Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage
Monday 27th February 2023 Lords Chamber

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

I will just come back to one point. I was a bit puzzled by the Minister’s response to Amendment 69 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. The Government are taking the power in the Bill to disapply the duty to allocate seats on the basis of political proportionality in the combined authority; they are disapplying that power. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, was seeking to remove that provision so that, if a party had a third or a quarter of the seats, it would expect something similar on the Executive. When the Minister answered the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, he gave an answer that seemed to agree with what he was suggesting while justifying the position of the Government. It seemed perverse.

I know that there are to be proposals for a Nottinghamshire/Derbyshire combined authority. At the moment Derbyshire County Council and Nottinghamshire County Council are controlled by the Conservatives, and Derby City Council is led by the Conservatives. The only Labour council is Nottingham City Council. On the basis set out in the Bill, the three Conservative councils could get together, gang up on the Labour council and throw it out of the committee structure. That surely cannot be right. Why would a minority council join something if it could be ganged up on and removed from the executive? It would not; we want to bring people together. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is trying to ensure that this problem could not happen. I do not follow the Minister’s arguments, which were in support of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, but were used to say that we cannot have the amendment.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps I could help the Minister at this point by simply suggesting that we add this to the agenda of our meeting, which gets longer and longer as we speak. It is a very important issue, to which we should add the issue of whether the calculation of political proportionality applies to the membership of the CCA—those who are there—or the bodies that each of those members represents, on behalf of which they have been nominated to attend the CCA. You might get a different answer depending on which it is. To avoid a lengthy evening and discussion at cross purposes, perhaps the Minister will agree that we can talk about it around the table; it might be easier.

Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 4th February 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I first remind the Committee that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, has made some very salient points, notably that it is vital that urgent action is taken to help high street businesses by reducing their operating costs. I recall the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, saying at Second Reading—and again today—that it would prove very hard to estimate rentable and hence rateable values for the traditional retail sector even with this deferral, because new lettings will for the time being be rare events.

When I spoke at Second Reading, I pointed out that retailers pay over a quarter of business rates in England and Wales. That is a very large amount of money, but it will now decline significantly as less is generated from high streets. There is, though, an immediate opportunity to even up business rate receipts by switching a greater burden from the high street to online businesses through the revaluation process itself, because we do not have a fair balance at the moment.

At Second Reading, the Minister said the Government would report in the spring on its fundamental review of business rates. He said he was

“sure that the fundamental review will look at alternative taxes to capture the shift in our shopping habits.”—[Official Report, 18/1/21; col. 1069.]

I welcome that and hope it happens, and I draw his attention to the potential for an e-commerce levy on online businesses.

As we have heard, the move online of Arcadia brands and Debenhams in recent days represents what seems to be an irreversible trend—but that cannot be allowed to mean lower rents and rates for online businesses at the cost of the high street. This proposed new clause would require an assessment of the impact of any business rates revaluation on local high streets to be undertaken within six months, looking in particular at the ability of high street retail outlets to compete with the huge retail businesses that operate online.

The timing could fit well—if the Government wanted it to—with the fundamental review of business rates, and I hope that they will take the opportunity provided by the amendment. It would be strongly and warmly welcomed by high street retail businesses because, as the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, said a moment ago, the matter has become very urgent.

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

My Lords, Amendment 4, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seeks to insert a new clause into the Bill which, as we have heard, would require an impact assessment of the timing of rates revaluations on local high streets and, importantly, would look at the impact on their ability to compete with businesses that operate online.

We have a serious problem with our high streets. The problem was in many cases a crisis before the pandemic, as we have discussed today on previous amendments. We can all point to the closed and boarded-up shops in areas that we know. The pandemic has created an even more serious problem for high streets and has put many businesses at risk. We need action from the Government to deal with all the issues that are destroying our high streets and our shopping parades.

We will all have seen the news that Boohoo is purchasing Debenhams and that ASOS is purchasing Topshop, but they are purchasing the names and not continuing with their high street presence. Why they are doing that is the question we need to look at. Clearly, they have taken the view that they do not need, or that it is too expensive to operate, a high street presence. This is why urgent action is needed. The issue with online retailers needs to be addressed. It has been discussed in the other place. My honourable friend the Member for Manchester Central, Lucy Powell MP, has said:

“The pandemic has accelerated changes to the way we shop, yet the government continues to disadvantage bricks and mortar businesses against online companies … The support on offer for struggling business has been a series of sticking plasters. Unless the Government puts in place a long-term plan to help high street businesses survive this crisis and recover on the other side, we will see more well-loved high street names vanishing, and many more jobs lost.”


I could not agree more. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, that we need vibrant, healthy town centres. As he said, the power to help the high street is in the hands of the Government. I hope the Minister will address that point.

Fire Safety Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 17th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I strongly support this group of amendments, and it is good to see cross-party support for them.

At previous stages of the Bill, I spoke on the importance of increased electrical safety checks. In view of what we are now hearing from the Grenfell inquiry, such checks of electrical systems and appliances in high-rise blocks are vital. As the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, said, there should be a safer home environment and we should be translating good intention to action. I strongly agree. He reminded us that almost half of domestic fires relate to an electrical fault, and also of the precedent of a register of electrical equipment in student housing blocks.

The noble Lord, Lord Randall, made a number of points on second-hand electrical equipment, which I hope the Minister will note. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, explained that the cost is minimal. This derives, in part, from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Best, in Committee, where he identified how the cost could be much lower than people had thought. My noble friend Lord Tope called for a clear commitment from the Minister on what action the Government are proposing and when they are proposing to implement it.

It has been said that the legislation will be complicated to enforce. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, made a number of detailed points about the responsibilities of leaseholders and those with other kinds of tenure. I hope the Minister responds to those points, particularly in view of the distinction that may have to be drawn between systems and appliances. The points made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, will be very helpful in drafting regulations. He said that we need a cultural change; that has to be right.

The noble Lord, Lord Mann, has personal knowledge of living in a residential block as a private tenant. That experience will clearly be helpful to the proceedings of the House. He raised a number of important issues on design, which I hope the Minister will note.

It is important to understand the issue properly. It is surely the right of tenants and leaseholders of high-rise blocks to feel more secure. This is a public safety issue. I cannot understand why checks are required in the private rented sector but not for high-rise blocks, except where the property in that block is privately rented. I hope that we hear something helpful on this from the Minister in a moment.

Finally, there is going to be a responsible person. I am fully in support of that, but such a person needs responsibilities to undertake. This group of amendments presents some responsibilities that seem central and core to the duties and obligations of a responsible person. For that reason, I fully support this group of amendments.

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

My Lords, as this is the first time I am speaking on Report today, I refer the House to my relevant registered interests—namely, as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, chair of the Heart of Medway housing association and a non-executive director of MHS Homes Ltd. I support the Fire Safety Bill. My main concern across the whole Bill is the speed with which we are moving forward. That is the main issue for me with this and other amendments.

I fully support the amendments before us today in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and other noble Lords. I tried to sign up to these amendments, but I was too late; all the spaces had already gone when I contacted the Public Bill Office. I have made it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, that he has my full support, and I pay tribute to him for raising these issues, as he did on 29 October during the consideration of the Bill in Committee. I also put on record my admiration for the charity Electrical Safety First, and Robert Jervis-Gibbons and his colleagues, for all the work they do to highlight the danger of electrical fires to both property and people. Through their campaigning work, we have managed to make progress in recent years in the area of fires started by electrical ignition.

In speaking in this debate, noble Lords mentioned the fires at Lakanal House in Southwark, Shepherds Court in Shepherd’s Bush and Grenfell Tower—all examples of the tragedies that electrical fires can cause. We need to ensure that action is taken. As has been clearly set out to the House, these amendments are intended to build on the Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020, which provide for mandatory checks in the private sector every five years. Those regulations were good news, and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, deserves credit for all his work in bringing them into force.

What now needs to be addressed is the tenure lottery that has been created, as private tenants in a building will be covered by the regulations but social tenants and owner-occupiers will not. There are three types of tenure, but only one would be required to have electrical safety checks. You can see the problem: if you have a block of flats but only some of the properties are tested, covered and confirmed as safe, or have remedial work that is needed and undertaken, but others are not checked, the building is then not safe. How can some properties be required by law to be checked, when others are not? That has to change. I suggest that, to be certain the building is safe for all dwellings, it would need to be checked by a competent person. If it is for only some of the dwelling, you cannot deem the building to be safe.

The amendments before us also provide for a responsible person, which is a new role that I fully support, to be brought into being to compile a register of every white good in a building. This would ensure that, when a recall of a product occurs, we can quickly identify all the affected appliances and the safety issue can quickly be resolved. This does not take away responsibility from the people who sell the appliance or the manufacturers, but it is another important safety measure.

The Government may take the view that they cannot commit to this, at this stage. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, has not indicated that he wishes to test the opinion of the House, but I hope to have a considered opinion from the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, on these important amendments. I also hope that the noble Lord and his team will look at what goes on in other parts of the world—certainly in Australia—where there are much stricter regimes about electrical white goods than elsewhere. They need to be looked at because, clearly, if this can work in other parts of the world, it can work here. All these amendments are about keeping people safe, and I fully support them.

Fire Safety Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 29th October 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am very happy to move this amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Porter of Spalding. I shall speak to Amendments 14, 19 and 23, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Porter, and also to Amendment 22, in my name, in this group.

For many years, the Local Government Association has been calling for councils and fire services to be given effective powers and meaningful sanctions to ensure that residents are safe, and feel safe, in their homes. This is an absolute priority for councils. The introduction of the Fire Safety Bill is welcome, and I hope it is an important step in the right direction. But there is concern about some of the practicalities of the Bill, which has led to the noble Lord, Lord Porter, tabling Amendments 14, 19 and 23.

Many building owners, including councils, will need to review the fire risk assessments on their properties as a result of this Bill. It is right that they do so, because where cladding systems are on residential buildings, we must be sure that they are safe and that appropriate measures are in place if they pose a risk. It also takes forward one of the recommendations of the review of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. To make sure that this new duty can be delivered, we need to ensure that there are enough specialists to review the cladding systems. It has become clear that there is likely to be a significant shortage of assessors to carry out these reviews. Indeed, many of those qualified to conduct normal fire risk assessments do not have the specialist skills necessary to include external wall systems in a risk assessment. Insurers are also reluctant to provide professional indemnity cover for this sort of work. This leads to several potential problems. First, responsible persons, including the councils, may be unable to fulfil their obligations under the Bill. Secondly, there is a risk that a demand/supply imbalance drives up the cost of assessments, adding to the burdens on the housing revenue account or the taxpayer. Thirdly, if owners with sufficient resources pay the higher cost to get all their buildings assessed, irrespective of the risk to residents, high-risk buildings with less well-off owners will be left at the back of the queue—and that queue could last for some years. Finally, delays in some buildings obtaining fire risk assessments could compound the problems caused by the inability of residents to obtain EWS1 forms and the consequent effects of this on mortgage applications, even in buildings that have safe cladding systems.

The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Porter, seek to ensure two outcomes: that responsible persons are protected in law, where they are genuinely unable to review their fire risk assessments, and that higher-risk premises are assessed before lower-risk premises. The precise method of doing this will be set out in the code of practice. It will rely on risk assessment tools which take account of the various factors that increase the risks fire poses in a block of flats—for example the height, if they have sprinklers, and the number of escape routes. This is being developed, as we know, by the National Fire Chiefs Council and the Fire Industry Association.

This tool should allow buildings to be placed in various categories of risk, with each category to be given a different level of priority and a different deadline to complete its assessment. In order to get these effective deadlines, the Government need to undertake research to establish a clearer picture of the number of buildings likely to be affected in different categories and the number of assessors available. This is unlikely to happen before the Bill commences, so either the Bill needs to be delayed or deadlines need to be capable of being changed relatively quickly.

A balance will have to be struck between commencing the Bill as soon as possible, so that the fire service can use its powers, and assessing the disparity between the number of fire risk assessments that will need be reviewed and the capacity of the fire risk assessment industry to do so. Parliament needs to make this judgment, and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Porter, includes a requirement for the approved code of practice to be laid before both Houses for scrutiny.

The tragedy that unfolded at Grenfell Tower must never be allowed to happen again. We need a building safety system that works. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Porter, seek to ensure that, on the issue of fire risk assessments, we have a practical set of proposals agreed by this House. I hope that the Minister will respond positively and I am very happy to move the amendment on behalf of the noble Lord. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group and I acknowledge the sterling work done by the noble Lord, Lord Porter, over the past three and a half years to improve building safety following the Grenfell fire. The central aim of the amendments is to ensure that resources are used to best effect in reviewing the fire risk assessments required by the Bill. The criteria for prioritisation must be based on anticipated levels of risk, so the process and the code of practice outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Porter, seem appropriate to meet this objective. That said, I hope the Minister has understood the concern of many speaking today that improving fire safety needs faster outcomes, and that nothing in this group should mean longer delays for assessments that are felt to be less urgent.

Finally, Amendment 22 is obviously key to the delivery of the intentions behind this group, because it requires sufficient fire safety inspectors to be available, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has emphasised. It is a clear duty of government to ensure that enough qualified inspectors are available, and I very much hope the Minister will shortly confirm that this is indeed the Government’s intention.

Business and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 20th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 56. I spoke in Committee on the need to avoid any unintended consequences of extending construction hours. There will be cases where an extension is entirely justified, and we should support that. But it is reasonable to expect that an impact assessment from the applicant with a description of how any adverse impact can be mitigated is provided. Secondly, an assessment of any impact on the environment and how that can be mitigated should be produced. Thirdly, there could be an explanation of any mitigation that would be put in place to minimise disturbance, particularly where a construction site is close to houses and other local buildings. To be clear, these need not be complex requirements and they should in practice speed up the process if that process is followed effectively. That would help the planning authority.

As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said, we do not want to undo the good that has been achieved by the planning system. Where there have been agreed planning permissions and where restrictions have been put in place, those restrictions and conditions will have been justified and should not be undone.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, when I first spoke this evening, I should have mentioned that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association, so I mention it now for the record. I will be very brief. If the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, are successful, I will be the first to congratulate him.

In respect of meetings of mayoral development corporations, I am pleased that the Government listened to the points that I and other noble Lords made, and I thank them. I have only one question: can the Minister confirm that, when we agree the government amendments tonight, they will come into effect on Royal Assent and the required regulations will be laid quickly so that we do not have to wait for weeks and weeks before they can take effect? With that, I am happy to give way to the Minister.

Business and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 14th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD) [V]]

My Lords, my name is attached to Amendments 52, 54 and 79. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has made an excellent case for Amendment 52. I also fully support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. These amendments are all broadly similar. It is important that no applications are permitted for changes to existing conditions if they are there to reduce, remove or limit environmental impacts. Existing conditions are in place as a consequence of detailed planning consideration at an earlier date. Such restrictions, agreed or imposed then, should not be affected by this legislation and I seek the Minister’s confirmation that my fears that they could be are completely unfounded. Amendments 52 and 56 would solve the problem and I hope that the Minister feels able to accept them.

Amendment 54, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Pinnock, is about fees charged by local authorities. It proposes a fee for extended construction hours, up to a maximum of £195, which is a reasonable figure to write into the Bill. The principle is that councils should be able to recover their costs. It does not need to be about profit, but it must ensure that the direct costs of processing, assessing and agreeing an application are achieved. Neither does it need to be about full cost recovery, if that includes councils’ general overheads. The principle of recovery of direct costs for an application is a reasonable conclusion to reach.

Amendment 79, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, would ensure that any further regulations made by the Secretary of State would require scrutiny through the affirmative procedure. That is the right approach and I fully support it.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his announcement of the concession that the Government will bring forward an amendment to address the issues which I raised on Amendment 73. We had a very productive meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe. We made some points, the Government listened and I am very grateful.

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

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 18th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I am not sure whether I declared my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I feel I should do so and remind the House of it.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I, too, forgot to remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Representation of the People (Election Expenses Exclusion) (Amendment) Order 2019

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 14th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I thank the Minister for explaining this order and I want to record that I agree with it. It is entirely appropriate that any disability-related expenses in elections should be exempt from spending limits, on principle. That is because it helps disabled candidates to stand for election on equal terms with others. I noted the Minister’s comments about some objections that may have been raised on some of the details—but none is more important than the overall principle of equality of opportunity.

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

My Lords, I am very happy to give the order my full support. I was glad that the noble Lord mentioned the political parties panel, because I was going to ask him about it. There is no mention of political parties at all in the consultation referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum. I know that the noble Lord mentioned it in his contribution, because I was going to ask him about it. The bodies listed in the Explanatory Memorandum do not pay election expenses and do not fill out election returns. I am glad that he covered that point. It is important that we keep the political parties informed on all these matters. They can often inform the Government’s thinking in a positive and helpful way. Since the noble Lord answered my question, that is fine. I am very happy to support the order.

Tenant Fees Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 15th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his statement. He said that the Bill would improve the lives of millions of tenants, and he is absolutely right. It is a much better Bill as a consequence of the close cross-party co-operation it has undergone in your Lordships’ House.

I thank the Minister for his willingness to give a great deal of time, meeting regularly with us to identify outstanding issues. From these Benches, I thank my noble friend Lady Grender, whose assiduous campaign over a substantial period has led to fruition in this Bill, which is indeed a significant milestone in the support of tenants’ rights. I also thank Sarah Pughe, in the Liberal Democrat Whips’ Office, for her help. I also extend my thanks to the Bill team and all the officials who gave us a great deal of time in recent weeks while the detail of the changes that were being made in your Lordships’ House was finalised.

We lowered the level of the deposit cap to five weeks’ rent, listed default fees on the face of the Bill, introduced greater transparency around holding deposits, removed local authorities—I declare that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association—and those acting on behalf of local authorities from the definition of a “relevant person”, and we addressed deficiencies in the client money protection scheme, among a number of other changes. Some of those changes are very important, and enable the Minister to say that the Bill will indeed help financially a large number of tenants.

I thank the Minister for his co-operation throughout this process. The last few weeks have been very productive, making sure that the Bill will stand the test of its application.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the Bill before us leaves this House in a much better state than when it arrived. It has had a positive consideration across the House, and I thank every Member who has contributed to our debates and discussions, bringing their expertise and ideas. We have made a real difference and, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, outlined, some improvements to the Bill, so we have made progress. We have certainly made a positive contribution to the rights of tenants in the private sector, and it is important that we do that. I also thank the Bill team from the department, who have been courteous, helpful and informative, and have engaged with me and my noble friend Lord Beecham at any time. I am very grateful to them for that.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, for whom I have great respect. We spend a lot of time on these Benches batting things back and forwards, and I have always found him courteous, friendly and engaging, and always willing to talk to me both inside and outside the Chamber. I also thank my noble friend Lord Beecham for his support and hard work, and I thank Rhian Jones from the opposition office. She has supported me with research and draft amendments and has helped me to understand the Bill—she understands it much better than I ever would—sending me out to battle with the right papers at the right time, fully briefed, so that I can raise things here. I am very grateful for all the work she does for us in our office, and I thank her very much for that. I am delighted that the Bill is where it is today, in a much better place.

