseas suppliers, we now surely need an active interventionist policy to support our domestic industrial base. This needs to be backed up by procurement policy that actively favours our domestic suppliers where our national interest dictates that it should. We hear about the new freedoms outside the EU; this is an opportunity to demonstrate that.

We know too that there are regional/sectoral variations, which have to be addressed. We need to support local initiatives, with local employees and trade unions coming together with the LEP network to address these issues in order to meet local needs, supported by central government funding. We must also recognise that we need a funding entity that is prepared not simply to hold loans but to convert them if necessary into equity stakes.

Underpinning all this is Make UK’s call for a national skills taskforce, so we have a workforce that is equipped to face the challenges going forward, with well-paid, meaningful jobs that serve this country’s interests and protect us as we go forward into the future.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Palmer of Childs Hill) (LD)]

I remind noble Lords of the two-minute speaking limit.

Economy: Personal Savings

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, for introducing this debate because it gives us a chance to look at the various problems and see what assets are available. I also look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, which will follow my contribution.

So much more could be done to promote personal investment, but we need to recognise the current problems, which the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, did not dwell on as much as he did on the assets. I have received an email from the Building Societies Association, as I am sure did all the speakers in this debate. It was really a bit of a nerve on the part of the association because building societies and banks are part of the problem. If you want to put money into a building society or bank account, which is the case for a lot of people, the rate of interest you will receive will be something like 1.5% if you are lucky. That is not an inducement to save. He also talked about ISAs. The low rates offered by building societies and banks, which I have already mentioned, are even lower for ISAs. You put your money into an ISA to get the tax benefits, but the building societies pay you less interest. The noble Lord says that ISAs are great, but they are not widely used by those at the bottom end of the income scale for the reasons that he himself mentioned. If the personal savings allowance free of tax is £11,500 and you can earn investment income if you are at the lower end of earnings of £5,000 without paying any tax at all, the benefit of an ISA with a lower rate of interest is not conducive to savings. That is a problem which I hope the Government will find some way to address.

What are the Government doing? They have an NS&I bond which on a one-year bond offers the wonderful sum of 1.45%—again, I am sure, an incredible inducement to those who want to save. Can the Minister ask the Government to consider once again an NS&I bond, which I have mentioned before in the House, paying 4% for a four-year bond? If that were to happen, it would bring in a vast amount of money to the government coffers and would look similar to taxation. It would mean that those people who wanted a secure investment could earn 4% if they tied their money up for four years, which really is not that much.

Can the Minister inform the House whether more people are investing in gambling with the National Lottery? I put my hand up and say that I do the same because ERNIE is probably a better and safer bet than hiding money under the bed, which I do not do, or putting it into a low-earning bank account. I have tried ERNIE and you can probably earn 2% per annum with a reasonable investment, with a big chance of winning a big prize. We have turned ourselves into a nation of gamblers.

Savings are not necessarily the best use of spare cash. For many, especially the heavily indebted, paying down debt is more beneficial than saving—reducing your mortgage is probably a better bet than savings. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, quite rightly mentioned pensions. I am sure that other people who know far more about the pensions industry than I do will speak about it, but early pension draw-down is presenting a huge problem. Many people are investing their pension funds in inappropriate, costly or inefficient vehicles, severely damaging their savings. Some are actually being scammed. The Liberal Democrats worked hard in the passage of the financial guidance Act to make advice before draw-down a default option. This was sadly resisted by the Government.

The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, talked about unregulated investments. They are great for someone who wants to put a few thousand pounds of their accumulated wealth into something slightly riskier—much riskier in some cases—and probably earn a good rate of return but, if you are at the lower end of the scale, putting all or large sums of your money in unregulated investments is dangerous.

The noble Lord also quite rightly, in a wide-ranging speech, spoke about workplace pensions. It is obviously a good thing to get people to save in the workplace with a pension, but the corollary is that if you are at the lower end of the scale and you are putting money into a workplace pension you are almost certainly not going to have money to put into a savings account because you have a limited amount—you buy a loaf of bread first, pay the rent and what is left is taken for the pension. That is good, but it does not encourage other savings. The Government promised at Section 21(6) of the Act to bring in regulations to prohibit cold calling for pensions by the end of June just past. Will the Minister say, since we are now in July, what the current timetable is?

Getting advice on savings is critical. This passes from the Money Advice Service, which is pretty good, and Pension Wise to the new single financial guidance body set up by the Act. Could the Minister tell the House what progress is being made and how he sees the single financial guidance body operating?

