Home Ownership

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, as I indicated, the decline in home ownership has been halted. In fact, there has in the last year been a slight increase in home ownership, though not statistically significant. I agree with my friend in the other place, Gavin Barwell, about the need for homes of all tenures. We are also focusing on helping to rent, as well as helping to buy. Certainly, one thing we are very much focused on is council house building, where our record stands comparison with the Labour Party’s.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, the Economic Affairs Committee’s report in July on housing said:

“The Government’s target of one million new homes by 2020 is not based on a robust analysis”,

and “will not be enough”. The Government turned their target into a commitment to build 1 million new homes by 2020 in the Queen’s Speech, yet last month Shelter reported they would fall short of that commitment by 250,000 homes. What action are the Government planning to ensure that they fulfil their commitment and produce a total housebuilding programme that is fit for purpose?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, perhaps the most significant feature of the housebuilding situation is the budget commitment. We have increased the budget for housing for this Parliament. In fact, we have doubled it to £20 billion, £8 billion of which will help to deliver 400,000 affordable housing starts.

Troubled Families Programme

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, one aspect that has been important in the second phase of the programme is that spot checks are made by people who go into local authorities to make sure that it is happening. The other very important factor that has been taken on board is that we started assessing and monitoring the programme from day one, rather than waiting until the end of the programme. Those are two of the lessons learned; we have also widened the criteria, which is very important.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister said that he could not comment on a leaked report, but I wonder whether the Government plan to publish that report. Will he confirm when that will be and whether it will be published in full?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, successive Governments have not commented on leaked reports, so that is indeed the position. We are working on the report, which we will publish as soon as possible. As I have said, there have been many successes. All local authorities have embraced this. We have families with children back in school. We have tackled joblessness. We have spent money on ensuring that all these issues are dealt with effectively. That is why—with broad support, I think—we have taken it forward to a second phase, with wider criteria.

Planning: Brownfield Sites

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, a significant number of brownfield sites have already been assigned. Perhaps when we talk about brownfield sites there is an expectation that they will have seen heavy industrial usage. That may not be the case; it may simply be land that has been previously developed. That said, there are measures—not least land remediation relief from the Treasury—that will help where decontamination is an issue.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, last week the Economic Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House produced a report entitled Building More Homes. One of its recommendations was:

“A senior Cabinet minister must be given overall responsibility for identifying and coordinating the release of public land for housing”.

Much of that public land is of course brownfield land. Does the Minister agree that that is a very wise recommendation?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, that report was received just over 10 days ago. The Government will take time to look at it and will then respond. It is clear that we need to address many of these issues. The noble Lord will know that a lot of public land is already being used for housing. I think I mentioned earlier this week that we have land in Dover, Chichester, Gosport and north of Cambridge, and there is more coming forward that will contribute to alleviating the housing situation. Much, although not all, of that land is on brownfield sites.

Housebuilding: Target

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Shipley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of their ability to achieve their target of one million new homes by 2020.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and the Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)]

My Lords, demand for new homes remains high, as does our commitment to deliver 1 million more homes by 2020, supported by the housebuilding sector and the reforms that we have made and are making to the planning system.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am glad the Minister has reminded the House that there was a commitment in the Queen’s Speech to build 1 million new homes by 2020. I remind him that in the first year of that, well under 200,000 homes were built and the new homebuilding market seems to have stalled. In view of that, is it not time for the Government to intervene and build more social homes for rent?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the number of new homes built since the beginning of the Parliament is 171,000, which is higher than the previous year. The noble Lord is right that it was under 200,000, but it is more than the average for the previous 2005-10 Parliament. Obviously we are following the situation closely and monitoring progress. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is meeting housebuilders today to discuss the position. I reassure the House that a record number of planning permissions—265,000 to March 2016—was given in the last year.

Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority (Election of Mayor) Order 2016

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I extend a warm welcome to the Minister on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box in his new position. It troubles me that it was 10 years ago that I concluded a report on public services in Wales, which was named—though not by me—the Beecham report. At some point perhaps the Minister and I could have a session in which I can catch up on what, if anything, has happened since that report was published.

These two orders, providing for the election of mayors for the combined authorities of the West Midlands and South Yorkshire, constitute the launch, in effect, of two further vessels to join the devolution armada which the Government are intent on creating. Both areas contain authorities which voted by substantial majorities not to have elected mayors when they were compelled to have referendums on the issue. The Government pretend that it is open to the authorities in question to accept or reject the concept of an elected mayor for the combined authority and so, formally speaking, it is. However, given that the entire devolution deal depends upon the adoption of the mayoral model, the reality is that councils are faced with the political equivalent of Henry Ford’s offer to those who wished to purchase his cars: “You can have any colour as long as it’s black”. The millions of people who live in these areas can have devolution with any kind of local governance as long as it is headed by a mayor.

In the case of these areas and others which have entered into or plan to enter into agreements with the Government, there are concerns about the new system and the claims made for it by Ministers. Some of these relate to the alleged benefits to be derived from the additional funding to be provided to combined authorities and their mayors for investing in economic growth. The West Midlands will receive £36.5 million a year for 30 years, or, as the Minister said, £1.095 billion, which equates to £13 a year per head of population. South Yorkshire will receive £30 million a year, £900 million in aggregate, which is the equivalent of £22 per head of population per annum.

These figures compare with £915.6 million of local authority capital expenditure and £105.2 million of annual growth fund allocations to the local enterprise partnerships in 2014-15 in the West Midlands, and £367.4 million and £54.7 million respectively for South Yorkshire. Therefore the bonanza amounts to an additional 3.6% for the West Midlands and 7% for South Yorkshire. Meanwhile, Birmingham alone will by 2020 be suffering from cuts to its revenue expenditure of £817 million a year. By the end of this year, Sheffield will have sustained cuts of £350 million a year, with the likelihood of some £50 million or £60 million a year more by 2020. It is clear that the vaunted claims for devolution made by its erstwhile progenitor, the lately departed George Osborne, were, in financial terms, wildly overstated. But there are other issues of concern to these two areas which need to be considered.

As the Secondary Legislation Committee points out, and as I mentioned when we discussed the combined authority order for South Yorkshire, there is an issue concerning the wishes of two districts in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, Bassetlaw and Chesterfield. They will become part of the combined authority and thereby, for the purposes of the combined authority, will come under the authority of the elected mayor for South Yorkshire. They would, however, remain under their existing county councils for functions such as education, social care and libraries. But, given the relationship between, say, housing and public health, which are matters over which the combined authority may be expected to exert influence, how is this likely to work?

I warned that we seemed to be in danger of sliding into a back-door reorganisation of local government as the demand for a unitary model, based on an expanded South Yorkshire combined authority, inevitably grows. Alternatively, or additionally, will we see the creation of a North Midlands combined authority, presumably not a mayoral authority, of which, confusingly, Chesterfield and Bassetlaw would seek to be members, as the Select Committee observed? They would be based upon the two counties of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire.

The National Audit Office explicitly warned, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee reminds us, that devolution deals, such as that in the West Midlands,

“are increasingly being negotiated and agreed with more complex and untested geographies”.

Its report of 20 April refers explicitly to,

“risks around alignment with the administrative geographical areas for other linked policies”,

citing the NHS planning guidance which requires areas,

“to define their own local health economies and to consider devolution deals while doing so”.

As the National Audit Office points out, given that,

“geographical configurations … have yet to be resolved in many areas, it is not yet clear how these two processes will align”.

So can the Minister tell us what discussions have taken place between the DCLG and the Department of Health, and for that matter with NHS England, about the position in general, and specifically with regard to the two areas we are discussing today? This is particularly relevant to the complex situation in the West Midlands where, as I pointed out when we were discussing the combined authority order, we appear to be reverting to the era of the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy, with its Kingdom of Mercia.