Tenant Fees Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 11th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, since we have begun Report I should declare my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association. I simply say that these are helpful and relevant amendments that have our support.

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

My Lords, as this is the first time that I have spoken on Report, I draw the House’s attention to my relevant interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, did. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and his officials for a number of the amendments we will discuss, in this group and others. Generally they are very helpful and improve the Bill. That is good news for tenants, and I am genuinely very grateful for that. That is not to say that I agree with everything in the Bill, but I am pleased to say we are making progress. I am very happy to support these amendments and I concur with the noble Lord’s comments.

Tenant Fees Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 5th November 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 18. I remind your Lordships that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I want to say at the outset that, like the Government, our aim is to make renting a home fairer and more affordable. I repeat our support for the Bill in its aim of reducing up-front costs for those seeking to rent a home. We should also remember that the Bill is about protecting tenants from bad landlords, but also about protecting good landlords from bad tenants. Our job in Committee is to assess, line by line, whether the Bill will achieve those objectives and whether it can be improved. The amendments in my name and those of colleagues seek to do that.

Amendment 18 is about whether the figure of seven days for a holding deposit is justified. There is a tendency to draft Bills with round numbers based on weeks, but such a decision requires clear justification that the amount to be paid by a tenant, and received by a landlord, be counted in weeks rather than days. There is a strong case for saying that the costs to the landlord are what should be reimbursed. There is evidence to suggest that such costs would be recouped with a three-day rent payment. I have received advice—as, I guess, other noble Lords have—from Citizens Advice, which supports the three-day period. Its justification is that 14% of tenants are currently charged a returnable holding deposit, at an average cost of £250. Some tenants, however, are paying much more than that. A cap of three days’ rent would help to prevent that.

We also need to recognise that a tenant’s circumstances or budget can change unexpectedly, and they might need to withdraw from renting a property that they originally and genuinely intended to take. This could be for reasons that prove beyond a tenant’s control. For example, there may be an unexpected failure of a credit or reference check. This can cause severe financial hardship for tenants and prevent them being able to access the private rented sector at all. Smaller holding deposits would still have the effect of deterring tenants from taking a large number of properties off the market, while avoiding hitting tenants’ finances unnecessarily. I am grateful to Citizens Advice for its briefing, from which I have quoted.

The question for the Minister is: can the Government explain why the figure of one week appears in the Bill, as opposed to a set number of days? As I said, it is very easy to talk in round numbers, but for some tenants trying to take up a tenancy, how much they will have to pay in cash is very relevant. I very much hope that, as we consider the Bill in Committee, the Minister might be able to explain the basis for one week, as opposed to three days.

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

My Lords, as this is my first contribution to today’s proceedings, I draw the attention of the Grand Committee to my registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for the letter and the draft guidance, which we received on Friday afternoon. I very much appreciated that: it was good to get the papers and look at them over the weekend.

Amendment 1, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and I have added our names, raises an important issue for prospective tenants. It seeks to include in the Bill more certainty, and to provide greater fairness and transparency for the person or persons looking for accommodation. They would be provided with more information about how their money is to be treated. I am not against the use of holding deposits in principle, but I want to see real clarity in their operation, and the amendments in this group are a positive step forward.

I am sure the Grand Committee will be repeatedly told today that guidance is sufficient and we do not need to go down the route of regulation. But I am also clear that this is guidance; it is not statutory and, as such, has no legal effect—it is just guidance. Amendment 1 rightly places a requirement on the Secretary of State to set out in regulations the procedure to be followed by a landlord or letting agent when they take a holding deposit, and how the deposit is to be treated in a prescribed way so that it is clear what the prospective tenants should be told. The amendment would also ensure that there is a clear procedure to be followed where it is decided to withhold a deposit, and that evidence must be provided to the person who paid the deposit, setting out the ground on which it is being withheld. The regulations are to be approved using the negative procedure, which is the minimum of burdens for the Government and is the right way forward in this case.

Amendment 17, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Thornhill, and Amendment 22 in my name, seek to stop the practice of taking multiple deposits from people. I accept that this is referenced in the guidance, and that, as it says, a holding deposit creates a binding conditional contract between tenants and landlord. But if, as a landlord or letting agent, you accept multiple deposits, surely you must be in breach of this binding conditional contract. It can be said in those circumstances that there is no conditional contract whatever.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 2 seeks to enable a deposit to be transferred to another landlord or letting agent. This deposit passporting would be of great benefit to tenants and, as far as I can see, would have no detrimental effect on landlords or letting agents. The system would allow for the direct transfer of money between landlords and properties. The consumer group Which? found that 43% of renters have had to use a credit card, loan or overdraft, or borrow from family and friends to fund a deposit—that is terrible. It also found that 31% of renters had to find money for a new deposit before they had been paid back their existing deposit. In effect, this group of renters would, even if only for a short time, have paid two deposits, which is potentially a huge sum of money. That is just not fair, and the Bill does not address this at all. Renting in the private rented sector is stacked against tenants in many respects and this proposal would help tenants with the difficult issue of finding deposits.

I saw an article in the Daily Telegraph—not my usual reading, I must say—which included figures from the Tenancy Deposit Scheme. The article found that the average deposit is £1,180, as much as £3,266 in parts of central London, and around £498 in Lancashire’s Ribble Valley. These are not insignificant sums of money. The system is failing tenants and it could be improved.

Amendments 15 and 16, also in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, seek to put into effect what the Government originally announced: that there would be a four-week tenancy deposit cap. In this case, I stand with the Prime Minister and what she announced last year. It is appalling that the Government have had a change of heart here, and it would be useful if the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, could explain what has happened over the past year and why there has been a change of heart. The evidence shows that opting for this large deposit cap makes it harder for people to rent in the private rented sector, and makes it harder for them to raise money for a deposit, especially when there is no ability to passport deposits.

I am sure we will be told that there is a risk that renters will use their deposit to cover their last month’s rent without the consent or knowledge of the landlord. Citizens Advice—an organisation that we all respect—has done research that found that this happened without prior agreement with the landlord in only 2% of cases. Therefore, in 98% of cases, it did not happen. I am sure we will also be told that this higher figure of a six-week cap is needed to recover landlords’ costs, but again this just does not hold water.

The Deposit Protection Scheme did some analysis and found that over 50% of tenants get their full deposit back and the average deposit return is 75%. That illustrates that the Government were right to set the level at four weeks in the first place, and it is disappointing that they have changed their mind. The majority of renters getting most or all of their deposit back shows me that the four-week limit is the right level, which would still allow for a much higher than average deduction to cover landlords’ legitimate costs while protecting renters from excessive up-front costs. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, my name is attached to Amendments 15 and 16 in this group. Amendment 2 is a very reasonable suggestion and I hope the Minister will be able to respond positively to it.

In the previous group I raised how lengths of time are decided. I understand that they are often a judgment. The same issues around the length of time arise in this group. We need to protect both parties—landlord and tenant—and the question is whether six weeks’ rent is a reasonable sum to pay as a refundable deposit or whether some other length of time is more justifiable. There are two issues here. First, in Scotland, it is two months. Scotland has that figure for a reason. Have the Government looked at Scotland’s experience? Secondly, it was announced in the 2017 Queen’s Speech that in England it would be four weeks; that is, half the length of time that applies in Scotland. Differences of this kind for those on low incomes or who are short of savings can matter profoundly.

The Government have now decided that it should be six weeks. It is almost as if this is about splitting the difference between what they said it was going to be—four weeks—and the Scottish experience, which is eight weeks. It needs more rigour than that, should that be the case. Again, I refer to advice from Citizens Advice, which I think is material. The most common amount tenants pay for a refundable deposit is four weeks or one month. Setting the cap higher than four weeks might push up the cost to tenants. To put it another way, setting the cap at six weeks will help only 8% of tenants, according to Citizens Advice. However, a cap of four weeks would save money for almost half of tenants. I do not know what consideration the Government have given to that but I make the point that when it comes to the decision on whether it is four, six or eight weeks—or perhaps five weeks, which was mooted in the House of Commons—we need to be very much clearer about why six weeks has been decided on.

Citizens Advice’s research shows that only 2% of renters use their security deposit to cover their last month’s rent without the landlord’s knowledge or consent. Has the Minister considered the advice from Citizens Advice? If it is only 2% of renters, there is an issue for us to discover. Of course, the point is—and in defence of landlords’ interests—if tenants withhold the last month’s rent, that can lead to a landlord having no protection against the damage done by a tenant who is leaving if they fail to pay the last month’s rent as well. That would be a concern for me. That is one of the reasons why the House of Commons suggested that it should be five weeks, not six.

What I look for in this probing amendment is the evidence base the Government considered on how many weeks would be justifiable. They clearly changed their mind from the Queen’s Speech in 2017 when they announced that it would be four weeks. They have now come out with a figure of six weeks. I would like to understand better the Government’s reasoning for that figure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister two questions on points I raised earlier. The first is that it is not clear why the Government used the figure of four weeks in the Queen’s Speech last year and what has caused them to change their own decision. Secondly, can the Minister explain the consideration that has been given to the scrutiny by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee? Bob Blackman MP drew attention to the committee’s recommendation that the length of deposits should be set at five weeks to avoid the risk that a tenant may refuse to pay the last month’s rent if the limit was set at four weeks. That would avoid some of the financial hardship for tenants that could result from the six-week limit. Have the Government considered in full the pre-legislative scrutiny undertaken in the other place in coming to their decision that it should remain at six weeks despite the clear advice that it should be five weeks?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

On a similar point, we understand that in the Queen’s Speech the Government mentioned a period of four weeks. At one time it seems to have been a manifesto commitment. I am sure that we will be told that it was not, but I would be interested to find out. I understand that the period of four weeks was announced in the Queen’s Speech, but what has happened? The Bill says six weeks. It would help to know the Government’s thinking on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 3 seeks to shine some light on the whole process for the benefit of landlords, letting agents and tenants. It would place a duty on the Secretary of State to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the new procedures coming into force are properly communicated to everybody concerned. I am sure that we would all agree that proper communication is vital to make legislation effective and ensure that it works. It is imperative that the introduction of the ban is clearly communicated to ensure that landlords and letting agents, as well as tenants, are fully aware of the changes and that this happens immediately. We would put a requirement on the Secretary of State to advise representative bodies, affected groups, local authorities and other bodies that the Secretary of State decides are appropriate. That would include bodies such as Citizens Advice that provide advice services to people.

In the private rented sector, it can be difficult to reach the people who rent, because of the often transient nature of the sector—people probably move around more than in other sectors. There will be groups of tenants who need support. Some, of course, will be very savvy about their rights and responsibilities, but there are other groups of more vulnerable tenants. We must make sure that smaller agents and smaller landlords—some may have only one or two properties—are fully aware of the changes and how they will affect them. It is particularly important that tenants are made aware since they are the people who will alert local authorities to the identities of landlords or letting agents who are not observing the law, charging prohibitive payments or doing other things that would be banned by this legislation. To ensure compliance—I know the Government want to see compliance with their own legislation particularly—we need a clear communication strategy. The Bill will change the law and introduce new criminal offences, with relevant penalties and consequences, so it is important that people are fully aware of the changes. We do not believe it needs to be onerous, but we need something to ensure that it is properly communicated to everyone concerned. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I will briefly express my support for the amendment. It seems to be extremely helpful. Perhaps there could be a discussion about how it would be implemented. I say this because it is one thing for Parliament to pass legislation, but it is another for it to be actually understood in the wider world. For tenants and landlords to understand their rights and responsibilities, it is very important that the publicity is good. A lot of it can be standard wording. It does not have to be originated by every individual. It may need to be amended by individuals, but generally it can be the same. That leads me to remind the Minister of my view that the £500,000 allocated for enforcement—perhaps we will come to that in the next group—is a welcome sum, but probably not enough. Providing the necessary resource for this to work seems to be very important. Ultimately, this should be self-financing. Ensuring that there is the right level of publicity, particularly for tenants, is particularly important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendments 4 and 5 in my name are concerned with enforcement in respect of the costs involved and how they are covered, and require a report to be laid before Parliament within 12 months of the Bill’s provisions coming into force. The Bill is a bit light—to say the least—on these matters, which are extremely important.

Amendment 4 would require the Secretary of State to reimburse the lead authority for any additional costs incurred in taking on these extra duties. If a local authority is designated as the lead authority and, after taking account of the money received from fines or other work is still out of pocket, what local authority would want its council tax payers to subsidise everybody else? We need a clause that covers that situation.

Amendment 5 would put a new clause in the Bill that would require the Secretary of State to,

“make an assessment of the resources available to … enforcement authorities; and … the lead enforcement authority”.

Proposed new subsection (2) sets out what the report “must consider”. Finally, proposed new subsection (3) says:

“The Secretary of State must lay a report … before each House of Parliament”.


It is essential that the Government provide additional funding to local authorities for enforcing this legislation, otherwise they will be letting down the very people—the private sector tenants—they say they want to help.

Trading standards departments in local authorities will be responsible for enforcing the ban. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, will be well aware of the evidence given to the Bill Committee considering this legislation in the other place. There have been cuts of over 50% to trading standards staff in some areas. Many areas are experiencing increasing levels of demand and legislation that they are expected to enforce. It is getting more and more difficult to do so. Indeed, trading standards departments are struggling to enforce existing regulations designed to protect renters. Analysis by Generation Rent found that, in 2017, 12% of letting agents did not list their fees on websites as required by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. They were clearly in breach of the legislation but they were still doing that.

It is important to keep in mind that local authorities have also gained additional responsibilities to enforce against rogue landlords and agents from the dreaded Housing and Planning Act 2016. While I obviously welcome the Government’s announcement of a fund of £500,000 for year one to cover the up-front costs of implementation and awareness raising, one-off seed funding is unlikely to cover the full costs and burdens placed on local authorities. That is not a new thing; we have discussed this many times in Grand Committee and in the Chamber.

The Government’s approach seems to be that any penalties will support enforcement functions. That would potentially penalise councils that have raised awareness of the ban with agents. They are less likely to benefit from collecting penalties than where people have not kept up with their obligations. That is no way to fund and deliver such an important piece of legislation. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to this. Of the two amendments, Amendment 5 is more important because it would provide an evidence base without which it would be difficult to know whether the £500,000 that the Government are allocating will be sufficient. Amendment 4 would be difficult to implement. How does one understand or agree what a reasonable cost is? You then have to consider things such as overhead recoupment and so on. What is a reasonable sum of money for an enforcement authority to receive? I see a big problem in making a fair assessment of what the additional sums that cannot be recovered through fines or via the Secretary of State might be.

However, the broader issue that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has introduced seems important: is enough money being provided up-front to enable enforcement authorities to get enforcement properly established? We have read some evidence in the press recently that, despite legislation passed in Parliament, local authorities have not always been able to provide the level of enforcement that might be deemed necessary. I am talking in particular about rogue landlords.

I hope the Minister can respond to us on this. I repeat my observation that we need Amendment 5, and I hope the Government will be willing to come back with something on Report that gives some life to it. Amendment 4 might be the consequence of having evidence under Amendment 5. However, for the moment, I hope that the Government will be able to indicate how they respond to funding enforcement overall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, very briefly, I spoke at Second Reading on the importance of exempting home-share schemes from the impact of the Bill. It seems to me that the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, addresses the problem. I hope very much that the Minister is in a receptive mood.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I am happy to have added my name to Amendment 12, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. As we have heard, these issues were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin of Kennington, at Second Reading.

In moving the amendment, the noble Baroness explained in detail that it would exempt people from being letting agents and being caught by the Bill’s provisions if they meet a number of conditions, as set out. She makes a very fair point. One thing we do not want to do, as is always a risk when passing legislation, is for it to have unintended consequences. This amendment seeks to stop that, so that the good work being done through this scheme—where no rent changes hands, and people give each other mutual support and contribute to utility bills—will not be caught by the legislation. I am happy to support the noble Baroness in finding a way forward to protect the scheme. If the Minister will not accept this amendment, I hope he will give a commitment to the Grand Committee that the Government understand this is an issue and will table their own amendment on Report.

New Towns Act 1981 (Local Authority Oversight) Regulations 2018

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 9th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association, and I recognise the contribution of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Goss Moor in getting us to this stage.

As the Minister said, these regulations relate to both the new town development corporation model and to the oversight of them being transferred from the Secretary of State to local government where local government requests it—and, rightly, any designation will be subject to consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. As he also said, it is important that this process is locally led.

Our country has a proud history of the creation of new towns, mostly through the development corporation model. However, local government has a strong history of delivery—Northumberland County Council with Cramlington new town is an excellent example of local government leadership.

My noble friend Lord Taylor of Goss Moor referred to changing the regulations so as not to have an imposed borrowing limit of £100 million. That is the right thing to do. However, it means that strong financial controls will need to be in place and, in that respect, it will be necessary for the boundaries of the local authority oversight powers and the new town development corporation’s powers to be clarified in some detail in guidance as to exactly where the dividing line between the two is.

I am also pleased that the membership will be made up of a majority of independent members, who will have to demonstrate the required expertise and skills to make a success of the development corporation. However, what steps might the Government introduce in guidance to make sure that the appointment of independent members is a full and open process in which it can be demonstrated why they have been appointed?

My noble friend Lord Taylor of Goss Moor talked about the quality of development and the number of homes of quality that are required. He was absolutely right in what he has said. From my perspective, in order for this process to work, we need more highly professional planners who understand how to build communities rather than dormitory developments in the form of new housing estates. In my view, over recent years planning has become more about gatekeeping developers than strategic planning, so I hope that these regulations will be seen as a major opportunity to reverse that trend.

In conclusion, as the Minister said, this is about local ownership. Moreover, as my noble friend Lord Taylor of Goss Moor said, this should not be controversial because it is a major and welcome step forward.

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

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am happy to support the regulations before the House and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, on securing this change to the legislation when the Bill was going through the House. I am very happy that we will provide local authorities with the option of being able to lead on new town developments. That is a good thing and, as other noble Lords said, will allow a level of independence so that they can go forward. Given that, I am happy to support the regulations as they are.

I was pleased that the Government listened to the responses to the consultation on the financial limits; that is very good news. However, the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee talks about the length of the consultation. I have mentioned a number of times the question of consultations from the department. This appears to be truncated down to four weeks, whereas ideally it should be six weeks and perhaps even longer. There is also a general point to be made about the consultation itself, in that, whether it produces negative or positive responses, the level of those responses is actually very low. The Government should look at ways of trying to get more people to engage with what they are doing.

I agree strongly with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, about the construction of new towns and bringing the process up to date. Indeed, it is a good intention on the part of the Government to deliver on this. A number of noble Lords observed that new homes must be of sufficient quality, which is extremely important. They must be properly energy efficient, built using the best techniques and set within the right infrastructure. In that way we will have homes in new towns and elsewhere that will be there for many years. If we do not get this right, we will simply create housing problems for future generations. I am conscious that in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, while Governments of all persuasions built a lot of housing, in the end a good deal of it turned out to be of very poor quality. For all the promises, those houses failed the families who had to live in them. Of course, some of the properties are still here today. So it is important that, whatever is built, be it in new towns or elsewhere, quality should underpin it. Hopefully, having a local element in new towns, with local people being fully involved, will help with that. Again, I am happy to support the regulations.

