Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Horam

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 12th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

I support this group of amendments. The issue is whether a distinction should be drawn between the powers of a mayoral combined authority and an ordinary combined authority, the difference between which is only whether an elected mayor chairs the authority’s meetings. A second issue is whether a distinction should be drawn between a mayoral combined authority and a county council or an integrated transport authority.

It is very difficult to see why the Government are drawing the distinction they are. It is also very difficult to see why other bodies with transport responsibilities are being excluded from an automatic right to propose a franchising scheme without the Secretary of State’s agreement. Devolution of power implies devolving that power and devolving responsibilities associated with it. I would be content with the right to propose franchises to be extended to authorities other than mayoral combined authorities.

My concern relates in part to a later amendment, Amendment 28, about the independence of the audit function. If we have a robust audit system in place to examine proposed franchising schemes, it is much easier to allow other authorities, beyond mayoral combined authorities, to propose the franchising route. If a local transport body feels that franchising is right for it, and if it is subject to that rigorous independent scrutiny, it should be allowed to proceed.

There is an issue about the future of elected mayors where some combined authorities have turned into mayoral combined authorities and others have not. There could well be a change of heart within the Government anyway about the application of elected mayors—whether they will be compulsory in areas with substantial devolved powers. We are writing now into legislation that the extra powers that go with the right to franchise can go only to mayoral combined authorities, when not all combined authorities may end up being mayoral.

I hope that the Minister will look carefully at this because there is a very strong case to extend the power to franchise to authorities other than just mayoral combined authorities.

[Lord Horam (Con)]

My Lords, I am a very strong supporter of the Bill and, like the previous speaker, I do not see why its benefits should be confined to mayoral combined authorities—why other authorities such as county councils cannot automatically invoke a franchise in the same way as mayoral combined authorities. That argument, which was stated at some length in Committee, has only been added to in the intervening time. First, we have Brexit, which means that there is far more for the Government to do than was ever envisaged when the Bill was first thought of; and, secondly, there has been a change of government, which means that there is perhaps less drive for the mayoral combined authorities, as opposed to other authorities, then under the previous regime. For both those reasons, we should think again about this proposal and widen it as far as possible so that everyone has the opportunity to franchise. After all, we all want bus services to be better, and this is a way to do it.

I hope that the Government will think again, either here or in another place, about taking a more relaxed attitude to the clause.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Horam

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Horam]

I entirely agree with that. My way would be to recognise that the sort of lift in the cap on borrowing for local authorities, for example, is perfectly acceptable in the context of the Government’s overall economic strategy. If you look at what is now being said worldwide by the International Monetary Fund and the OECD, at the moment they are calling for more capital investment of this kind, and there is no better capital investment than housing. It is interesting that insurance companies, for example, are now going into the build-to-rent market in a fairly big way in London, because the sort of regular, sensible rents you get from that sort of market precisely match the sort of income streams they need to service insurance bonds. That is a very interesting development, which I am sure the Government will welcome and which shows how the market, if left to itself, can itself resolve some of these questions.

To digress for a moment, the reason that insurance companies are going into this area is not only that it is a very interesting way of solving their problems but that the price is high enough for them to be able to produce buildings at a cost which enables them to rent them out to young people at a price they cannot afford. So the very high price is producing a supply consequence which is very favourable. None the less, the noble Lord is right that what is proposed here is a new product, and there is always a danger with a new product that it will lead to distortions of the market. If you try to interfere in a market situation with a product that has not been thoroughly thought-through, you risk unintended consequences—and that is what we are worrying about in this situation.

If that is the case, Amendments 38 and 39, put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, are frankly impractical. They are not the way to deal with this problem. They are putting into the system the local authority having to decide what the level of affordability is in a particular area, when the market already decides what affordability is in a particular area. Frankly, therefore, I do not trust local authorities to second-guess the market as to what the right level of affordability is.

Secondly, on the idea of having a discount in perpetuity, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, rightly pointed out, how on earth do you value it in the future? Indeed, how on earth do you value it now? There is no way you can value something which has been separated from the rest of the market, which is determined by market forces, and which has a value discount attached to it. You cannot do that—there is no way an accountant could work that out over a period of time and make any kind of sense of it. Inevitably, if you try to put in something in perpetuity, it will disappear into the general market in due course, probably in some way you do not expect.

So the right answer is the amendment put down by the noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Kerslake and Lord Beecham—two minuses and one plus, from his point of view—whereby you pull back some of the discount over a period of time from the people who benefited from this government largesse. You are achieving what you want to do, which is to get them into a new house and to start a home and so forth, but you are pulling back some of the advantages you gave to them to achieve that.

However, I point out that even that has its impracticalities, because you will be asking them to pay back rather a large amount of money at some stage unknown—they do not know when and you do not know when—in the future. That could be a very considerable amount of money. I do not know how you would do this over a period of time and whether you would do this in one lump sum or whatever it may be, and you and they do not know what their circumstances will be. So there are impracticalities even with this. None the less, we have to have some measure by which you can pull back some of the advantages you are giving to people under this new model, and the Government have to think very carefully about how they handle this.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am a signatory to Amendment 46. I want to refer to the report from Generation Rent, which was published earlier this week and found that public subsidies proposed by the Government will help comparatively few people. That is because very few people in the private rented sector will be able to benefit from the scheme, and the 200,000 people who stand to benefit could receive a huge dividend if they sell up after the five-year discount period expires, with the potential for six-figure profits individually. We have heard a great deal about this but these are very large sums of money.

The consequence is that the scheme will increase inequalities between those who own property and those who do not, and there will be a lack of any sense of fairness between those who can afford a subsidised starter home and those who cannot, driving social inequalities wider and deeper. I wonder whether that is really what the Government want to achieve.

I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government are committed to the statement in the Conservative election manifesto that starter homes will be exclusively for first-time buyers. The point is that when the homes are sold on after five years or later, there is no guarantee from the Government that they will be bought by first-time buyers. So these are starter homes for first-time buyers but theoretically only for five years; after that, the benefit that had accrued from defining them as homes for first-time buyers will be lost.

I am still puzzled by the Minister’s statement before the lunch break to the effect that it may well be possible that starter homes will be sold as second homes. I keep thinking about those parts of the country that are short of housing and where starter homes may be important in providing additional opportunities for people. The prospect that they may be sold and lost to the next generation who could take up starter homes I find particularly disturbing.

We need clarity from the Minister. If housing affordability fails to improve, future first-time buyers will find it very difficult to get on to the housing ladder, so having a discount which carried on in perpetuity would help the Government to keep their promise.