The West Midlands mayor will head a combined authority with seven member councils, three local enterprise partnerships and no fewer than five non-constituent member authorities: namely, Cannock Chase, Nuneaton and Bedworth, Redditch, Tamworth, and Telford and Wrekin, all of which are districts within a county council whose residents will not have a voice or a vote in the choice of mayor. How is this consistent with democratic local government? What will be the relationship with the relevant county councils?

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee referred in an earlier report to “combination creep” through the involvement in combined authorities of non-constituent councils or councils outside the geographical limits of existing combined authorities. Given that the report was published only last Thursday I do not expect the Minister to be able to respond today and to provide the greater clarity the committee seeks. But could he indicate when a reply will be provided, and whether it would not be sensible to pause before proceeding with this series of orders, which seem set to lead in some areas to highly complex changes whose benefits are at best highly unquantifiable?

The idea of devolution is welcome, but not every aspiring area is the same. Huge questions go unanswered about finance, accountability and structures to different degrees in different areas, and we do not know whether the new Prime Minister, her Chancellor and the Secretary of State share the apparent enthusiasm of their predecessors for this policy.

Some areas—Greater Manchester, Merseyside and the Tees Valley—are well down the road and are well defined, but more work is surely required to ensure that for the kind of areas we are discussing today, and with some still to come, the serious questions raised by the National Audit Office, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and others can properly be addressed. I make it clear that we on these Benches—all of us—want to see this devolution work and be properly funded, but it is difficult to see how well it will work unless these critical questions are answered. We do not want to see the devolution armada scattered to the four winds like its Spanish naval counterpart.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, on his appointment, and we welcome him in assisting the drive for devolution. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said about the importance of devolution—it is a shared agenda across your Lordships’ House. I hope very much that the new Minister will bring his expertise to bear on the detail of the move to greater devolution within England as the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act is implemented.

I should say at the outset that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Right across local government, politicians have been very supportive of the move to greater devolution.

Last week, there was a debate on similar orders for Merseyside and the Tees Valley. I do not want to repeat comments that were made during that debate, except to say that I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said about the general approach being taken and about some of the problems being produced by changes in government, as well as the overall financial problems that local government has.

Last week it was confirmed—as it will be tonight—that there will be a mayoral election in May 2017, even if there is no agreement later this year on the powers and budgets that a combined authority will have. I understand the reasons for that, although if that were to happen it would clearly make things more complicated and more difficult to explain to the general public.

In our debate on Merseyside and the Tees Valley, I drew attention to a report on the devolution process published at the beginning of this month by the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons. There is a full record in Hansard of what we said, but the crucial sentence in the report that I want to draw to the Minister’s attention tonight is on page 3 of the summary:

“There has been insufficient consideration by central government of local scrutiny arrangements, of accountability to the taxpayer and of the capacity and capability needs of local and central government as a result of devolution”.

I subscribe to that. There was a request by the Public Accounts Committee that:

“Government should set out by November 2016 its plans for how it will ensure that local scrutiny of devolved functions and funding will be both robust and well supported”.

I think there is a commitment from the Government to come back with the detail of the powers, budgets and scrutiny at the same time so that we get both at once, because that really matters.

I am grateful to the Minister for the letter that we received today by email. It answers some of the issues that we raised during the debate on the Merseyside and Tees Valley orders concerning how a chair of an overview and scrutiny committee could be appointed. It is made clear in the letter that an independent chair will be appointed following “an open, competitive process”. I think that that implies the Nolan procedures, but I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that it does. The letter states that,

“a candidate must submit an application to the combined authority in response to a public advertisement”,

and the appointment,

“must be approved by a majority of the members of the combined authority”.