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (Business Rate Supplements Functions) Order 2018

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 9th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I again remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I welcome these orders. I am a firm believer in voluntary taxation, and the system used in this case with the business rate supplement is similar to that used for business improvement districts. In that respect, it is a procedure that can command public support: if the business rate payers involved do not want to pay the money they have the right to reject it in a ballot. There is therefore a democratic process, which is very helpful.

On average, around 90% of business rate payers under any of these four orders will not be paying any additional money. Around 10% in Cambridge and 14% in Peterborough will have to pay a bit more. The Minister kindly read out the total sums of money that could be raised with a 2p in the pound levy. Clearly, rateable values vary. Could the Minister, either now or in writing, tell us the highest amount that might have to be paid by a business rate payer in each of these four areas, given that the threshold is to be a £50,000 valuation but some clearly have a higher valuation than that? Of the £35 million in the West Midlands, say, what is the highest single amount that might have to be paid by a business rate payer?

Overall, I do not think that these orders relate to the overall structure of combined authorities. There have been debates about mayors’ powers and the fact that the scrutiny systems need to be made stronger in combined authorities. Of course, in London an assembly lies behind the mayoral structure, which does not exist for the combined authorities elsewhere in England. All that having been said, the specific process relating to a business rate supplement stands on its own. It seems appropriate and should be supported.

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

My Lords, I also draw the attention of the House to the fact that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am generally happy to support the orders before the House, but there is a point to be made about business rates. I accept that this is a supplement and in that sense it could be subject to a referendum, a plan and stuff, but there is the point about business rates in general and what business has to pay in an area. We have many questions here about the cost to business of further taxation. In the West Midlands, for example, if a further £35 million is raised, what does that do to the economy? Is that the best use of that money?

That then comes back to the whole issue of combined authorities. Where they are established, the funding provided by government is relatively small. I am sure the noble Lord will not agree, but I have made the point before to his noble friend Lord Bourne that we have this rather confusing patchwork of local government emerging in England. We need a clear structure that we will get to. I am all in favour of devolution, but I would like to understand what the plan is. Certain places will potentially have four, five or maybe six authorities, whereas in another place there will be just one. That does not seem to be very good government at all. I am all in favour of devolution, but I am not convinced that the combined authority model is the best way forward.

I am happy to support the orders, as I said. I welcome the fact that the supplementary rates will have to be subject to a ballot. That is good news, but generally there is the whole issue of business rates and the effect on businesses, particularly on the high street.

Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 19th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 4, on which my name appears, and remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The case was very well put by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, a moment ago. I am struck by the fact that this amendment, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and myself, seems to contain a reasonable set of proposals. I am particularly concerned by the noble Earl’s assertion that the professional bodies are saying that there has been little assessment of the impact and that we ought to know more. I have a particular concern about the authorities that are piloting the 100% retention of business rates. I very much hope that they will not be put in a position of having to refund more money than they originally gained. So this amendment—a probing amendment, in my view—seeks to ensure that the consequences of the Bill are well understood and reported to Parliament.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I remind the House of my relevant interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, goes to the heart of the first part of the Bill, namely the positions some local authorities find themselves in—having to make refunds and potentially being out of pocket. In the 2017 Autumn Budget we heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer announce, following the decision of the Supreme Court, a return to the previous practice, and Clause 1 does just that. Business would further be allowed to ask the Valuation Office Agency to recalculate valuations so that business rate demand would be based on the previous practice, backdated to April 2010.

The Budget papers confirmed that the Government would fully compensate local government for loss of income—but then they had a change of heart and decided that if they had the extra money it was an unexpected windfall. The council would be very pleased about that, but if it had to pay anything back there would be no compensation for the authority concerned. The noble Earl’s amendment would require the Government to do exactly what they said they would do in the first place, and it has my full support.

Amendment 4 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, would place in the Bill a requirement for the Government to undertake a review of the impact of the provisions in Clause 1. That seems a sensible and proportionate thing to do. The amendment would require the Government to have a review, sets out what it should cover and requires that the Government should lay it before both Houses of Parliament—but nothing beyond that. They would have to do nothing other than lay the review.

I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, responds to this probing amendment and the noble Earl’s amendment he will see the point that we are trying to highlight. We are trying to give the Government the tools to do the analysis to make sure that they have got this right.

Legislative Reform (Regulator of Social Housing) (England) Order 2018

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the Minister for his explanation and the noble Lord, Lord Best, for reminding us of the history of this matter. We support the order to create a stand-alone regulatory authority. It seems a logical and necessary step, given the changed nature of the Homes and Communities Agency, now Homes England, and the potential conflict of interest that could arise if a housing association was in financial difficulty. It should not be a secured creditor of organisations that it regulates, and the regulatory framework should be robust and seen to be robust by third parties and private investors. There is strong public support for the proposals and, as a consequence, these proposals should command our support, too.

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

My Lords, I remind the House of my registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The order before the House is one I support. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for reminding us of the history of this and of the bonfire of the quangos—I remember the debates we had in the House about that. Clearly, the phoenix has now risen from the fire and we are back where we started. I am very happy with that and with the explanation that the noble Lord has given us. I am happy to support the order.

Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Mandatory Conditions of Licences) (England) Regulations 2018

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 9th May 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords I remind the Committee that I am a vice president of the Local Government Association. The regulations have my entire support. This is a very welcome change. I have one question for the Minister, which I have raised on previous regulations. It takes a very long time to effect change—it is three years since the initial consultation took place in May 2015—and I wonder whether things might be speeded up a bit. We have to consult carefully on the regulation to get the right outcome, nevertheless it does seem to take a very long time.

It has to be right that local authorities can regulate the minimum size of rooms that may be occupied as sleeping accommodation. It has to be right that the local housing authority can specify the maximum number of persons who may occupy a specified room for the purpose of sleeping accommodation in that licenced HMO. It has to be right that local authorities can make schemes in respect of refuse storage and disposal that a landlord would have to implement. In all those respects this regulation has to be right.

There was a time when the definition of HMOs was adequate. They were of three or more storeys and were occupied by five or more persons forming two or more households. That was for many years a standard definition that stood the test of time. The difficulty now is, as the Minister said, that the private sector has grown to the point where it represents one in five household tenures in the UK, and standards have slipped. We have HMOs which, as the Explanatory Memorandum makes clear, are under the radar, and something has to be done about that.

I understand that there has been some debate about a reasonable minimum size for sleeping accommodation. As the Minister made clear, 6.51 square metres for one person over the age of 10 is a minimum size, not necessarily a desirable size. Indeed, it is actually very small. If you calculate that in your own mind, it is not very big at all. I understand that there are some residential landlords who would like all the accommodation in an HMO, which might include communal accommodation, to be calculated as part of the minimum amount. It seems to me that sleeping accommodation, which is the private space of an individual in an HMO, has to be of a reasonable size for someone to do things other than just sleeping. Therefore, I find 6.51 square metres small. I do not think it reasonable to say that we should include communal accommodation and reduce the amount that is required under the law for sleeping accommodation.

With reference to paragraph 7.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum, I wonder whether the period of 18 months’ grace is too long. For a while, I felt that once this has been approved, giving landlords a year, or perhaps nine months, would be adequate. Given the fact that it may prove complicated for local authorities to identify, investigate and agree with landlords what will happen, a period of 18 months is probably justified. When he replies, can the Minister explain the basis for the 18-month period as opposed to any other?

These regulations are very welcome. They help us to solve a problem. Where standards in the private rented sector are declining, they give local authorities powers to act to protect the interests of tenants. They should therefore be commended.

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

My Lords, these are important regulations before the Grand Committee. I, too, declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I do not know whether any noble Lords here have ever lived in an HMO. I certainly have not. My honourable friend in the other place, Melanie Onn, and I were work colleagues in the Labour Party; she lived in an HMO as a young homeless person and she will tell you what conditions were like there. She has some knowledge about this. These regulations are important and I am very happy to support them; they certainly go in the right direction, but there is a lot more to do.

I have also been out in Newham on a number of housing raids. Of course, Newham has a licensing scheme, but the standard of accommodation some people are expected to live in is absolutely shocking. The regulations are a step in the right direction, but we must never lose sight of the poor accommodation that we have and expect some people to live in. I support improved rights and protections for renters; the regulations will go some way to improving the rights of some of the most poor and vulnerable people in our communities.

We have had discussion of the national minimum room standards. As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, the room allocated to someone in an HMO is not just a bedroom. Other than the shared bathroom and kitchen, you need a bit more space to put a bed and a wardrobe in. This must be taken into account when concluding that the proposed minimum standard for a single occupier should be 6.51 square metres or 10.22 square metres for two people. Those sizes will be further compromised if young children are there as well.

Some local authorities may seek to provide larger minimum space standards in their licensing schemes, which is good. However, we need to consider carefully that these rooms are not just bedrooms. They are your bedroom and living room. They are the room where you put all your property. Everything you have in life goes into this one room. I certainly think that we have to look carefully at size there.

The Minister mentioned fines for letting out rooms that are smaller than the minimum, which is good. However, we must make the point that we can have all the regulations we like, but it becomes an issue when we cannot enforce them. The other issue with HMOs, particularly when they are very small or even illegally let, is the danger of overcrowding and overcluttering, which creates a fire risk and other problems that people get into in insufficient spaces.

Ultimately, we need to think also about issues such as the impact on mental health. You have to remember that people are letting one room and are sharing the building with people they do not know. Often, they will lock the door to their room at night, and that is not a great way to live your life. These are some of the most vulnerable people and there are real issues here, in particular for their mental health.

That leads on to the wider problem of a housing market in crisis, which we have talked about many times in this House and elsewhere. The standard and quality of some of the accommodation that people live in is shocking and we need to do much more about that.

I have to mention the dreaded Housing and Planning Act 2016, which offered little respite to people in this housing crisis. We need always to be on top of this. I support the regulations because they are a move forward, and I thank the Government for that, but we need to do much more. I am not sure if the Minister has been out to look at the situation, but I can recommend that he do so with Newham Council. He would find it shocking—I was last out with the council in February. For people to be living like that in HMOs in 2018, in one of the richest countries in the world and one of the richest cities in the world, is truly unbelievable. I am very happy to support the regulations before us today.

Housing and Planning Act 2016 (Database of Rogue Landlords and Property Agents) Regulations 2018

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, first, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests in the register: namely that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am moving this Motion in relation to a regulation under the dreaded Housing and Planning Act 2016, a fine example of how to legislate in haste and repent at leisure, a generally dreadful piece of legislation with little or no thought given to its consequences, with a number its of provisions either dropped or quietly forgotten about and never mentioned again.

One of the more promising parts of the legislation was the rogue landlords and property agents database, but even here the Government got it wrong, as I state in my regret Motion, as they do not allow tenants or anyone else other than the Government or local authorities access to it. So it is a good idea and a good initiative but, through the action of the Government, it is failing tenants—failing to help them to make informed choices and to protect themselves. This is important, as the housing market is changing before our eyes. The number of people in the social rented sector has fallen, as has the number owning their own homes. Some 4.7 million households in England currently rent privately—about 20% of all households. This includes a large number of young and single people but also includes a number of families.

The vast majority of private landlords and property agents are good and act responsibly. They, and the bodies that represent them, are as keen as anybody else to deal with the rogues who abuse their tenants. There is support in the industry for this database to be available much more widely. David Cox, the chief executive of the Association of Residential Letting Agents, said:

“We have campaigned for the Government’s database of banned letting agents to be publicly available as with no public access to the database, how will landlords or tenants know if they are using a banned agent?”


I think David Cox is absolutely right. How will you know if you cannot have access to this secret list? Carrie Kus, director of the Residential Landlords Association, said:

“We all want to see criminal landlords rooted out of the rental market altogether. Any measure … which helps tenants to distinguish between the majority of law-abiding and decent landlords and those landlords who bring the sector into disrepute is to be welcomed”.


I agree with her, but it is a shame that this regulation will not help tenants to make that choice as they are prevented from having access to the secret list.

We all want both tenants and landlords to operate within a set of rules where a clean, safe, dry property, which meets all its obligations under the law, is offered for rent and where tenants accordingly pay the rent due to the landlord. The rogue landlords and property agents database deals with the small number of landlords and property agents who flout their obligations and the rules, and who rent out substandard accommodation, often to vulnerable tenants. This is accepted in paragraph 7.1 on page 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum that accompanies these regulations. The memorandum goes on to say that the Government are,

“determined to crack down on these landlords and disrupt their business model”.

I respectfully suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, that disrupting their business model would be a lot easier to achieve if their customers knew they were on this list. However, this database is secret and only to be accessed by the Government and local authorities.

Who are we protecting with this inadequate regulation? These could be landlords who have been convicted of certain offences, or made the subject of banning orders for matters such as illegally evicting and harassing tenants; using violence to enter a property; failing to comply with improvement notices; failing to adhere to houses in multiple occupation regulations; failing to adhere to an overcrowding notice; providing false or misleading information; or other similar offences. I was interested to read the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, to all Members of this House on 6 April 2018. It gives some useful information, but for me the most interesting paragraph was the last but one and I will read part of it. It says:

“Currently, the legislation does not allow for information on the database to be shared more widely. However, I am strongly committed to supporting tenant choice and my department is exploring a range of options to make the information on the database publicly available. This would enable prospective tenants and others to check whether a landlord or agent has been subject to enforcement action. This may require primary legislation. In the meantime, we are encouraging local authorities to publish information drawn from their own records about landlords and property agents who have been banned, convicted of relevant criminal offences, or have received a civil penalty. We have also encouraged them to make this information available to tenants who request it”.


I suppose that is progress of a sort but it is a mess. Tenants are prevented in law from having access to this database but we encourage local authorities to publish a separate list about such landlords and property agents. It is a real dog’s breakfast and I can see local authorities being very wary of doing that unless they have a specific instruction to do so. It could have been so different. My noble friends Lord Beecham and Lady Hollis of Heigham, the noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Kerslake and Lord Shipley, the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and many other noble Lords will recall the debates in January, February, March and April 2016. The Government were not listening and there were late night sittings. On 11 April 2016, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, moved an amendment to allow tenants access to this information. I also spoke in support but in her response, the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park—who is now the Leader of the House—said:

“Indeed, allowing such access to the database would arguably breach the landlord’s human rights by making sensitive personal information about their convictions publicly available and effectively banning them from operating without an independent tribunal determining whether they should be banned”.—[Official Report, 11/4/16; col. 82.]


This line of defence was revised when this House gave a Second Reading to the Renters’ Rights Bill, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. It proposed, among other things, the right for tenants to have access to the database of rogue landlords and property agents. On 10 June 2016, in response to the debate, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, said:

“Giving tenants or potential tenants access to the database might be fine if the purpose of the database was to blacklist landlords and drive them out of business. However, that is not the purpose of the database. Where a landlord should not be in business, the local authority should apply for a banning order”.—[Official Report, 10/6/16; col. 985.]


Taking the letter written by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne; the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, on 11 April 2016 when the Bill was going through Parliament; and the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, on 10 June 2016, responding to an attempt to make this database public, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the Government are in a complete mess on this issue with contradictory positions: it is as clear as mud. I can see local authorities being very wary and wanting more clarity on the issues before publishing anything.

I have a number of questions for the noble Lord. Is he aware that the Private Rented Sector Partnership Board, which comprises the Association of Residential Letting Agents, Countrywide, the National Landlords Association, the Nationwide Building Society, the Nationwide Foundation and Shelter, believes that organisations and businesses operating in the private rented sector should have access to the Government’s rogue landlord and lettings agent database? Does he accept that, from what I have highlighted from his letter, and the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, that the Government need to get their act together and provide clarity on the situation? Will his department be following up his letter to Members of this House with a letter to all local authority leaders and chief executives, making it clear that local authorities can publish information on rogue landlords and letting agents drawn from their own information and that the Government are encouraging them to do just that? What discussions have the Government had with tenants’ bodies and tenant advice organisations about how they could use the database to help local authorities identify rogue landlords and target their enforcement work?

In conclusion, I hope I have highlighted that the situation we find ourselves in is far from ideal and that it would be right for the House to express its regret. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I support the intentions of the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. I am grateful to the Minister for his letter of 6 April in which he updated us on the introduction of a database of rogue landlords and property agents, together with the powers being introduced to enable serious and prolific offenders to be banned from operating. I welcome these steps. They are proportionate, legitimate and in the public interest.

However, these changes have taken a while—indeed too long—to reach this stage and I remain concerned that the support from these Benches for an open register of rogue landlords has yet to bear fruit. The letter from the Minister says specifically that his department is,

“exploring a range of options to make the information on the database publicly available”.

Can he tell us what that range of options is, the nature of the consultation and when the exploration will become a decision? I also noted doubt in the Minister’s letter as to whether primary legislation was required. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned this; I am surprised that it is not already known. Could the Minister clarify why the department is not clear on this matter? It seems a straightforward issue to give a clear answer on.

The Government are to give local authorities the right to publish information drawn from their own records about banned or convicted landlords or property agents and those who have received a civil penalty. But the nature of that publication is not clear. It seems it can be made available to individual tenants—and presumably, therefore, to prospective tenants, although that is not actually stated. I will give the Minister an example of a problem that might well arise in the functioning of this scheme. A prospective tenant wishes to know from the local authority in which their tenancy will be held whether the landlord is a rogue landlord. It is possible that the landlord is not a rogue landlord in that local authority, but it is equally possible that they are a rogue landlord in a neighbouring authority for the reason that a landlord may own properties in more than one local authority. Will that status in a neighbouring local authority be made available to the prospective tenant and will the local authority be permitted to add to its own register and publish details of those rogue landlords who reside in another area? Or will a rogue landlord in one local authority automatically become a rogue landlord in every other local authority in the country?

The Government have an improving record in some areas of private tenant protection. I cite as an example proposals on client protection moneys and progress in the proposal to ban letting fees. However, it is extraordinarily slow, and I have not understood why. However, mandatory electrical safety checks need to be done, and nothing seems to be happening there. Despite the progress being made, rogue landlords remain a big issue. After a great deal of thought I have concluded that, to be effective, a register has to be transparent and open but it also needs to be correct. For that reason, all local authorities need to follow the same clear procedures. What is stopping the Government proceeding on that basis, creating an open register that is publicly available? That seems the only way to protect tenants and prospective tenants.

Many good landlords fully understand the importance of high standards. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, pointed out, there is huge support among residential landlords for effective policies which deliver solutions in protecting tenants to be delivered. However, although some of the improvements the Government have made are welcome, much more needs to be done to ensure that prospective tenants and tenants are properly protected.