With low rates of return, many people are turning, as they have done historically, to the stock exchange. Confidence in the safety of using a stockbroker has been undermined severely by the failure of Beaufort Securities, a large stockbroking firm. Investors assumed that their investments were ring-fenced, but Beaufort Securities closed down and PwC, that well-known audit firm, was appointed the administrator. It initially said that the charges could be up to £100 million. The surprise was that this came as a first charge on cash and shares—even those of the investors. I believe that, after protests, the administrator’s estimated costs were reduced to a mere £55 million. Of course, the FCA has a compensation scheme, so many of the smaller investors with brokers should be protected. In Beaufort’s case, this leaves eight to 10 larger investors not covered by the compensation scheme.

My noble friend Lord Lee of Trafford has asked Written Questions and Oral Questions on this matter. The answers were quite amazing, because they do not seem to appreciate the damage that the situation is causing. We are asked to increase savings and investment, but the very thought that client assets—cash and shares—are not protected could lead to a flight of clients from very reputable small and medium-sized broking firms: if they remain investors they will flee to the apparent safety of larger firms. Are the Government aware of these fears and are such fears being addressed?

The Motion is about promoting personal savings: it is a good idea. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, touched on some of the statistics and I will not repeat them, but more than 40% of working-age people have less than £100 in savings for emergencies: that is 17.3 million people without at least £100 in a savings account. If one makes that calculation on all UK adults, not just those in employment, then 13% have no cash savings whatsoever, including all the elderly, who should have savings. Numeracy skills are particularly important. The Money Advice Service has said what affects savings, and I think it is worth repeating:

“Building a savings habit and a savings buffer to protect households from unexpected bills and increase financial resilience is a matter not just of situation (for example, spare cash available to save—determined by income, commitments and debts) but also skills (how engaged people are with their finances and how well equipped they are to manage them—for example, their numeracy) and ‘stance’”?


Do they have a “savings mindset” or a “‘live-for-today’ attitude”? What are their,

“perceptions of their financial situation”?

Do they have “financial confidence”, and what are their,

“feelings and beliefs about financial matters”?

As a chartered accountant, I have always been quite amazed at the lack of numeracy among very large numbers of people. They can probably add up the score in last night’s semi-final, but beyond that they get into a bit more difficulty. What affects savings? It is having money there, and I am not talking about emergency money but money for the future. If you put your money into pensions, that is one thing, but how much else is left? There is a difference that we must identify in this debate between savings for the unexpected—the emergency, something in the pot that can pay for the roof repair or illness in the family or whatever—and such savings as pension contributions. There is a difference, and what we fail to realise is that many at the lower end of the social scale do not have the choice of having enough for the emergency, so they go to loan sharks, as too many of them do, or borrow on their credit card at usurious rates of interest, rather than saving for the future. I am all for promoting savings but I hope that other speakers in this debate will also identify the problems that people at the lower end of the scale have with saving, and that those who do have money must be able to put it in a safe place and earn a reasonable return on their savings.

Short-Term Letting

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord raises an important issue about the non-declaration of income from rented property. In 2013, HMRC launched an initiative to address the so-called tax gap. As a result, some 26,000 landlords came forward to self-correct undeclared income and £150 million had been collected by August 2017. Some 45,000 of what HMRC calls “nudge letters” have been sent out where there is third-party evidence of undeclared income. HMRC has a fairly sophisticated IT system to collect data from a variety of sources to track down income. Of course, it can approach local authorities for information on, for example, housing benefit or other information they may have in order to safeguard the revenue.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister seems to have focused the question on tax avoidance or tax evasion, when the focus of the Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, is on the 90-day limit and enforcement. Can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House which local authorities are enforcing this in London and which are not? It is all very well discussing it, but if there is no enforcement, there is no use.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Responsibility for enforcement rests, as the noble Lord recognises, with local authorities. They have quite wide powers of enforcement, and potentially there is a £20,000 fine for breach of the 90-day rule if people do not comply with the enforcement notice. Information would be made available to local authorities if, for example, neighbours or people in a block of flats felt that that 90-day limit was being extended. In addition, some of the platforms with which you register to rent out your property now have a 90-day cap on the number of days you can let out your property using that platform.