The letter then says—this is a point I take issue with—that there will therefore be,

“a wholly transparent appointment process mirroring the approach which councils must use when appointing independent persons under the Localism Act 2011 for the purposes of the councillors conduct regime”.

Local councils are bound by statute to proportionality in the make-up of committees. The difficulty here is that a combined authority will be the leader of the local authorities. It is entirely possible—and certainly it would happen in the north-east of England, where I live—that there would be seven Labour chairs. I am concerned that proportionality simply cannot exist in such a constitutional structure. Indeed, an independent chair could be appointed by a majority vote of a one-party committee. I hope very much that when the Minister comes back later this year, the guidance—if it is guidance, as opposed to being statutory—makes it clear that this appointment cannot simply be in the hands of a handful of people, all from one party, who may decide to support an independent person who, in practice, may well not be entirely independent. I draw that to the Minister’s attention because it is important we ensure that public confidence in the powers of an elected mayor is protected.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

72A: Schedule 1, page 131, line 7, at end insert—
“( ) a demolition order under section 82A of the Housing Act 1985 or section 6A of the Housing Act 1988.”

[Lord Shipley]

I rise to move Amendment 72A and to speak to Amendments 72B to 72D, 74C, 77A to 77H, 77K, 78A and 78B. That makes a total of 16 amendments, but they are interrelated so I hope that at this late hour it will not take too long to speak to them.

As it stands, the Bill would limit housing and debt legal aid to homelessness, loss of home and very serious cases of disrepair. However, there are major problems with the definitions that would enable an individual to qualify for legal advice and support. This set of amendments forms a set of proposals that would address this difficulty.

The Bill currently applies a very tight legalistic test in making legal aid available in cases involving court orders for sale or possession or for eviction proceedings. The nature of the test would make it very difficult to solve a problem at an early stage, which would be practical, fair and effective both for the individual and the legal system.

These amendments would make it easier for an individual in financial difficulties that could lead to the loss of their home to get help at the pre-litigation stage in a case, for example, involving arrears. The cost of allowing the advice process to start earlier could be as low as around £3 million, but could solve problems earlier and save money later when litigation occurs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, listening to this debate on housing reminds me of being told when I was very young that a stitch in time saved nine, that for want of a nail a shoe was lost or what would happen if you went out courting on Ilkley Moor without your hat on—I could not think of anything relating to the Lambton Worm, but I am sure there was something along those lines as well—the point being that the Government are prepared to fund at the most expensive end, when you get to court or near to it. I think of all those days as a solicitor when you settle things by picking up the phone, writing a letter or meeting face to face. That is the hidden part of the iceberg that I do not think the Ministry of Justice appreciates at all. It is sad that there is a perverse incentive for lawyers to escalate a case to the point at which they are about to go to court, as opposed to funding at a lower level where things can be sorted out as they always have been. That is a brief comment; I have sat here long enough, and I think I am entitled to make it.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his contributions to identifying what is at the heart of this. I am grateful to the Minister for the very full answers that he has given to this set of amendments, but of course broadly speaking what he said is what the Bill says—it was a restatement of the current position.

I ask the Minister to look again at two things. One is the King’s College/Law Society evidence base for what the knock-on costs might actually be. The contribution of my noble friend Lord Phillips helped us to understand that some of the indirect costs have not been counted in the King’s College calculations. That being so, there might well be an evidence base that tells us that it will be more expensive. As opposed to saving a little money, it might end up costing the Government more.

Secondly, I wonder whether we might look at the basis of the cost-shunting around Whitehall, which I take very seriously. When cuts are required, there is a tendency in Whitehall departments to do things that deliver the cuts in that department but cause someone else additional cost. That other department tends not to pick up that cost until it has happened and there is suddenly no alternative.

We have had a full and frank debate. Many of us in the Committee think that there is a problem that we need to address in greater detail. It may well prove to be in the interests of the Government to save money by adopting some of the amendments that have been proposed this evening. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 72A withdrawn.