Building Safety Update

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 15th March 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement delivered earlier in the other place. I refer the House to my relevant interests as a local councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I appreciate the Government updating the House, but it is important that when we have these Statements on Grenfell we always recognise not only the terrible suffering that took place but the wonderful efforts of all the emergency services, both on the night itself and afterwards, and the support from the local community, faith groups and charities, which have carried on working since that night to help rebuild that community. We should pay tribute to them all every time we have these Statements—we owe them so much for the work that they have done.

The noble Lord is right: we are nine months on from that dreadful tragedy and it must never be allowed to happen again. We must make sure that we do everything we can to ensure that that is a reality. It is very worrying, therefore, to find out that a door which it was suggested would survive for 30 minutes failed in less than half that time. These doors are supposed to give people time while they wait for the authorities to come and rescue them. To find out that it failed in half the time is very worrying indeed. It exposes serious problems with the door itself and raises questions, which I know Dame Judith is looking at in her review, on the health and safety regulations that are designed to keep people safe, but which have failed here.

It is good that we no longer hear the “red tape” nonsense that we did in the past. Clearly, this is not about red tape: it is about keeping people alive and saving lives. It is important that we do not hear such comments ever again. It is troubling for many people that these doors failed. The Government need to ensure that we move at a quicker pace to get all these matters dealt with and resolved quickly. People are concerned about this and it is always in their minds.

The Metropolitan Police investigation is a separate matter. As the Minister said, they need time and space to investigate and deal with the matters properly and to bring them to a conclusion.

I have a number of questions for the Minister which I hope he will be able to answer today. If he cannot I know that he will write to me and other Members of the House and cover both the points he made and wider points. Can he explain why, nine months on from the fire, we still do not know how many private tower blocks are covered in cladding similar to that used in Grenfell Tower? I do not know whether the House is aware of the figure, but I am not. I believe up to 41 local authorities have contacted the department in regard to fire safety works. How many have funding from the department for this work? I think it may be none or very few.

I am conscious that soon after the fire the Prime Minister fixed a deadline of three weeks for everyone who was affected to be found a home nearby. We are now nine months on and I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the House how many families have been found a permanent place. The last time we debated this he told us that it was 60 out of the 208 households but it would help if he can give updated figures on how many have been found a permanent place and the numbers in temporary accommodation. Again, we need to get these matters resolved as soon as possible.

I am pleased that the noble Lord said that we will be updated as testing goes on—it is important that, as other issues come to light, we update people—but, in relation to these doors and other matters, what is the process for alerting local authorities and the manufacturers? I know the name of the door, but how many of them are there elsewhere? People need to know this and that they have failed. I know the Minister said that there is a low risk—but there is still a risk—and that most fires are contained within the place where they start. However, the fire was not contained where it started in Grenfell Tower and people are worried. Can the Minister tell the House what the Government do to alert manufacturers and other private companies in order to protect people in the future? I will leave it there and I look forward to the Minister’s responses.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House that I am vice-president of the Local Government Association. I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the tribute he paid to all those affected by the Grenfell tragedy.

I refer the Minister to paragraph 10 of the Statement in which it is said that there is no change to the fire safety advice that the public should follow. Does that mean that the stay-put policy for tenants in high-rise blocks is seen to be the right policy? I suspect that many people who live in high-rise blocks doubt that that should be the case.

Secondly, should the Government insist that fire regulation assessments for every high-rise building are published and made available in an accessible form for the public to read? At present, fire regulation assessments may not necessarily be public documents. If the Government are now going to say that a stay-put policy is appropriate, it follows that fire regulation assessments should be publicly available for the tenants and residents of such blocks.

I was struck by paragraph 14 of the Statement, which states that there is no evidence that this is a systemic issue. In one sense all the evidence suggests that that may be true. It probably is true that the data between 2009 and 2017 shows that fire does not generally spread beyond the room of origin. That may be generally true but, of course, sometimes it is not true and in the case of Grenfell it was not true. There is a huge amount of evidence being collected by all those working to prevent Grenfell happening again and it is pretty clear to me from what I have read in documents published by the Minister’s own department, the latest update being about a fortnight ago, that we need to move much more quickly than the Government seem to be working: there is an issue of public confidence in fire safety regulations and I fear that the Government are too slow in their resolution of some of these problems.

The public want to know whether the Government will enforce compulsory, regular electrical safety checks in high-rise blocks as a matter of policy. My final point is that there is a huge issue arising now about who is going to pay the bill for all the remedial works that are required. There is a huge amount of publicity around private leaseholders, some of whom are likely to have a fee to pay for the fire wardens who are currently in their blocks. More generally, because cladding has been put on to a large number of blocks and is having to be taken off, there is an issue as to who is paying the bill for the private leaseholders. I am not sure that it is sufficient for the Government to say simply that the solution is for private leaseholders to sue the council, the local housing authority or some other party; I fear that it is not.

Finally, the Government have consistently said that they will fund essential and necessary works to high-rise blocks. Will the Minister confirm that that remains their policy?

Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 6th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interest in the register as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and I pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. They have done a great deal to secure what seems to be an agreed and agreeable outcome. The process in this Bill so far has been a good example of the House working at its best. I also want to pay tribute to Women’s Aid, in part because of the quality of its briefings and in particular for reminding us of the funding issues which still remain. I hope very much that the Minister will bear in mind the points that have been made by Women’s Aid.

I want to add only one or two points. In Committee I said that training is very important for this to work, and I was glad to hear the Minister refer to it in his opening remarks. To be effective, staff really will have to understand in great detail the processes that they should be following. I cite in particular the example of where a victim moves between local authorities with possibly a significant distance between the two. We need effective systems and networks in place for that to function properly. I have two suggestions to make as to how it might be done.

The first is one that I think I mentioned in our last debate. The training should be sub-regional; in other words, it is very important that the people in different local authorities who deal with these matters should know each other so that they know who to contact if there is an issue, and they should be trained together. Secondly, because the training is sub-regional, it would help if there were named contacts in every local authority who would be seen as the point of expertise not only within the authority concerned but also more generally. They are the people who should be contacted and they would maintain the files, particularly on difficult cases such as those requiring confirmatory evidence and so on.

With those two suggestions, I should like to thank the Minister very much indeed for getting us to this point. It is a positive outcome to our discussions over recent weeks.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 5, proposed by my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett, is one that I fully support. She must be congratulated on pursuing this issue. As we have heard, the amendment puts into the Bill provisions to ensure that the protections set out in it apply to a victim of domestic violence who is living in a secure joint tenancy and stays in their home when the perpetrator leaves or is removed, as well as to victims who leave their homes.

This anomaly was first raised by my noble friend during the Second Reading debate on the Bill and she deserves much credit for persuading the Government that there was a real issue here and getting them to accept the amendment, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, has done. He has shown himself to be prepared to listen carefully and look at the very real issues raised by my noble friend. I join others in paying tribute to the important work being done by Women’s Aid and I think that we all recognise the great job it does. Representatives of Women’s Aid have also engaged very positively with me during the passage of the Bill and I thank them for that.

I will not detain the House any further other than to say that I am very pleased that this amendment is going to be agreed shortly.

Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 24th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I reiterate our strong support for the Bill from these Benches, in the expectation that the Government will be willing either to accept these amendments or to bring forward their own on Report. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, referred to these amendments representing a solution to a lacuna in the Bill. I think that she is entirely right and I support all the points that she has made. Put simply, this has raised the very important issue of what a secure tenancy is. Now we will be in a position—assuming the Government do come back on Report with their own amendment—to ensure the right of victims to stay in their existing home, in the case of a joint tenancy, in addition to being able to move home, which is provided for in the Bill. So I declare our support for both Amendments 1 and 3.

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

My Lords, as this is my first contribution in Committee, I draw the House’s attention to my registered interests, namely as a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. My noble friend Lady Lister moved Amendment 1 in great detail. I fully support that amendment and the intention behind it—as I do Amendment 3.

This issue was, as we heard, raised by my noble friend at Second Reading and deals with the situation where a victim of domestic violence has a joint tenancy with the perpetrator but wants to remain in the property and wants some security and to avoid upheaval. They need to be granted a new secure sole tenancy, rather than the joint tenancy that they have at that time. My noble friend highlighted the risk of the perpetrator remaining on the tenancy and the problem of them being able to effectively cancel that tenancy. I hope that the Minister agrees that this is an issue and will say that he will come back with an amendment on Report. I certainly fully support these amendments and the intention behind them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Burt’s amendment. She has made a very strong case and it is an extremely important issue on which guidance, at the very least, will be needed. I think there is a preferable option, which is to put it on the face of the Bill. Whichever approach the Government adopt, I understand there have been suggestions that the Government accept the aim of this policy. I very much hope that they will, but can the Minister confirm that the Government understand the importance, for a limited number of individuals—that is what it will turn out to be—of the Government taking action on this point? It is very important for them.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, moved Amendment 5, on which she makes a very powerful case. The Government need to address this issue. As noble Lords have heard, it would be totally unfair for a victim to be penalised by the bedroom tax due to either the perpetrator having left the property they live in now or the victim having moved somewhere else and finding themselves with one bedroom over the threshold for the tax. That needs to be looked at. It would be wrong if people ended up with additional costs because they are the victim of a crime. As the noble Baroness said, this issue affects very few people, and the Government should address it. I hope the noble Lord will look at it or come back to it on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this amendment in my name, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, would place a requirement on local authorities to report annually to the Secretary of State the number of old-style secure tenancies granted under the Bill. This would be useful information for the Government to collect. It would not be a great burden for local authorities, which already have to provide the department with a wide variety of information on a regular basis. It would be useful if we got to see how many tenancies were being granted, which would provide a better picture of this dreadful crime and the action being taken by local authorities in keeping people safe. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, this is an important amendment. It scratches the surface of a number of issues that might actually be reported annually. I hope the Government will look carefully at what information they are going to get. I would like to see how many tenants of housing associations who transfer to a local authority—either the local authority where they have been living or another one—are rehoused with a secure tenancy. I am sure the Minister and his officials will come up with a long list of what local authorities should report on, but it is important to get this right because otherwise we may not know whether the training is being properly undertaken.

Local Government Finance Settlement

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 19th December 2017 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I first draw the attention of the House to my interests as a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Secondly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in the other place earlier today.

On reading the Statement or listening to the noble Lord delivering it, you could be forgiven for thinking there was not a problem, but of course, the opposite is true: the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that between 2010 and 2020 local authorities will have had their direct funding cut by 79%. Anyone involved in local government will be fully aware of the serious pressure on budgets, resources, staff morale and the communities local authorities seek to serve. While local government will welcome some of the piecemeal measures being offered here, what has been announced today is not enough and is extremely disappointing. Missing also is any evidence of a coherent plan, and the lack of vision is troubling. Announcing a few million pounds here and there for specific initiatives while overall depleting local government funds is a recipe for disaster.

Local government delivers a vast range of the core services that people rely on day in, day out, and the Government need a new approach. I pay tribute to the staff employed by local authorities up and down the country for the job they do in difficult circumstances. They deserve a decent pay rise; perhaps the noble Lord can refer to that when he responds.

The noble Lord said that the Government are publishing a formal consultation on a review of relative needs and resources. Can he explain what he means by relative needs, and what is the direction of travel he is embarking upon? I disagree with him that the budget allocations have served councils and communities well in recent years.

The Government have announced that they are moving ahead with another phase of their business rates retention programme. Can the noble Lord tell the House where they are with the fair funding review and whether that is in effect being incorporated into the consultation he referred to in his Statement? I see that there are to be five new business rate retention pilots, and it was no surprise to see that Surrey made it on to the list. I am sure that Councillor Hodge and his colleagues on Surrey County Council will be pleased.

Rural areas have specific problems, so it is pleasing that the rural areas delivery grant will not be reduced next year. I am also pleased that none of the changes that were rumoured to be happening to the new homes bonus have come about; that will be a relief to many.

The noble Lord referred to the 20% increase in planning fees. Certainly, everything helps, but it is disappointing that the department to date has not allowed even one council to trial full cost recovery of planning fees. I do not see the objection to having one council trial this. The fact that council tax payers are subsidising the planning process is a matter of regret; we should seek to eliminate that unfairness and thereby release funds to be spent on local priorities.

One of the most serious issues facing local government is the crisis in adult social care, and the measures in the Statement make no progress towards finding the solution to the problem of providing quality care services for our ageing population. This will be a disappointment to local authorities, as will the failure to deal with the crisis in children’s services: we have seen a reduction in early years interventions and a record number of 72,000 children taken into care. Last year 170,000 children were subject to child protection plans, which is double the number seven years ago. Reductions in the amount of money available for important early years intervention just leads to unbearable pressure and risk, which is both shocking and completely avoidable.

Analysis by the Local Government Association revealed that in 2015-16, 75% of councils exceeded their children’s social care budgets by, in total, £605 million. Can the noble Lord tell the House how he justifies measures which further expand the crises in children’s services and adult social care and do not give local government the stability it needs? Why does he think it acceptable to place a further burden on council tax payers in the next financial year, instead of providing the additional funds that would equate to the rise that can be applied to the council tax for adult social care without having to hold a local referendum?

As Christmas approaches, the homelessness situation is shocking. The Government are not providing the necessary funds to help local authorities deal with it. Imposing legislative requirements without adequate funding will not address the problem. The Government will not face up to the crisis, and the measures here provide little comfort to those in desperate need and those who seek to provide these valuable services.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

The key test of this Statement is whether the provisional finance settlement will alleviate the general funding pressures facing local councils. I think that the answer to that question is: hardly at all. As the letter from the Communities Secretary accompanying the Statement explains, the resources available for local government will rise from £44.3 billion in the current year, 2017-18, to £45.6 billion in two years’ time, 2019-20. This represents an increase well under the current rate of inflation and does not reflect rising demand to the extent that it should. In recent years, pressures have grown significantly because of year-on-year underfunding. In the end, the question is how much is local government actually receiving to spend overall, and not simply how much is it going to have over the next two years? Nevertheless, I welcome the extra support allocated for rural services and the thinking on the new homes bonus and negative RSG. However, I hope the Minister will be able to say a further word about government thinking on business rates and what their ultimate objective is.

As I understand the Statement, there is to be an extension to the number of 100% business rate retention pilots. At the same time, all local authorities will be able to keep more of their business rate income, equivalent to 75% overall in 2019-20. Alongside this, there will be a new system of fair funding—or at least I assume that that is the objective. That will be introduced from 2020-21. For the new system to succeed it will require redistribution to reflect needs and resources. Will the Minister say a further word about what the Government are trying to do? Are they trying adequately to reflect needs and resources, or are they aiming at 100% business rate retention? If the latter, where will the support needed for poorer authorities come from?

We have heard about the pressures on children’s and adult social care. There is an issue of principle here. This time last year, I said that council tax should not be used to make up deficits in resourcing, particularly as demand rises in children’s services and adult social care. I do not understand why it should take 15 months from the announcement in March this year of some extra central funding for adult social care to the production of a Green Paper in the summer of next year to discuss the problems of adequate funding for adult social care. I think that the problem is much more urgent than that.

To take another example of things happening too slowly, the 20% increase which is to be permitted for planning fees was debated in your Lordships’ House many months ago. There is a demand now for additional planning expenditure, so I wish government could work a bit more quickly in dealing with some of the real problems on the ground.

There is a question about council tax referendum principles and the right of councils to increase council tax by the rate of inflation without a referendum. I would prefer that there were no referendum system at all and that local authorities were freed up to make the decisions they think are right in their area. In the end, they will face the verdict of voters through the ballot box. What is happening is that the Government are increasing council tax further. As I understand it, an extra 1% is to be permitted without a referendum so that, in practice, the rate of inflation is met at least in the next year. This is putting the cost of supporting national services on to the council tax payer. I am not convinced—and I said the same thing last year—that this is the right way to go. Poorer authorities, in particular, have a lower council tax base, so if the aim is to redistribute, simply charging extra through council tax to pay for services in the more deprived authorities seems not to be the right way to go.

Finally, can the Minister confirm that the Government intend to produce a model which is fair? The words “fair funding” were used a great deal this time last year. I very much hope that those words will continue to be used. For funding to be fair, council tax payers must also have fair demands on their wallets. Will the Minister bear that in mind? I hope that, for the rest of this Parliament, the Government will not simply load council tax so that local government receives more complaints because their council has been underfunded by central government for a considerable time.

Local Housing Need

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 14th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare that I am a local councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in the other place.

I am not in the habit of jumping up and banging my fist on the Dispatch Box, but I am deeply disappointed at the actions of the Government. We have had seven years of failure, the shambles of the Housing and Planning Act—which must be in contention for one of the worst pieces of legislation ever put on the statute book by a Government; it is an absolutely dreadful piece of legislation—and the housing White Paper. Again, I remember all the hype we had—“It’s coming tomorrow!”—and then, of course, it delivered very little.

We have a housing crisis; I think everybody knows that, and they are absolutely right. Everyone knows somebody who cannot get the home they need or aspire to. Home ownership has now hit a 30-year low, affordable housebuilding has dropped to a 24-year low, and last year just 1,000 new homes for social rent were started—directly as a result of policy decisions taken by the Conservative Party since 2010. That is seven years of failure on all fronts. The country expects much more from the Government. Even the Prime Minister knows that a big reason why she lost her majority at the general election was because of their policies on housing.

What has been announced today will be useful to help underpin the National Planning Policy Framework, albeit five years after it was adopted by the Government. New planning permissions are only a small part of the answer to the housing crisis; 300,000 planning permissions were granted last year, yet affordable housebuilding is at a 24-year low. I often tell the Minister and the House about what goes on in Lewisham. Many times we have granted planning permissions but nothing is built there, so this is not on its own the answer to the problem.

A standard method to assess housing need is sensible. There was one, as well as the National Housing and Planning Advice Unit, but both were abolished in 2010. Can the Minister tell the House when these new procedures will apply from? Will it be from 2018? The lack of a standard method does cause delay in producing local plans—part of the reason it now takes longer to approve them than it did in 2010. How much quicker does the Minister estimate these changes will make the plan-making process?

The new national formula fixes housing numbers for local areas. The Minister tells us that this is not a “hard and fast target”, yet local plans must meet the new numbers, and in more than half the country the numbers will go up by an average of a third. Is this tough new action from the Government or just warm words? Will the Minister be very clear about what he means by all this? What action will follow when an authority fails to meet these new numbers? How many authorities does he estimate will meet the new housing delivery test set by his department?

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

It is good that councils will be undertaking a more accurate assessment of housing needs in their area and working across boundaries with neighbouring authorities—perhaps better than occurs in some places. The further support through the capacity fund is welcome, although I suspect that it may prove not to be enough, but no doubt the Government will keep that under review.

The Statement goes so far but when it says that,

“we need a proper understanding of exactly how many homes are needed and where”,

there is something missing. We need to know also what tenure they ought to be. Are they for sale, and at what kind of price range? Are they for rent? Are they to be affordable or are they to be homes for social rent? A major failing in the Statement is that it does not address the issue of finance. I will come back to that in a moment.