Housing: Rental Market

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

As I said a moment ago, outside London there is no restriction on what home owners can do with their homes. They can let them on a series of short-term lets. Precisely to protect the stock in London we have a 90-day rule to prevent the leakage of rented accommodation for Londoners wholly into the tourism market. We will look at the issue again, if the noble Lord insists—but, as a former MP for a London seat, I will need some convincing that we have not got the balance about right at the moment.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

Can I try to convince the Minister with the statistic that longer than 90-day lettings in London have increased by 23%? Given this, the Government must increase the funding for local authorities in order to enforce the rule. We may have a 90-day rule in London but there has been a vast increase in people advertising lettings of over 90 days, and trading standards are no good at enforcing the rule in all but one or two London boroughs.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

It would be for planning departments rather than trading standards to enforce the rule. The Government have recently announced that planning authorities can increase their fees by up to 20% precisely to give them the resources they need, among other things, to enforce planning legislation.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the gracious Speech. I will concentrate my remarks on prison reform.

The prison population stands at 85,335 as of yesterday—almost double the number 25 years ago. The prison estate is also grossly overcrowded, as detailed by my noble friend Lord Dholakia and other noble Lords. Some 65% of prisons currently hold more people than they were designed for. The most overcrowded prison in the estate—Kennet, near Liverpool—holds 327 men despite being designed for only 175. England and Wales have recently been described as the EU’s capital of prisons. Figures from the Council of Europe show that of all member states only Russia and Turkey have higher prison populations. The use of imprisonment is substantially higher here than in France and Germany, which have 20,000 and 30,000 fewer prisoners respectively. As the number of prisoners has continued to grow, the number of prison places, staff and resources have reduced. Since 2010, prison officer numbers decreased by over a third, 18 prisons closed and the Ministry of Justice had to make significant cuts to its budget. Does the Queen’s Speech mark a change, with the Government at last providing resources?

As a result of the state of our prisons, deaths, violence and self-injury have all increased markedly. Some 100 prisoners died by suicide in the 12 months ending March 2016, a 72% increase since 2010. The high incidence of suicides shows that the service is not fit for purpose. Figures from the Ministry of Justice published last month show that reported incidents of self-injury increased by 25%, prisoner-on-prisoner assaults by 24% and serious assaults against staff by 36% in the last year. Over the last 10 years, the average length of a prison sentence has increased by 29%.

Against this backdrop, the focus on prison reform in the Queen’s Speech and the commitment from the Prime Minister and Justice Secretary to major reform is welcome—if belated. More autonomy for governors, improvements to education and a more sensible approach to release on temporary licence would all be steps in the right direction. However, these reforms will fail unless action is taken to reduce the prison population and increase staffing ratios. Can the Minister confirm that this will happen?

Investing huge amounts of money into building new prisons is the wrong approach. You cannot build your way out of an overcrowding crisis. Past experience in this country and the United States shows that when prisons are built they are filled. We will just be left with a larger, more expensive, failing system. New prisons do not equal safer prisons and are not the solution to a lack of purposeful activity. Oakwood, one of the newest, largest prisons, has been frequently criticised for high levels of violence and not enough classrooms or workshops. The soon to be opened Titan prison in Wrexham will have only enough work and education places for half the 2,100 men it is being built to hold.

Reform prisons were mentioned by other noble Lords, where governors are given much more freedom in the running of their prisons. These could be a good idea, assuming all governors merit that freedom. Yet unless that is coupled with larger budgets and an ability to reduce overcrowding, it is unlikely to have an impact and could end up just being a distraction. The Government may have some good ideas but rarely provide funding to make them work. As we know in local government, outsourcing does not necessarily work. Prison management is currently constant crisis management. While the proposals in the Queen’s Speech are welcome, unless the Government get serious about reducing numbers significantly and investing in staff, little will change. Finally, I stress that every prisoner released should be able to read and write, to complete a job application form both as a paper copy and online, and to handle a job interview. Without these simple measures, the prisoner is likely to return to imprisonment.

Public Bodies: Israel Boycotts

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

The noble Lord makes a perfectly valid point, but this is about the role of local authorities. I would gently say to him, with due respect, that local authorities should not pursue their own municipal foreign policy which contravenes international trade agreements. They should instead focus on local issues. The clue is in the name as regards local authorities.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

In the light of local government guidance, could the Minister say what action the boycott movement has taken with regard to the Russian invasion of Crimea—I apologise for asking this of a Cabinet Office Minister—the Chinese occupation of Tibet, Turkey’s occupation of Northern Cyprus and the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

The noble Lord raises lots of issues, but this is about boycotts being conducted by local authorities, which I would argue are counterproductive. They widen gaps in understanding, poison and polarise debate, and block opportunities for co-operation and collaboration.