I am interested, if the Minister happens to know, in how much the expensive consultants using their own methodologies have actually wasted. Presumably there is a figure in the department which would indicate to us how much money has been spent by consultants who are not using common methodologies. It should be a matter of concern if public money is being spent for purposes that may not be giving us a clear result. But the Statement ends by saying:

“The result is an opaque mishmash of different figures that are consistent only in their complexity”.


We need to know more about that, because the figures that are being used for planning purposes need to be reliable.

Perhaps the Minister will explain why the four times average earning planning figure is being used rather than some other number. Presumably it has been carefully worked out but another number could be more appropriate. The Government may find that they need to keep under constant review whether the three stages of assessment are actually working. They may do, but the consultation will reveal whether or not they actually do.

Is it necessary for planning authorities to have 12 months,

“to set out exactly how they are working with counterparts across their housing market area”?

In some cases they already are; in other cases where they are not, they should be doing it a great deal more quickly than in 12 months. If there was to be a faster figure, I would want to support that.

The Government have come out with the figure of 266,000 homes per year as the starting point for local plans across England. I just draw the Minister’s attention to the report by the Economic Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House, which said that it should be 300,000 a year—after a great deal of work. Perhaps the Minister could explain whether 300,000 is the Government’s target. Presumably, to hit 1.5 million over five years, as the Statement also indicates will occur by 2022, it is closer to 300,000 a year. Unless the financial arrangements are sorted out to enable local authorities and others to build, particularly for social rent, a problem is going to arise because I do not think you can build 1.5 million houses to sell. Whether it is for a form of shared ownership or whatever, in the end we simply need more social homes for rent.

The Statement makes it clear that:

“These measures alone will not fix our broken housing market”.


That is absolutely true. But the Statement does not go on to tell us why that is. But the reason is because the financial arrangements are not in place to do it. Earlier today in Questions, I cited the National Audit Office report on homelessness, which cost local authorities £1.1 billion in 2015-16. That would have provided 30,000 new affordable homes—not necessarily homes for social rent. It is clear to me that the broken housing market will not be fixed only through changes to the planning system. The root of the problem is that the cost of renting is too high and not enough social housing is being built. The Government are at serious risk of not delivering the 1 million new homes by 2020 and the further 500,000 by 2022.

Finally, the Minister said a great deal about the regional spatial strategy. There were problems with the regional spatial strategy, but it was not quite as bad as the Statement made out. This new approach may be better, but it is still slightly top-down. I draw the Minister’s attention to a report published recently by Homes for the North, which looks at a regional approach to the provision of housing and identifying housing need. What is particularly interesting in its statement that 500,000 homes are needed over a 10-year period across the north of England is that the work is being done in conjunction with Transport for the North; in other words, there is an integrated planning system, not officially in place but unofficially in place, which I think is going to help identify need. If the Minister has not read the report, Future Housing Requirements for the North, I hope he will endeavour to do so.

Grenfell Tower Update

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 3rd July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for repeating the Statement made in the other place by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. As the Minister said, this tragedy should never have happened. I am pleased that progress has been made on a number of fronts—but considerably more needs to be done. I am sure that Members of this House will agree with me that the devastation of this disaster was made all the worse in the immediate aftermath by the poor response of Kensington and Chelsea council, which can only be described as shameful. I am pleased that the leader of the council, Councillor Nicholas Paget-Brown, has resigned, along with his deputy, Councillor Rock Feilding-Mellen. I just wish they had accepted responsibility and resigned sooner. I note that the Secretary of State has welcomed the resignation of the leader of the council—but why did he not call for it, as others did?

Many have called for the Secretary of State to appoint commissioners to take over the running of this authority, as it is not fit for purpose. But so far he has decided not to do this and instead has opted to “keep an eye” on the council. Can the Minister explain why the Secretary of State has decided to do this? What exactly does keeping an eye on the council mean and entail? It certainly does not seem to me to be the sort of response one would expect to such a complete and abject failure by the council towards the local community it was elected to serve and protect.

I am pleased that housing offers are being made, but is the Minister satisfied that everyone has been contacted, and that they have been assured that no other issues—such as how they were renting a property at Grenfell Tower—will be of any concern to the authorities? We must be sure that no vulnerable, traumatised families are hiding, frightened and not getting the help they are entitled to, or not being able to provide the police and other authorities with valuable information, because they are too scared to come forward.

The faith communities and the local voluntary sector have a big role to play here. What support are the Government giving to them to do this important work? Why has only half the discretionary fund of £5 million been distributed to date? The Minister said that 112 households had received the £5,500 immediate assistance. So how many have not? If it is even just one family after three weeks, that is a disgrace. How have these families been able to live? What about the report that at least one tenant has been charged rent? What arrangements have been made for the schooling and care of local children who attend Avondale Park primary school and have been traumatised by these horrific events?

I move on to the public inquiry, which was reaffirmed in the Queen’s Speech. The background note to the Speech, published on 21 June, provided further detail and said:

“Residents, the families of the deceased, the Mayor of London and HM Opposition will be consulted on the terms of reference under which the inquiry will proceed and the Government will agree the terms of reference, which will be published in consultation with the Chair of the Inquiry”.


On 29 June, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the chair of the inquiry said:

“I’ve been asked to undertake this inquiry on the basis that it would be pretty well limited to the problems surrounding the start of the fire and its rapid development, in order to make recommendations as to how this sort of thing can be prevented in the future”.


The Prime Minister has also said:

“No stone will be left unturned by this inquiry”.


It is important that we are very clear about this inquiry, its terms of reference when agreed, that no stone is left unturned, as the Prime Minister promised, and that Sir Martin has the power to go where the evidence leads him. Will the Minister please confirm that that is the case and that no conflict—perceived or otherwise—should be drawn from the statements I have previously outlined?

It is right that sensible precautions are taken to avoid another tragedy. It is shocking that all the samples so far tested have failed. The Statement does not make clear what the Government are doing to assist local authorities and other organisations when their buildings fail the fire safety test. The Government need to go much further than just saying, “Landlords must provide alternative accommodation”. We want to have a clear explanation from the Government of what they are doing to assist landlords in coping with this challenge—and that is not addressed in this Statement.

Finally, the Minister said that he would update the House on a regular basis—but we are going into the Summer Recess in three weeks and are not back until September. What plans do the Government have to ensure that, while we are in Recess, Parliament, the media, survivors and their families and the public are properly informed about what is happening; what progress is being made; and when things are proving more challenging than they thought they would be? The Minister may not be able to address my last point when he replies, but I trust he will agree to take it back to the department and will return to the Dispatch Box to address it before the Recess.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I agree with the Minister that it was the right decision for the Government to make it clear that there would be no prosecution of those who may have illegally sublet flats. The Government were also right to say that the resignation of the leader of Kensington and Chelsea council was the right thing for him to do.

It is now three weeks since the catastrophe that should never have happened hit Grenfell Tower. It is also eight years ago today since six people died in the fire at Lakanal House in Camberwell, following which a coroner’s report published a number of recommendations that were sent to the then Secretary of State. That occurred in 2011—six years ago. As a consequence of that fire, guidance to social housing providers was issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government. Does the department know which local authorities undertook works to meet the recommendations in that guidance? Is there a list of what each local authority—or local housing provider, for not all are local authorities—actually did?

The Minister referred to 181 out of 181 failures in cladding tests. It is clear that those tests are vital, but I understand that it is not simply a question of the cladding: it is also the insulation and the void behind the cladding that can cause a fire to spread so very quickly. I was struck by a briefing produced by the Association of British Insurers, which I saw today, about approved document B. This document defines fire regulations in England and the Association of British Insurers urged a comprehensive review of it in response to the Lakanal House fire.

It repeated that recommendation when it responded to the housing White Paper. Its briefing stated:

“The ABI recommends that the Government urgently revise Approved Document B to reflect the fire safety risks associated with modern building materials, techniques and construction methods, deviating away from a focus on more traditional masonry builds”.


I say to the Minister that that is a very important issue. I do not think that action as a consequence of that can simply await the result of a public inquiry. It is extremely urgent. Local authorities and local housing providers should be told what action they should take within a matter of weeks. We should note that the ABI has urged this review since 2009.

There has also been a problem with emergency planning that I want to ask the Minister about, because there was clearly a major failure in Kensington and Chelsea with emergency plans. It took around 48 hours for there to be an identifiable process of who was responsible for what. Even then, there was very serious doubt. Can the Minister commit to the department ensuring that all emergency plans of all local areas are checked out, updated and made robust so that emergency responses can always take place quickly, with the responsibilities of all the different agencies clearly understood and acted upon?

Grenfell Tower was a most appalling tragedy. It increasingly seems as though some of the lessons that could have been learned from previous fire incidents had not been fully taken on board—which means that the speed of response by the Government this time matters very greatly.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before the noble Lord responds, perhaps I could draw the attention of the House to my interests. I am a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 25th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Stunell for his work on the amendments in relation to the National Planning Policy Framework and for his contribution today. We shall see in the months ahead whether the solution proposed by the Minister manages to hold up against any challenge.

As we have heard, as the Bill progressed we had several lengthy debates in this Chamber on pubs and permitted development for alternative uses. I, too, am grateful to the Minister and to the Government for listening so carefully to the views from across this House and for this revised amendment from the other place, which will help greatly with the protection of pubs at risk. It has the advantage of introducing a permitted development right where the proposal is to extend the range of food to be offered while maintaining the pub itself. Beyond that, planning permission will be required before a pub can be demolished or face a change of use. That puts powers into the hands of local people and local planning authorities—here, I remind the House of my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association—and that has to be beneficial.

I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned on this issue, including the Campaign for Real Ale and the British Beer and Pub Association, and to those from all parties—including my colleague in the other place, Greg Mulholland—who have spoken and campaigned in support of it. I am very pleased to commend the Commons amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as this is my first contribution on these matters, I refer Members to my declaration of interests in the register. I declare that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham, a vice-president of the Local Government Association and the vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Beer Group.

In respect of Motion A, I am disappointed that the other place did not accept the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, although I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, that the other House did not divide on the issue. I hope that the noble Lord, with his colleagues in the department, will keep this matter under review so that, if it turns out that the provision needs to be strengthened, we can return to it at a later date. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, made a very important point about the primacy of the NPPF.

In respect of Motion B, I am delighted that the Government have listened to the campaign both inside and outside Parliament. I pay tribute to two Members of the other place—Charlotte Leslie, the Conservative Member of Parliament for Bristol North West, and Greg Mulholland, the Liberal Democrat Member for Leeds North West—for their campaigning over a number of years to bring about this change.

I also thank all the Members of your Lordships’ House who supported me in the debate and in the Division Lobbies. I particularly want to thank those Conservative Members who voted with me and those who kindly abstained, as that played an important part in getting a large majority when I tested the opinion of the House. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, for his generous support in the debate, as well as others, such as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. I am also grateful for the support that I received from the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Scriven, and others.

The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, corrects a loophole that was of great harm to successful pubs, and it protects and helps them. In the previous debate I was very clear that the intention behind what I proposed was never to keep open a pub that was not a successful business but to support successful businesses.

I like pubs and I like a pint. Like the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, I probably should have bought a few shares in the odd pub or brewery; I have certainly spent enough money on beer over the years.

I also pay tribute to the fantastic work done by Tim Page, the chief executive of CAMRA, Amy O’Callaghan, its senior campaigns officer, and all the members of CAMRA in branches across the country who emailed and phoned us and Members of the other place.

This amendment is important, and I am grateful to the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, for listening. It is an example of the House of Lords doing its job well. By winning the argument on the original amendment, we created the conditions for the Government to think again and we have a great solution today that I am delighted to support.

Combined Authorities (Finance) Order 2017

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 30th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I shall make two brief points. First, the powers and the checks and balances proposed in the order seem appropriate, but I note the final paragraph of the Explanatory Memorandum concerning monitoring and review, which says:

“Mayoral combined authorities will be required … to put in place an extensive programme of evaluation”.


I suggest to the Minister, not least because there are two different methods for creating the mayoral budget now—for most the precept, and for the West of England by agreement of the constituent councils—that evaluating how that works could well be something for independent review as opposed to being done by the combined authorities. I hope the Minister will pay some regard to that.

The other issue is that I did not quite understand what the Minister said about audit and, in particular, scrutiny. There is a very tight timetable between the beginning of February and the beginning of March. There is to be a budget proposed by the mayor, then to be agreed by the combined authority. The combined authority is of course scrutinising that mayoral budget, except that the combined authority itself is subject to scrutiny. My question is: at what point will the scrutiny arrangements that have already been approved by another order apply? Will there be a role for the scrutiny panel before 1 March, or will the scrutiny panel put forward its views at a date between 1 March and the date at which the constituent councils are setting their budgets, which need to come very early in March? There is a process issue about the role of scrutiny, because I think the Minister said that the combined authority has a scrutiny power over the mayoral budget, but the combined authority is actually itself subject to a formal statutory scrutiny arrangement.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my declaration of interests and put on record that I am a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I have no objections to the order before us and I am very happy to agree it. There does, however, need to be a wider debate at another time about where we are going with local government in England outside London. I will leave that for another day.

The section of the order with respect to mayors’ budgets is particularly welcome. I was pleased that the Minister made reference to the fact that there is a veto provision. All mayors will be mindful of that but, equally, it is set at the high bar of a two-thirds majority, or, in the case of Tees Valley Combined Authority, of a three-fifths majority. That is an important provision that mayors should be aware of.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made important points regarding auditing and scrutiny. I welcome the Minister’s response to that. I assume I am correct that if local electors have objections to the council they can make these as normal, but could the Minister confirm that as well as he can in writing?

For the record, in the previous debate when asking about mayors and their function the point I made was about selling land below market value, not at market value. Will the Minister also respond to that point in writing?

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 8th February 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I am aware that I have tabled a number of amendments to this section of the Bill. I am also aware that some detailed discussion has taken place outside the Chamber. I am generally content that we are moving in the right direction and do not intend to delay the Committee for long.

We welcome the statutory framework for dealing with temporary possession. Amendment 88 seeks to make it clear that an acquiring authority may serve one or more notices under the clause. I was concerned that that was not very clear from where we stand at the moment. I would like to hear a response from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, in respect of this amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 89, 91, 92, 93 and 94 in my name. These five amendments relate to Clause 17, which makes provision for a person affected by temporary possession to serve a counternotice to limit the total period which the temporary possession can last to 12 months in the case of a dwelling and six years in any other case. Leaseholders can also serve a counternotice providing that the acquiring authority may not take temporary possession. Having received the counternotice the acquiring authority must decide whether to accept it, withdraw the notice or proceed to take the land permanently.

As drafted, Clause 17 seems unnecessarily complex. The hope is that the Government might be able to simplify it without losing any of its statutory force. Regarding Amendment 89, Clause 17 applies wherever an acquiring authority gives notice of intended entry on to land for a temporary period to a person who is either the freeholder of the land affected or a leasehold owner. The clauses that follow seem to have a different counternotice procedure, depending on whether it is a freeholder or a leaseholder. So in connection with Amendment 89, is there a need to distinguish between leaseholders and freeholders? This amendment and the consequential amendments seek to avoid that and therefore to simplify the clause.

Amendment 91 refers to Clause 17(3), which allows a leaseholder to give the acquiring authority a counternotice to prevent it taking temporary possession of the land. It appears that this right is not available to freeholders, who can serve only a counternotice limiting the period of temporary possession. Surely, this right should be available to freeholders. This amendment therefore seeks to clarify the matter by stating:

“The owner may give the acquiring authority a counter-notice which provides that the authority may not take temporary possession of the owner’s interest”.


We then have consequential Amendments 92, 93 and 94. Clause 17(10) states that nothing in that clause,

“prevents an acquiring authority acquiring land compulsorily after accepting a counter-notice or withdrawing a notice of intended entry”.

My question is: should a permanent acquisition be available for temporary land unless a counternotice has been served requiring a permanent rather than temporary acquisition? Clause 17(8) is relevant in this respect. Amendment 94 would therefore leave out lines 38 to 40 on page 15. The concern is that landowners could potentially face a period of six years of temporary possession with the acquiring authority then deciding to acquire the land permanently. In the interests of fairness, the land should surely have been acquired permanently in the beginning. Scheme promoters should know how they wish to use the land and whether it needs to be permanently acquired from the outset.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley]

Clause 27 relates to the no-scheme principle. In moving Amendment 107, I wish to speak also to Amendments 109 and 111.

Clause 27 seeks to put the no-scheme principle in the compensation code on to a statutory footing. The Bill defines the no-scheme principle as,

“any increase in the value of land caused by the scheme for which the authority acquires the land is to be disregarded”.

Amendment 107 seeks to take this further to make the Bill state that,

“any increase in the value of land caused by the scheme or the prospect of the scheme”,

should also be disregarded. The Government have tabled a very similar amendment. I welcome that amendment and do not plan to say any more about it.

I turn to Amendment 109. New Section 6A(3) on page 21 of the Bill states:

“In applying the no-scheme principle the following rules in particular … are to be observed”.


This amendment seeks to delete the words “in particular” given that new Section 6A contains five rules which are clearly defined. I will come on to Rule 4 in a moment. If one has rules defining what the position is, why do we need the words “in particular”? That implies that there are other rules that might be considered and there is no indication as to what those might be. The current position is that only the statutory disregards can be taken into account in disregarding the scheme. This provides clarity over the valuation exercise to be undertaken. I hope the Minister will agree that “in particular” on page 21, line 28 should be taken out.

Finally, Amendment 111 relates to Rule 4. The purpose of scheme cancellation being on the valuation date is to avoid the need to speculate on what may have happened between the date of cancelation and valuation because they are the same. It is not clear what the purpose of Rule 4 is. It seems to be unnecessary and likely to create confusion, particularly in the context of the other four rules. I hope the Minister will be able to explain why it forms part of the Bill and why the words “in particular” need to appear in new Section 6A in Clause 27. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I will be brief. In this group, I have Amendments 116, 117, 118 and 119. The first three seek to leave out “highway” on page 24, lines 14, 16 and 17, and insert “transport project”. We thought that would make the issue clearer. New Sections 6D(3), 6D(4)(a) and 6D(4)(b) in Clause 27 use “transport project” and I therefore did not understand why later in the same clause it was referred to as a highway scheme. Can the Minister explain why that is the case and if my amendments are not necessary? If they are, I hope he will accept them as it is odd to move from the wider and encompassing definition of transport project to the narrower definition of “highway”.

Amendment 119 seeks to provide further clarity by removing “announced”. In these sorts of schemes you get into arguments about when things were announced so we thought it would be much clearer to put,

“first proposed in consultation with the public”.

There will be an actual date on which a consultation is started and when papers and a clear plan are sent out. We thought this would be much better as we do not want disputes later because everyone is arguing about when the scheme was formally announced. That is the purpose behind the amendment and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, we have moved on to the no-scheme principle. The problem with this principle is that since it was first established it has been interpreted in a number of complex and often contradictory ways. Clause 27 is intended to clarify the position. It creates a statutory no-scheme principle and sets out a series of clear rules to establish the methodology of valuation in the no-scheme world. It also extends the definition of the scheme to include a relevant transport project in circumstances where land acquired in the vicinity for a regeneration or redevelopment scheme is facilitated or made possible by that project. We are extending the scheme because we want to ensure that an acquiring authority should not pay more for the land it is acquiring by reason of its own or someone else’s public investment.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for explaining the need for Amendment 107. The Committee will have observed that it is similar to government Amendment 108, so I am pleased to say that I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord. It is entirely correct that increases, as well as decreases, in the value of the land caused by the prospect of the scheme should be disregarded.

Amendment 109 was also proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. He argues that the words “in particular” should be omitted from the introduction to the rules defining the no-scheme world as they imply that some other rules might also be in play. He argues that the rules set out in new Section 6A should be an exclusive list. The Government’s expectation is that in the vast majority of cases the application of the rules as set out will be sufficient to establish the no-scheme world. There may, however, be rare cases in unforeseen circumstances where the Upper Tribunal considers that the application of the rules alone would not give a fair result. Retaining the phrase “in particular” gives the tribunal sufficient flexibility in these rare cases to fall back on the underlying no-scheme principle set out in new Section 6A(2) and its own common sense to arrive at a fair outcome. While I appreciate the noble Lord’s point about the need for clarity, the Government’s view is that the Upper Tribunal should retain this flexibility in order to reach a fair outcome in such unforeseen circumstances.

With Amendment 111, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and government Amendment 112 we now move to consideration of the rules themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, argues that Rule 4 is unnecessary and should be omitted. The Government’s view is that it remains necessary in order to complement Rule 3. Rule 3 assumes that there is no prospect of the same scheme or any other project to meet the same or substantially the same need as the scheme underlying the compulsory purchase. Rule 4 assumes that there is no prospect of any other scheme taking place on the land concerned. As currently drafted, this is too wide, so Amendment 112 restricts Rule 4 to disregarding only those schemes that could be undertaken only by the exercise of statutory functions or compulsory purchase powers. This means that the prospect of schemes brought forward by the private sector would still be considered as part of the no-scheme world. This is a fine point of valuation practice. In the light of what the noble Lord said, I think that the Government should further consider this issue very carefully with the expert practitioners who may conceivably have been briefing the noble Lord to find a solution.

Amendments 116, 117 and 118 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. New Section 6D(6) specifies that when the scheme to be disregarded under Rule 3 is a highway scheme, the reference to “any other project” includes another highway scheme to meet the same need as the actual scheme. This provision reflects the planning assumption in Section 14(5)(d) of the Land Compensation Act 1961. It is important that the assumptions for the no-scheme world and the planning assumptions that should be applied in that no-scheme world should be consistent. The current Section 14 was substituted by the Localism Act 2011. A similar provision was added to the original version of Section 14 by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. The noble Lord put forward a powerful case that this clarification could apply equally to other transport projects. If it did, Section 14 would also need to be amended to keep the two sets of assumptions in step. I think that this is another issue which the Government should reflect on with expert practitioners.

Turning to the definition of the scheme that must be disregarded before compensation may be assessed, government Amendments 113, 114 and 115 make some small adjustments in the context of the extension of the scheme to relevant transport projects. These have arisen from discussions between the Government and the Greater London Authority and Transport for London, which have only recently been concluded. I am very happy to give details if noble Lords would like them, but as they are relatively small adjustments, I propose to skip that part of the text.

I now return to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. Amendment 119 seeks to clarify new Section 6E(3) which disapplies Section 6E for land bought after a relevant transport project was announced but before this Bill was published. If such land were to be included in a redevelopment or regeneration project in the vicinity of that relevant transport project, it would be valued as if the relevant transport project was not part of the scheme to be disregarded.

The noble Lord’s amendment is much more specific than the Bill as currently drafted. The Government’s view is that such precision may not be necessary. The provision refers to an event that has already happened, and it is quite possible that a project may have been announced in some other way than that specified by the announcement. If so, it would be unfair to restrict this provision because the announcement did not fit within the somewhat narrow definition proposed.

However, having said that, it might be possible to clarify, perhaps in guidance, exactly what is meant by an announcement. That is certainly something that I would like to reflect on. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, to withdraw Amendment 107.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 2nd February 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I hope the Minister will understand that this is a very important issue. The reasons for that have been extremely well explained in the speeches that have been made so far. The noble Lord, Lord Horam, made an extremely helpful and important point, as did others, about the problems that exist. In a nutshell, those problems can be explained as follows. On the first day of Committee, my noble friend Lord Stunell pointed out that emerging neighbourhood plans are showing a greater appetite for more housing, precisely because they have more say in the way in which they build their community. In other words, it is in all our interests to promote neighbourhood planning. However, the second problem is that only around one fifth of the country is engaged in neighbourhood planning. As we know, in those places that do not have parish councils, it is a slower process. But as we also know, you do not have to have a parish council to undertake the neighbourhood planning process.

I hope the Minister will be willing to look at this issue between Committee and Report, because we will be coming back to this on Report. The Bill says that neighbourhood planning is important and must become more important. But as a consequence of that, local planning authorities must do more to promote neighbourhood planning. It is for them to decide whether that is through the creation of more parish councils under the review procedures that exist or through the other means that exist. This is a very important issue. It is not going to help the Bill if we simply end up with not many more people engaged with the process.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I have only a few brief remarks to make on this amendment. To go back again to my own ward, in Crofton Park, we have a neighbourhood forum and are tempted to set up a neighbourhood plan. We are one of the places in London that is trying to do this. It is a difficult process, but I certainly see the value of it. My fellow councillors and I, along with community members, are working towards that. We hope to get it approved and to put it to a referendum among local residents.

The noble Lord, Lord Tope, is right: there is only one parish council in London, and it is the Queen’s Park parish council in Westminster. It was set up in 2014 after a referendum, and it is based on the Queen’s Park ward of Westminster City Council, which is a Labour-held ward—there are not that many Labour-held wards in Westminster—but it is non-political. I do not think that parties contested the election there, so it very non-political, and by all accounts it works very well and is a very good thing.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was right in what he said about parish councils and neighbourhood plans. They are largely in more rural areas. I know the east Midlands well, and I have come across the Deeping St James Parish Council in Lincolnshire very close to Peterborough. I have many colleagues and friends who are involved in that parish council, and it works very well. They certainly look at their rural area and are very conscious of the planning that takes place there. I accept that in many cases it is as the noble Lord described.

The only issue I have with the amendment is that this is a new duty for local government and perhaps funding should be addressed as well. Perhaps the Minister will address that when he replies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I shall be very brief but want to ask the Minister four specific questions about Clause 8, which will help us when we come to Report. Clause 8 was a late addition to the Bill; it was not in the initial draft that went to the House of Commons. It would help if the Minister could explain why it was felt necessary to include it.

My first specific question is: can a county refuse to undertake the work and, in that case, what would happen? Secondly, can a county subcontract the work to somebody else, which would presumably include the use of consultants? Thirdly, if it does, how is local knowledge about the district in question going to be guaranteed in constructing the plan? Fourthly, with reference to Schedule 2, it looks to me as though a county can charge a district whatever it likes, so what action do the Government plan to ensure that cost recovery is reasonable?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before the Minister responds, on the point raised by my noble friend Lord Beecham about difficulties with the Sheffield city region, my understanding is that it is North East Derbyshire District Council and Chesterfield Borough Council in Derbyshire which wish to join. I think that Bassetlaw District Council in Nottinghamshire may also want to join. The legal action is being taken by Derbyshire County Council, which of course partly comprises the north-east Derbyshire and Chesterfield areas. The problem is with three districts in two counties, but one county council has raised the legal action on the points that my noble friend outlined.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

On that specific point, perhaps when the Minister responds he can tell the Committee how the policy has arisen. Where are the examples of the councils that do not have these plans? Why do the Government think it so necessary to take such a wide-ranging power, as the noble Baroness asked? Clearly, there must be some very serious problems that the Government want to address for them to take such wide powers. I would love to be informed about what those are.

[Lord Shipley]

The Minister kindly answered three of my four questions. The missing answer was on the right of a county to charge whatever fee it wishes to. It is an important issue and, if he prefers, the Minister can write to me, but in Schedule 2, lines 31 to 40 rather suggest that a county can charge a district whatever it wishes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, in his amendment. I simply ask for the Minister’s guidance, either now, in writing or at Report. I draw his attention to the Fixed Odds Betting Terminals All-Party Parliamentary Group, which launched a report earlier this week on the subject. It drew attention to the London Borough of Newham, which has succeeded in using cumulative impact assessments to curb the development of new bookmakers. Broadly speaking, the noble Lord’s amendment is about change of use and new betting offices and payday loan shops. The APPG report was about fixed-odds betting terminals, and I am not sure that it directly related to the location of payday loan shops. However, there is clearly a problem with cumulative impact. Newham Council has adopted policies to curb the development of new bookmakers. The APPG says that:

“While being a helpful mechanism to stop the expansion of future bookmakers, this would not, of course, provide a mechanism to deal with current bookmaker premises and clustering”.


There is, therefore, a very serious issue here and it would be helpful if the Minister could look at it before Report, with a view to having a further debate at that point.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I will make a couple of brief comments before the Minister responds, including one about payday loan shops. I should declare in this context that I am a director of a credit union—London Mutual Credit Union, which is based in London and covers four London boroughs: Southwark, Lambeth, Westminster and Camden. We are also the credit union to the Armed Forces: a number of our members are from the Armed Forces.

I was conscious that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, and others, encouraged the Government to take action in the previous Parliament in respect of the interest rate, and that is very welcome. There is, however, an issue—we certainly get it because our main office is in Heaton Road in Peckham. About 10 doors along is The Money Shop. We often get 50 to 60 applications to join the credit union but also people walking in off the street. Often they have been to The Money Shop and, because of difficulties there, people have suggested that they go down to the credit union. They join, and the first thing that we do is try to find out what their problem is: how big their debt is—get it all out of them. Then, if we can, we will find them a loan. We want to pay that direct to The Money Shop, to end the problem there, not just give it to the people themselves.

There is, however, an issue with a number of these high street shops and how they operate. I would certainly like to see more action—more ability for a local authority to look carefully at its area and see whether there are enough such shops. Unfortunately, as we have all seen, the problem is not borrowing more money, it is getting a grip of your finances and controlling them. Credit unions are one type of organisation that can help with that, along with others such as money advice services.

Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 26th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the discussion of these orders. I remind the House of my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association. I seek clarification on two points in one of the orders, because, broadly speaking, most of what is proposed is not contentious for us.

I have a question about the combination of polls, and my query lies with paragraphs 8.7 and 8.10 of the Explanatory Memorandum. The memorandum says, rightly, that when you combine polls, that produces cost savings. Given that this is a new election, can the mayoral elections be held on the same day as a general election? In other words, might we end up with three elections on one day? I note the following words in paragraph 8.10:

“Government is confident that electoral administrators will be able to effectively administer combined authority mayoral elections and other polls that they may be combined with”.


That says that the Government are confident, but what evidence were they given by electoral administrators? Running three elections at once is clearly more complicated than running two.

My second question relates to the election booklet that the Minister referred to. Is it the intention to distribute that election booklet alongside poll cards? Clearly, if it is a single process, that will reduce costs at a time when local authorities are having great difficulty in balancing their budgets. Having to pay for two separate distributions will be more expensive and unwieldy than if both are delivered together.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my declaration of interests—specifically, that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

As we have been told, the orders before us today, if approved, will provide the framework and rules for the conduct of elections for directly elected mayors of combined authorities, specifically for the elections taking place in May this year. The second order, as we have heard, deals with the process of addressing vacancies in the office of mayor and sets out how those will be dealt with. I am happy to support both orders before the House this afternoon.

I note that the first order contains matters such as the spending limits and the formula to calculate those limits, the number of voters needed to sign a nomination paper to make it a valid nomination, and other administrative matters which are quite normal for elections.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has raised a couple of points and I shall be interested to hear the reply from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. However, he may be pleased to learn that in fact I have no questions for him in respect of either order and am content to approve both.

Combined Authorities (Overview and Scrutiny Committees, Access to Information and Audit Committees) Order 2016

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 26th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, this a slightly lengthier discussion than we had on the previous two orders. It results from there having been great cross-party collaboration when the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill passed through your Lordships’ House. That work developed the basis for the proposals now before us. Let me say at the outset that much of it is welcome.

For the avoidance of any doubt, I want first to ask the Minister to confirm that the order will apply to all combined authorities automatically and that, if there is to be a combined authority in future which does not have a mayor, the order will apply to it as well. I then have a few specific questions. When the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill passed, we had established separate overview and scrutiny committees and audit committees—it was right to separate those two functions. But in the case of audit, I hope that the Minister can confirm that it will encompass risk, particularly investment decisions.

One function of overview and scrutiny will be to scrutinise risk, but there are advantages in audit committees having a clear risk function as well, because some investment decisions will be very big financial decisions. It was good to see from the list of consultees that the National Audit Office and the Centre for Public Scrutiny were consulted, because one of the aims that we had with the Bill was to ensure that value-for-money audits were done, as well as simply financial audits. Can the Minister confirm whether the proposals given to the Government by the National Audit Office and the Centre for Public Scrutiny have been incorporated in this order?

I have a further concern that there is to be no governance framework for the operation of overview and scrutiny committees. My questions are: how does an overview and scrutiny committee know what it needs to scrutinise? Who will tell it what it should review? Am I right in assuming that agendas and papers for the meetings of combined authorities will be made available, and that they will include both the public and private parts of those agendas? We need to be clear exactly what is proposed here. When the Bill was passed, there was a lot of concern about access to meetings. We do not want to see decisions being taken in lengthy pre-meetings of combined authorities, from which the press and public are excluded, with the formal meeting of a combined authority being very limited in time and content. I submit to the Minister that such an outcome would not be good for local democracy or for the success of mayoral combined authorities in the public perception.

The absence of a governance framework places a lot of responsibility on the shoulders of the committee members, in particular independent members, to ensure transparency and openness. I suggest to the Government that they should monitor the appointment of independent members. There is clearly a process, which we welcome, but I think the Government will need to monitor that appointment process to ensure that it is indeed wholly transparent.

I have a further query about timescales, which relates to the two months allowed for a combined authority to respond to an overview and scrutiny committee. The timescales, as I understand them, are these: an overview and scrutiny committee will call in a decision if it wishes to, which will prevent implementation for up to 14 days. When that committee has held its meeting, the combined authority or mayor must hold a meeting to consider what it has said within 10 days. Potentially, that gives 24 days for the total time taken to that point. However, a period of two months is then allowed for the combined authority to respond to the overview and scrutiny committee, to explain why it made its decision. That is too long. I have not understood why it should take two months. I would be puzzled if it needed to take more than a fortnight, but there may be a reason that I have not understood. I am happy to seek the Minister’s reassurance on this point.

Finally, I would like an explanation, if the Minister is able to give one, for the statement about protecting the overview and scrutiny committee’s independence in the Explanatory Notes. The relevant bullet point, at the top of page 4, says that,

“to protect the overview and scrutiny committee’s independence, the committee may not include any officer from the combined authority or the combined authority’s constituent councils”.

That sounds eminently right and reasonable. What I am not clear about is exactly how the overview and scrutiny committees will then be staffed. There will clearly have to be staff members present, writing opinions and papers for the attention of scrutiny committee members, which implies quite significant staffing. That may be fine, but presumably it also implies that the officers giving advice to the overview and scrutiny committee will potentially be required to give evidence to the overview and scrutiny committee. What power does an overview and scrutiny committee—which may not include any officer from the combined authority or the combined authority’s constituent councils, so there must be independent officers present—have to require an officer who has given advice to a combined authority to attend a meeting? I should be grateful if the Minister will explain that point.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, again for completeness, I refer the House to my interests set out in the register in so far as they are relevant to the issues being debated. I should state at the outset that I am content with the order before your Lordships’ House and am happy to approve it.

Generally, the order brings combined authorities under arrangements similar to those that exist elsewhere in local government. The new combined authorities, which will elect their mayors this May, will have considerable powers over large areas of service delivery and policy that have a tremendous effect over people’s lives. The powers that it is proposed to give to these new elected mayors and combined authorities are, in some cases, not yet through their parliamentary procedures, such as bus franchising, which is being debated in the other place as it considers the Bus Services Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raises some important points about how the procedures will operate in the future and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response.

I am pleased about the measures in respect of overview and scrutiny, which can serve a valuable function. I have first-hand experience of this, so I hope that the House will allow me to explain with a local example how valuable the function is. I have told the House many times before that I am a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham. I may not have mentioned that I am a supporter of and season ticket holder at Millwall Football Club. I and many other councillors, residents and campaigners—including Vicky Foxcroft, the Member for Lewisham Deptford, Neil Coyle, the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, and the Association of Millwall Supporters—were concerned at the proposals for redevelopment around the Den, which would not deliver any social housing or enough affordable housing. The club was clear that that potentially put its future at risk in a part of south-east London where it has been part of the community since 1910. Councillor Alan Hall, Councillor Brenda Dacres and others on the overview and scrutiny committee were able to provide robust challenge to the proposals. Other cabinet members, including Councillor Joe Dromey, also opposed the plans, which in recent weeks had a considerable amount of publicity in the Guardian, the Evening Standard, the South London Press, Private Eye, Sky Sports and the BBC. I have been struck by how many members of the House’s staff have said to me as walked past, “Defend my Den, my Lord”.

Yesterday it was announced that the planned compulsory purchase of land leased to Millwall would not be going ahead and that the local authority wants to get around the table to seek agreement on the way forward in a manner that brings together the club, the Millwall Community Trust, which does a great job with children in the area, and others to secure the redevelopment by agreement. Overview and scrutiny played an invaluable role in achieving that turnaround, as did the Association of Millwall Supporters, by highlighting concerns and issues. That is a local example of effective overview and scrutiny. I am happy to support the order.

Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2016

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 21st December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the order. It is a final step in the devolution of powers to an elected mayor and combined authority in Greater Manchester, and should fulfil its basic aim of providing those local leaders with the levers they need to boost economic growth, which is the Government’s intention. We should congratulate the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and all the leaders and councillors in Greater Manchester for the leadership that they have shown to the country as a whole.

One of the things that is particularly impressive about the order today is that if you look carefully at the checks and balances for the local authorities, the combined authority and the elected mayor, and how they relate to each other, those checks and balances seem appropriate. I think they will help give legitimacy to decisions so that neither the elected mayor nor the combined authority is overly exposed to a decision, and local authorities will still be able to maintain the necessary powers and influence that they want to maintain.

Of course devolution will work only where there is trust and public support. There is evidence that both are available in Greater Manchester, and for that reason it is particularly good to see in paragraph 9.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum that “No guidance is necessary” from the Government on the order. It is one of the few occasions that I can recall where central government has not felt it necessary to issue guidance. However, I have one caveat to that, which is about the guidance that was promised in the passing of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act a few months ago about openness and transparency in decision-making, by which I mean access to meetings for the public, the press and the media. Will the Government be very clear that all these will happen, as was promised at that stage?

Some of the context of the order and the areas that it covers—housing, planning, transport, education, training and culture—is new, while some is not. There used to be regional spatial strategies when we had regional development agencies; and of course the Bus Services Bill will give a range of transport powers to a combined authority that will exist in future. So not everything that is going to be devolved actually has to be part of this, but the powers have been extended. That is welcome, but an acid test of the success of devolution will lie in further education and skills training, and whether there is an increase in vocational training and a reduction in the number of those not in education, employment or training—NEETs. It is very important that this model produces success. There have been so many models for skills policy over recent years, and I hope that the combined authority will take very great care to ensure that this will improve skills outcomes.

I have two final points. In terms of the powers that are being conferred, there is no mention in the order of social care—yet, at the end of November, Greater Manchester asked for an extra £214 million to cover social care costs. The Financial Times reported that it had appealed to the Treasury for the extra money, saying that,

“the ‘financial pressures in social care pose a real threat’ to Manchester’s ability to deliver devolution because of the resulting strain on the city’s NHS budget”.

That was three weeks ago. Could the Minister update us on that situation, because there is no mention in the order of adult social care?

My final question is as follows. The Minister kindly responded to a Written Question I tabled on 9 November about which other combined authorities would have mayoral elections in May 2017. He replied that they would take place in Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, Sheffield City Region, Tees Valley and the West Midlands. He indicated that there might well be others in addition. It is now 21 December, those elections are due to take place next May, and yet this order for Greater Manchester is the first. What timetable are the Government working to for all the other orders that will be coming to your Lordships’ House?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, the order before us today is one of a number of orders in respect of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and puts powers in place so that when we get the mayor elected next May, they can hit the ground running. The powers here include the power to prepare a spatial development strategy, which will of course enable the authority and the mayor to improve growth in the conurbation. As we have heard, the powers are similar to those already exercised by the Mayor of London and will be exercisable only by the mayor. Compulsory purchase powers will be exercised by the mayor with the agreement of the combined authority. I am supportive of the powers.

Greater Manchester is growing, with jobs being created, enabling the conurbation to increase in prosperity, so these powers are very welcome. The delivery of more housing and housing development is important, as is ensuring that we have transport that meets those growing housing needs and works well. I was pleased to hear about the additional powers in respect of bus franchising in advance of the buses Bill, and that again is very welcome.

However, perhaps the noble Lord could just comment on the court case involving Sheffield and the consultation there. There will be other devolution deals around the country, and it would be helpful to know what is being decided about the action by Derbyshire County Council. I agree with many of my noble friend Lord Beecham’s comments in respect of Greater Manchester. We obviously wish the authority very well next year in the elections, but equally it highlights how much money the authority has lost recently and going forward. The noble Lord mentioned the northern powerhouse, but we need to address the fact that billions of pounds are being taken away from Greater Manchester areas, and other areas as well. It is important to note that we risk ending up with a northern poorhouse rather than a northern powerhouse.

I also have a brief comment about the report in the Times today on voting that my noble friend Lord Beecham mentioned. It is only speculation in a newspaper, and it may not be true, but if it is true, I assume at some point next year we will have some legislation on what you need when you go and vote, such as passport, driving licence or utility bill. As my noble friend said, if you are 18, you may not have any of those three documents in your possession at all. We need to know a bit more about that. I accept that the Minister may not be able to tell us today, but we need to find out about it urgently.

It is disappointing that we get reports of these things in the media when I and other noble Lords have talked about the underregistration problem in this country. Millions of people should be on the register today but are not; the Government have done next to nothing on registration in recent years. That is a real shame. Whatever comes from the Government must be proportionate and not an overreaction. I would be interested to know how many court cases there have been for voter fraud in this country—I think there have been very few—and how many convictions; I think it is even fewer.

I remember that when I worked for the Labour Party, I brought a case against the Conservative Party in Slough. We won the case and the councillors concerned were all kicked out of office. That involved multiple applications to register to vote. I remember the official showing me the pictures of these houses. They were burnt-out shells, but dozens of people were registered as living there. In court, it was quickly shown what was going on; people were quite rightly kicked out of office and some went to prison. I would be interested to know how many people the Minister thinks such court cases involve, but we must work on registration; that is the most important thing. With that, I am content with the order.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who I thought made an excellent case for Amendments 1 and 113 in his name and, in so doing, I should say that I am the vice-president of the Local Government Association. I simply add a little for the Minster to take away, because the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, talked a great deal about the importance of bus services for employment opportunities and for training purposes.

In the consultation that is talked about—a huge amount of consultation will take place on this Bill, not just in terms of this amendment—one type of organisation that should be automatically consulted is employers’ organisations. There can be huge problems for people who often are on a low income, live in remote places and have no access to a car and who, therefore, need to be able to get to employment and training opportunities, often at unsocial hours, by public transport. Therefore, it is important to consult those people. Proposed new subsection (4)(d)(iv) in Amendment 1 refers to,

“organisations, or types of organisation, specified by the Secretary of State in regulations made by statutory instrument”.

I hope very much that employers’ organisations and jobcentres will be included in that list.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as this is my first contribution to the discussion on Report of the Bus Services Bill, I refer noble Lords to my register of interests: I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I should also say that, generally, we on these Benches welcome the provisions in the Bill.

Bus use in London has grown while outside it the picture has been very different. We are hopeful that when the Bill passes into law, it will help to halt the decline in bus use outside London, particularly in rural areas. The two amendments in this group are in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty. As we have heard, Amendment 1 seeks to place a duty on county councils in non-metropolitan areas to consult on the needs for local bus services. It would require them to issue a consultation document and, following the consultation, to issue an assessment on the need for local bus services in the county and, further, to seek to secure the provision of bus services that address the needs identified that would otherwise not be met, as my noble friend outlined. The amendment is very focused and requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance to assist county councils in making sure that they have properly responded to the outcomes of the consultation. The amendment goes further in setting out what the consultation must address and who, at a minimum, must be consulted. I agree with my noble friend Lord Whitty and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about ensuring that employers’ organisations are properly consulted. However, the amendment gives considerable scope to the Secretary of State to set out and shape the consultation to be undertaken.

Amendment 113, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty, would place a requirement on the Government and the Secretary of State to issue a national strategy document within 12 months of the Act coming into force. Noble Lords will recall that that was discussed in Committee. As we have heard, there is no need for the bus industry to be the poor relation of other transport services. I fully support this amendment’s objective of requiring a proper national strategy. As we have heard, this document will set out the objectives, targets, plans and funding mechanisms for the delivery of bus services over the next 10 years. That is a very welcome idea. We have heard and seen the decline in bus services outside London. The Bill is an attempt to halt that decline. It seems sensible for the Government to pull those things together into one document. I hope that the Minister will give a positive response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 14, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, returns to a key part of the Bill raised both at Second Reading and in Committee. Under the Bill, only mayoral combined authorities can automatically opt for a franchise scheme if they believe that that is right for their area. All other categories of authority have to seek the permission of the Secretary of State to go down that route; that in turn would need to be approved by the affirmative procedure.

Our amendment, and Amendment 25 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, would put the whole question of franchising on a level playing field. We support the Bill in general, as I have said, and there are many good measures in it which we believe would improve bus services outside London. We have evidence that franchising works here in London and, where an authority thinks that that is the right model for it, we want it to be able to take it up, improving the number of passenger journeys and driving up standards.

With the change of government, I hope that there has been and continues to be a period of reflection on the whole question of mayors and the exclusivity of powers under the Bill that can come only when having a mayor. If an area wants a mayor, that is fine; if it does not, that is fine too. I hope that we can move away from effectively forcing authorities down a certain path if they want to have certain powers to a much more consensual approach, where it can be determined locally what is the best model for a locality and the full suite of powers be available, no matter what model is chosen.

Amendments 24, 26 and 27, also in my name in this group, are complementary, although in my opinion Amendment 25, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, works better. I beg to move.

[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.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Randerson. It may appear to be an issue of semantics on the term “may specify” in new Section 138C, to which the amendment relates. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, wishes to amend the words to “must specify” and my noble friend Lady Randerson prefers the words “must consider”. I think the term “must consider” is better. “Must” is stronger than “may” and “consider” does not require a specification. I am not sure it is necessary to require an enhanced partnership to define or specify what a ticket looks like.

There are two issues in the long list of possible requirements in new Section 138C. Some have a national standard. They may relate to issues such as emissions, which my noble friend Lady Randerson has talked about, and they should apply across the country. Others are simply best left to the local arrangements and definitions of what seems appropriate. I hope that when we come to understand a little better what the list of requirements in new subsections (3) and (4) amounts to, we can get some closer definitions.

I understand that it is not necessary for this to be in the Bill, but the issue will arise in the context of statutory guidance. In that context, having read the list of requirements, it is helpful to consider what the appearance of a vehicle being used to provide local services should be. I do not fully understand whether the appearance refers to, say, the colour of a vehicle. In London, buses are red; in other places, buses in the same transport authority can be different colours. It is important that those matters are considered. Of course, appearance could relate to the number of times a bus is washed. On the appearance of a bus, if it gets dirty in winter, we prefer to have windows that people can see out of. I understand that this is a very small example, but we need to be a bit clearer about what the list of requirements actually is and, if they are requirements, whether they must or may be specified, and whether they must be considered. Having read all this very carefully, I have come to the conclusion that the words “must consider” are a better way of explaining what should be done.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response so we can understand a little better what this means by the time we reach Report.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken in Committee today I draw the Committee’s attention to my being a member of a local authority and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am very supportive of Amendment 84A, moved by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, which seeks to put in the Bill a requirement that an enhanced partnership scheme,

“must state the minimum standards of service to be provided”.

It seems sensible that we should state clearly what the expected minimum standards are for a scheme. My noble friend laid out clearly the reasons why. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, will give a positive response.

I am supportive of the other amendments in the group as well. Amendment 84B, again in the name of my noble friend Lord Berkeley, would toughen up the clause by replacing “may” with “must”. All of us want to see the Bill become law and improve the bus services provided to people outside London. Where we can, being much clearer and certain on what is to be done is helpful. In this respect, removing “may” and inserting “must” is helpful. Amendments 85 and 86 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, would place a requirement on enhanced partnership schemes to consider what are the other requirements or standards to be provided.

The final amendment in this group is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. It seeks to add a further provision on the collection of qualitative performance measures, specifying that these could include matters of passenger satisfaction. The service that passengers receive in all respects should be measured and taken account of. If people are unhappy about the cleanliness of their bus or other matters when they travel, that should be taken account of by the authorities. I look forward to the noble Lord’s response to these amendments.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 20th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, although there has been the ability for fees to go up in line with inflation, there is a general acceptance of the anecdotal evidence from local planning authorities that their costs are not being met, but we have to marry that up with performance and efficiency.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I know that we are going to come back to this next week but, before the noble Baroness sits down, can she confirm that, when we have all these reviews, she does not envisage a situation where we end up with the local authority being able to charge one set of fees for a planning application, while a lot more could be paid to another provider who could also do it but at a more expensive cost? I think that it would be totally wrong to allow there to be two levels of fees—you could have the council charging a fee but allow some other provider to do the same job for a larger fee.

[Lord Shipley]

Before the noble Lord sits down—that is actually the subject of the amendment that I shall be moving next Monday.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 14th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

Will the Minister be really clear about guidelines? This is about regulations and guidelines. I am now looking at the policy fact sheet, which the department published. It makes it clear that there is going to be a single set of regulations for these measures, that is, the phasing out of lifetime tenancies. However, the regulations will be subject to the affirmative not the negative procedure. Could the Minister confirm that fact? It then says that the regulations will be developed in discussion with local authorities and the regulations and provisions in the Bill will come into force early next year. That, therefore, is early 2017. It is therefore easy to share the guidelines that will be written because there is from now approximately 10 months for those guidelines to be shared.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, to help noble Lords with this Amendment 82GAE, we are going to speak to it in its place, which obviously will not be tonight.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I shall start again in a moment.

I can almost hear the Minister’s reply, which may be to tell us that all this will be made clearer in regulations, but as the Minister well knows, we have no regulations. There are no draft regulations and it is essential that, before Report, we have regulations which explain clearly what the Government’s intentions are on matters such as buy to let, subletting for short periods and leaving and letting a starter home within five years. In the case of this probing amendment, we need to know whether payment for a starter home can be in cash. I hope that the Government will rule this out today.

The basic principle is that cash buyers do not need a starter home. The simplest way to address this is via a requirement that the purchaser takes out a mortgage. Indeed, a key part of the National Planning Policy Framework definition of affordable housing is an eligibility test, with its provision for those whose needs are not met by the market. However, that is not a cash buyer, whose needs can self-evidently be met by the market. Therefore confirming in the Bill that anyone buying a starter home must do so via a mortgage would restrict market abuse.

Amendment 41B would require a first-time buyer to occupy their starter home as a principal residence. Thus, starter homes must not become second homes, and buy to let should be prohibited. However, there may need to be some consideration prior to regulations being published about how a property could be let out for short periods, where, for example, a purchaser of a starter home has a six-month temporary work transfer to another place. Therefore I am very keen to know what the Government’s thinking is on this matter. In the face of the fact that the Bill lacks so very much detail—even the technical briefings lack detail to enable us to respond properly to exactly what is planned—I hope very much that the Minister will be able to clarify these matters.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments contains some important provisions that would be welcome in the Bill and should not be left hanging in the air to be covered by regulations at some point in the future. Amendment 37B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, would add the words “via a mortgage”. It is extremely important that we are clear about this, because if the property was purchased in any other way, such as by a cash buyer, that would signal that the person or persons had no need to take advantage of a product with a generous discount that could be realised in a relatively short space of time.

Equally, Amendment 41B, which is also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, makes clear that the person who buys the property should buy it to be their home. Again, I am fully supportive of that.

On government Amendment 42A, I will be interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, explain the reasoning behind the proposed change to the words in Clause 2(3)(c).

Amendment 43, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham, would add the criteria of “lives or works locally” to the Bill. That is aimed specifically at helping local people to take priority in getting a home in their local area rather than being forced to go somewhere else, and would help in building stable communities. I will be interested to hear the Government’s reasoning for their Amendments 44A and 44B in turn, which seem to turn on its head the requirement that individuals should be under 40. Is this because the Government have realised that in the present climate it will be very difficult for people under 40 to get a deposit together? Does the Minister envisage that this will apply to all areas of England or maybe just London in particular, where there is a problem with the affordability of housing?

Amendment 45, in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lord Beecham, would place a duty on the Secretary of State to consult the relevant local authorities and/or the Mayor of London when seeking to vary the price cap for starter homes. The requirement to consult relevant bodies when considering making this price cap change is good practice and will aid the Secretary of State in understanding the specific local circumstances that he or she should probably take into account when making such a change.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments looks at starter homes. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, will be aware that while this is a flagship policy of the Government, considerable reservations have been raised both inside and outside Parliament about the whole scheme. That was very evident in our previous debate.

We are in the midst of a housing crisis and these proposals on their own do not go any way to solving the crisis. They may even make things worse as funding is diverted from other programmes to support this one. That is one of the failures of the Bill; it does not do enough to support other housing tenures. The starter homes product is unaffordable to many people in most areas. At Second Reading, I pointed out that you could need an income of up to £77,000 per annum in London to afford one of these homes.

Although the Minister will not accept the point about the price cap being seen as a price guide, I certainly share the concerns of Mr Nick Hurd, the Conservative Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, when he drew that conclusion when the other place debated this Bill. The proposals actually make things worse by diverting funding from other schemes and allowing starter homes to replace low-cost rented homes within planning obligations, which will reduce the supply of housing available to those on low or modest incomes. That local authorities are able to grant planning permission only for certain residential developments, as specified requirements relating to starter homes are met, is of considerable concern also. Depending on what the regulations say, this could have a very damaging effect on the supply of other tenures of social and affordable housing.

We heard a lot about localism in the last Parliament, just as we did about the big society, but it has gone the same way and is rarely mentioned from the Government’s Dispatch Box these days. My understanding of localism is that it surely must be right for local authorities to be able to utilise their understanding of local housing markets to reach agreements with developers to ensure that planning obligations are met that deliver local housing need as part of a wider duty to ensure that there is a wide range of housing tenures to meet housing needs.

We have heard that there could be a loss of up to 71 affordable homes of every tenure for every 100 starter homes. The Government, of course, talk of working in partnership with local authorities, but the worry is that the Secretary of State will use extensive powers of direction to override any local development documents identified as incompatible with starter home duties. Can the Minister comment on how the Government will work in partnership with local authorities to deliver this policy and also satisfy other housing needs and not just ride roughshod over genuine concerns and a desire to deliver housing tenures that meet identified local housing needs? Also, by exempting starter homes from the community infrastructure levy, the policy reduces the scope of local authorities to secure the necessary contributions towards funding infrastructure.

The first amendment in this group is Amendment 37 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham. It adds the words,

“new homes across all tenures”,

into Clause 1. It is fairly straightforward and takes account of the point that I have made that promoting one particular type of tenure at the expense of other types, regardless of local need, is not a sensible policy. The amendment would put in the Bill a more sensible statement with respect to the starter homes programme and other housing tenures.

Amendment 47 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and other noble Lords, is one that I am very supportive of. It would make clear in the Bill the duty of the local planning authority in relation to starter homes and other tenures. Amendment 48 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham qualifies the duty of the planning authority to promote starter homes where that would prevent other types of affordable housing being built. This is important, as the local authority would have a better understanding than the Secretary of State of the local housing need in a particular area.

Amendment 48A would require the local planning authority to take proper account of housing need and viability for particular groups of people—those of pensionable age, below average income and those in need of a statutory duty to house. The amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, would put in the Bill a requirement for an adequate supply of affordable homes for key workers and families requiring temporary accommodation from the local housing authority. There are other amendments in this group, which will be spoken to by the noble Lords who have tabled them. I am supportive of all the amendments. Their aim is to ensure that proper account is taken of local housing need in considering the building of starter homes. I am sure that this will be an interesting and wide-ranging debate. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 37, to which my name is attached. I declare at the outset that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I shall also speak to Amendment 47 and, in practice, several others.

The overriding concern in this group of amendments is that the Bill must be about renting as well as home ownership. That is why we have two separate groups—the last group looking at ownership and this one looking at all tenures. The principle is very simple. Renting must still be supported for lower-income households where it is not possible for them to buy their own property. I remind the House that there are some 1.3 million people on social housing waiting lists in this country. So I hope that the Minister will understand and accept that the Bill cannot just be about starter homes for owner occupation but must include social renting.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, Part 2 of the Housing Act 2004 repealed Part XI of the Housing Act 1985 and introduced a new definition of a house in multiple occupation and, in April 2006, a new scheme for controlling and licensing such houses that were deemed a high risk. Houses in multiple occupation include bed-sits, shared houses and hostels but not self-contained flats. They share one or more of the basic amenities, such as the toilet and the washing or cooking facilities. Those properties which met certain conditions had to be licensed. These conditions included the building being three storeys or more high and occupied by five or more tenants, in at least two households. The regulations have worked well but more needs to be done. The private rented sector is increasing, as we have all heard, and so are houses in multiple occupation. We need to provide protections to this growing group of tenants, who are particularly at risk.

The purpose of Amendment 19 is to go further and bring more properties into scope. To be part of the mandatory licensing scheme under my amendment, the only two conditions which would need to be met are that the property has to have five or more people living in it and in at least two households. As I have said, houses in multiple occupation pose the greatest risk to the tenants living there. It has been established by research undertaken that people living in bed-sits are six times more likely to die as a result of fire than people living in an ordinary house. A number of factors can be at play here, from a vulnerable person living in the accommodation to the quality of the construction or conversion of the property. The time has come to extend these provisions and I hope that we get a favourable response. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I do not wish to detain the Committee but I simply want to say that this is an extremely interesting proposal, which I hope the Ministers will look at very carefully. We have a lot of experience in recent years of HMOs and the legislation about having three storeys. We need to look carefully at this because the proposal as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, seems to be one meriting some further close attention.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I have not spoken to the leaders of Chesterfield or Bassetlaw councils but I have spoken to the leaders of Derbyshire County Council and Nottinghamshire County Council. It is an area I know quite well, but I accept we are not going to agree on all our points.

This is also an area of considerable natural beauty with a thriving tourism industry. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could talk about the devolution deal for Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. Discussions are taking place with those councils, but there are concerns. They are worried that any deal there will be potentially undermined by having further discussions about other councils leaving that area. This is not a good way of going forward.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, there are advantages and disadvantages when this House considers a Bill in advance of the House of Commons. The advantages are that we can take an early view of proposals and make suggestions for the other place to consider. Among the disadvantages is that we can be asked to consider a very large number of amendments from the Government at a very late stage. This afternoon, we have 87 government amendments, of which 59 are in this group alone. This adds to the complexity and means that we have to be very careful in agreeing to amendments, as we have not had fuller consideration of them in Committee.

That said, in many cases, the amendments proposed by the Government improve the Bill. They clarify and enable, and they promote localism. We will shortly, I hope, have a further discussion about Amendments 31A and 36A, but the Minister has moved that we agree with Amendments 1 to 18 at this stage, and I want to say one or two things about the overall content and context of the amendments under discussion. The promotion of localism has to be a partnership if it is to be successful, which I think is what the Minister has said. For that reason, the additional powers now being proposed for the Secretary of State need to be used very sparingly, and I hope we will hear from the Minister further confirmation as the afternoon progresses that this is indeed the Government’s intention. In that context, Amendments 31, 31A, 36 and 36A are extremely important, and I support the amendments which will be moved later this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham.

We have also received the advice of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which published its comments on 22 December. That committee rightly pointed out that when we considered the Bill in the summer, the Government gave assurances that the powers of the Secretary of State over brokering bespoke deals would be constrained by the need for all councils in a given area to consent. That requirement no longer has to apply, at least until March 2019.

On these Benches we have always been strong advocates of localism and the further devolution of powers to local authorities or combinations of them. But partnership and consent matter if devolution is to work. For that reason, I hope that we will hear assurances from the Minister that the powers will be used very sparingly, that they will only be used in circumstances that promote effective localism and that the procedural guarantees sought by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, will be followed so that local authorities are encouraged to work collaboratively together.

I have two further points. The Minister referred to the fact that there will be an annual report. I am very pleased about that in the context of all our debates in Committee and on Report. Although not all of the amendments proposed by your Lordships’ House were agreed in the other place, the annual report will give a focus for clarifying and sharing what has happened, what good practice has been promoted and which pilots have proved successful. It is very important that that does not stay in Whitehall with Ministers but is shared with the whole country. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that not only will that annual report be issued but this House will have the opportunity to debate it.

The second issue I want to draw attention to from the Minister’s opening speech is her use of the words strong governance. She said that an elected mayor model is a model for strong governance, so that the public know where responsibilities lie. I have expressed doubts about the single-leader model and the ability of a single person to do so many things—perhaps, to be the police and crime commissioner or to take on responsibility through the combined authority structure for fire and rescue. If NHS matters or responsibility for children’s services are to be devolved to a combined authority level, it seems difficult for one person to do so very much and remain democratically accountable. I can hear the Minister’s reply, which will be that those matters will then be devolved to other leaders within the combined authority. We have had these debates before in the summer. Of course, we do not have elected mayors yet in most places and will not for the next two or three years, but it will be very important to review how they are performing as part of the annual report.

I have two concerns about this in a democratic sense. One is that councillors of constituent authorities will know less and less about what is actually happening in their areas because more and more decisions will effectively be centralised. Secondly, the general public may not understand who will be responsible for a decision and where it should be challenged if they do not agree with it. Reviewing that constantly seems very important.

That is all I want to say at this stage. I may say a bit more when the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, moves his amendments to Amendments 31 and 36 but, for the moment, I think that there is a different mood in England now about devolution. There are problems and, in some places, occasional conflicts, but, in the main, there is a willingness to accept devolved powers from Whitehall and Westminster—indeed, a very strong desire to do so. The moves of the previous Government and this one have demonstrated that the appetite is there for those devolved powers to be granted.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, earlier today I spoke about the need to ensure accountability in this new layer of local government. I said that one way to increase public confidence in this structure would be to reduce the likelihood of a one-party state being created in a local area. The best way to prevent it is to introduce proportional voting through the single transferable vote for local elections, which Scotland, of course, already has.

Whenever power has been devolved in the UK in recent years, it has been accompanied by a change to a more proportional voting system. I believe, and have said several times during our debates on this Bill, that further devolution of powers will be put at risk if they are not matched by improved legitimacy, accountability and strong scrutiny and governance arrangements.

In Scotland, STV was used for all council elections in 2007 and 2012. There are no longer uncontested seats there and no council is controlled by single parties with huge majorities that do not reflect that party’s share of the vote. In England and Wales, however, there are more than 100 councils where one party commands more than two-thirds of the seats. In Scotland, there is none. Compare that situation with what the Government now propose for this new tier of local government. First past the post elections are what generates the one-party state. With a more proportional voting system, legitimacy, accountability and public confidence in the new structure would be enhanced. Given that multi-party politics is now firmly established in the UK, voters’ wishes at the ballot box need to be translated proportionately into seats at the local government level. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 75 is not one which we on these Benches can support. I declare an interest as an elected local councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham.

Although this amendment is concerned with elections to local councils in England, I mentioned in Committee that we had a referendum in 2011 on changing the voting system for elections to the House of Commons. That was wholly rejected and I have seen nothing following on from that result, or anything that has happened subsequently, which leads me to believe that the country wants to change the voting system for any elections. I also mentioned that we have got ourselves into a bit of a mess in recent years. We have managed to heap on voters a whole plethora of voting systems and that is not a good thing to do. I accept that, where a proportional system has been chosen, it should remain. However, I would like to see us use fewer systems.

I also referred to the fact that I thought that one of the worst systems was the supplementary vote system. I have observed many counts where people have only put a cross in the second column, which means that their vote is discounted. Therefore, I would like to see a reduction in the number of systems being used, and we certainly cannot support the amendment tonight.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, this amendment is about the voting system for local government elections in England and Wales. Like Amendment 73, it would introduce a fundamental change to these. As I explained in the case of the earlier amendment, we are clear that issues such as this need to be considered in a far wider context than this Bill. Even in terms of timescale, when STV was introduced in Scotland, the review of the 32 local authorities took two years, and clearly in England that would take much longer. Notwithstanding any of the arguments for or against the amendment, as I said in the previous amendment, this is not the Bill to be talking about changes to the franchise. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, pointed out, the people of this country said no to the alternative vote in 2011—I was one of the people who campaigned against it. Again, it is not the place of an unelected House to propose changes like this. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 29th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this proposed new clause to be inserted after Clause 10 gives effect to the policy of my own party and that of the Liberal Democrats to allow citizens upon reaching the age of 16 to vote in elections. In this case, the entitlement is for local government elections only. I suspect that this amendment is not going to receive a favourable response from the Government, which is most unfortunate.

The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, my noble friend Lord McKenzie and me is one that the Government really should have a more open view of rather than the all too familiar no that we have been getting when this issue has been raised in recent times. I am well aware that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who is not in his place at this late hour, is not a supporter of this policy. However, when we spoke in your Lordships’ House recently, he made some excellent points that I agreed with very much. They regarded the need for much more citizenship education, which I think is very important. I see a programme of that sort of education leading to actually being able to register and to vote at 16. We do not have that at the moment, which is very much to be regretted. The arguments for allowing people to vote at 16 have been rehearsed many times before. It has been a policy in the manifesto of the Labour Party and, of course, the Liberal Democrats. It is also a policy of the Scottish National Party, the Greens and, of course, the Scottish Conservative Party, whose leader, Ruth Davidson MSP, said that she was a fully paid-up member of the vote-at-16 club. I am not sure what the position of Plaid Cymru is, but I am sure that it would support the policy as well.

As the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said, the game changer was the decision taken to allow people at 16 and 17 to vote in the Scottish referendum last year. As he said, the young people embraced their civic duty with pride and a real sense of responsibility, and they were part of the decision on the future path that their country decided to take. It was the right thing to do and it is generally accepted across civil society that it was a good thing. After the referendum, the Scottish Parliament voted unanimously to allow votes at 16 for all elections to Holyrood, and next year 16 year-olds will vote for the new Assembly in Scotland. I am sure that the Welsh Assembly will take a similar view. We are in a position whereby, in different parts of the United Kingdom, there are different ages at which people can vote, which is not a good place to be. It is a mess, and one that this House should address.

What is also interesting is that in the three Crown dependencies close to Great Britain, you can vote at 16: in the Isle of Man and the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey. You can also vote at 16 at certain elections in Germany and Norway. I have no doubt that this change will happen, and sooner than most people think, and for me it cannot come soon enough.

Has the Minister seen the report from the Election Commission on the progress of moving to IER? Here we are talking about votes of 16 and 17 year-olds when, due to the action of the previous Government—who of course included the Liberal Democrats, so they cannot get away with this one—as of May 2015, the number of 16 and 17 year-olds actually registered to vote has dropped by 47%. There are now only 247,705 people registered to vote as of February 2014. That is a shocking figure and one that both parties in the coalition should be rightly ashamed of. Perhaps in responding the Minister would agree with me that EROs need to take the issue of engagement properly and work particularly to get these young people back on to the register, working with schools and colleges, as takes place in Northern Ireland. It was right when the Labour Party called for EROs to be given a duty to get everybody aged 16 and 17 on to the register.

In conclusion, I support the amendment, and I am sure that the policy change will happen. However, we have a real problem with young people not being on the register, and we need to do something about that.

[Lord Shipley]

I add two facts for ministerial consideration. One fact that really struck me about the Scottish referendum was the very high turnout rate of 75% of 16 and 17 year-olds, when for the 18 to 24 year-old age group it was only 54%. That is very marked. What it demonstrates is a clear interest in current affairs and their futures. The question is whether an age group that can demonstrate such a commitment to thinking about their future should be denied a vote generally.

Secondly, decisions are made regularly by local councils which impact on the daily lives of 16 to 18 year-olds. A very good example is the cost of public transport for young people—the cost of bus services, urban rail systems and so on. I have come to the conclusion that the voice of those young people is not adequately heard. I am in favour of votes at 16 and have been for many years, but I am even clearer now that the time has come to implement the change that Scotland has trail-blazed.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

Amendment 62 relates to the transfer of trusteeship of almshouses. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for writing to me in the Recess to say that she was sympathetic to the case for this amendment and would be happy to consider the matter and discuss it further even though there was a need to be cautious about extending the scope of state regulation in relation to charitable bodies. I hope that discussions can continue between today and Third Reading.

At present, if a regulated housing association sells occupied social housing, that housing association requires the consent of the regulator, who in turn requires the housing association to consult its tenants. By contrast, when the control of an almshouse is moved from one corporate trustee to another, the ownership of the property remains with the Official Custodian for Charities. For that reason the regulator’s consent is not required for the change even if the residents’ homes are in effect being sold against their express wishes. The amendment would ensure that if a registered provider wanted to transfer the trusteeship of occupied dwellings, the consent of the regulator would be required. The regulator could in turn require the housing association to consult residents.

I move this amendment because a housing trust—the Anchor Trust—is transferring the corporate trusteeship of 11 almshouses spread through London and south-east England to another charity. Many residents oppose this proposal and would prefer to be transferred to a more local charity instead. The issue here is about the rights of tenants. If this was a stock transfer, say, of local authority housing, tenants would have the right to be consulted and, indeed, to give their consent to a transfer of their properties. The question that lies at the heart of this is: if there has to be consultation and consent given for a stock transfer, why when almshouses are being transferred is there not to be full consultation and consent? The legal situation is complicated because of the charitable status of the almshouses. I understand that in this specific case there have been meetings between Members of Parliament and the chief executive of the Anchor Trust and with the Charity Commissioners. However, we need to address this issue in Parliament because I cannot see why a different system should apply to tenants of almshouses as opposed to tenants in other forms of social housing.

I recognise the need for further work to be done on the legal issues. I also recognise that we are still on Report. However, I hope that there is time to look further at those legal issues to see what might be done about this situation. In the mean time, I hope that it might be possible for full consultation and consent to be obtained from those tenants affected by this and any other proposed transfer of almshouses. I hope that it will be possible for that further work to be presented to your Lordships' House at Third Reading.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I offer my support and that of the Opposition to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, as I have done on a number of occasions on Report. He has identified a problem that needs to be addressed. It involves real people with real concerns. If the matter requires further work, as he says, and it can be done—I hope that the Minister will comment on that—the issue may be sorted out. Given that we are discussing a charity, I understand that the issue may be more difficult than it at first seems, but I hope that the government Front Bench will give a positive response.

Amendments 65 and 67 in this group stand in my name. Amendment 65 would ensure that a parent company of a group of housing associations can be registered even if it owns no housing itself. This would allow the regulator to regulate group members via the parent rather than directly if he thinks that that would be more effective. Amendment 67 concerns the appointment of members to housing association boards. The law as it stands allows the regulator to make unlimited appointments to a registered provider’s governing body provided that they remain a minority. For a 10-member board, it would allow the regulator to make nine appointments. My amendment limits the number of appointments the regulator may make to no more than four. This is a proportionate number of appointments and would enable the regulator to strengthen the board by adding members with sufficient skills and abilities to deal with any concerns that they may have about the board’s performance. However, the number would not be too overbearing as this sort of appointment would be of a temporary nature to help the housing association board discharge its duties more effectively.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 5th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I was hoping that the Government would have indicated that they were going to accept this amendment or perhaps even sign up to it before this afternoon’s debate. The amendment seeks to amend the Housing Act 1996. It would insert an additional clause, adding a new Section 184A. The new clause would put a duty on local authorities to offer advice and assistance to applicants for the purpose of preventing homelessness, and it would give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations in this respect if he so wished. It is a proportionate amendment that places a sensible and not too onerous duty on local authorities.

I am sure we all agree that homelessness must be eradicated. The Government, local authorities and the voluntary sector need to work together to develop strategies and initiatives to ensure that all citizens can sleep in a bed in their own home. Only with a multi-agency approach can we develop solutions to this grave social problem that destroys people’s lives and their prospects for the future.

People become homeless for a whole variety of reasons, including mental illness, social exclusion, family breakdown and repossession—to name but a few. What is clear is that if you are homeless you are a vulnerable person no matter what your circumstances have been in the past, and as a society we need to be in a position to provide help and support.

I am not sure whether any noble Lords have ever been homeless. I certainly have not, but it is fair to say that if you find yourself in that position you will not be in the best frame of mind. You will most likely be distressed and worried and not thinking too straight or clearly. It is a shocking truth today that in one of the richest countries in the world there are still people living on our streets. You can find rough sleepers close to here. I do not mean the protesters in Parliament Square. One need only walk down Victoria Street on the way to Victoria Station, or past Charing Cross Station and Coutts Bank to where rough sleepers gather in the evening for soup and bread. One of the most tragic scenes is of young people with their lives in front of them living on the streets. They are easy prey for a whole variety of people who would do them harm.

My amendment is a small step in the right direction, which I hope the Government will take. Amendments 12, 13 and 14, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, are worthy of support and would ensure that people are given improved notification of advice and assistance that they receive. The amendments would build protections for vulnerable people, ensuring that they understand their rights and are not missing out on the support that they are entitled to. I am sure noble Lords will be aware of the report of the Local Government Ombudsman, Homelessness: How Councils Can Ensure Justice for Homeless People, which is strongly critical of the way in which many councils prevent or delay homeless applications. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16. Amendment 12 would require local housing authorities to provide written notification of housing and homelessness advice and assistance given under housing option schemes and to undertake other measures for the prevention of homelessness. Central to many councils’ current approach to homelessness and its prevention is the concept of housing options. Under this model, people who approach the council for assistance are required to have a formal interview in which advice on housing options is offered. This is a prerequisite not only for those seeking homelessness assistance but for those seeking to join the housing register or to apply for social housing under a choice-based letting scheme. Under the current system, housing options advice is subject to virtually no statutory guidance.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, drew attention to the recent report by the Local Government Ombudsman, and I should like to say a little more about that as it is highly material to this part of the Bill. That report highlights instances of council gate-keeping, where local authorities delay or prevent homelessness applications for no good reason. It notes how many people are prevented from making a homelessness application even when they are clearly in a priority need category. It warns that councils could be guilty of maladministration, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, pointed out. It also states that some councils fail to do enough to prevent people becoming homeless, fail to look into whether a person needs help and fail to recognise an application for help with interim accommodation when someone is legally entitled to it. The ombudsman’s report specifically calls on councils not to use homelessness prevention activity to block people from making applications, illustrates why this amendment is necessary to ensure minimum standards for housing option services, and, crucially, recommends that councils explain any decisions in writing.

The ombudsman, Dr Jane Martin, said:

“We see too many cases where individuals have suffered injustice at a particularly precarious moment in their lives when they most needed help. Often extremely vulnerable, they can find themselves sleeping rough or on people’s sofas, struggling to find the foothold that would allow them to change their circumstances. When councils fail to give them a helping hand at that key moment, it can affect that individual for years”.

In many instances, people are not being permitted to make a homelessness application. In other cases, they may accept the offer of a private sector tenancy, believing this to be made under one of the statutory homelessness duties, only to find that the authority does not regard itself as having taken a homelessness application at all. The amendment would ensure that people who seek homelessness advice are fully aware of whether they have made a homelessness application, and are given a letter clarifying the advice that they have received.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley]

I shall speak also to Amendment 21. In a sense, the ground has already been covered because Amendment 16 relates to the emergency duty to accommodate to ensure that non-priority-need homeless people are entitled to emergency accommodation. To repeat the position, at present, if a household is deemed to be in priority need but intentionally homeless, in addition to providing advice and assistance, the authority has a duty to provide suitable accommodation for a period that would give the household a reasonable chance of finding accommodation themselves. The amendment would extend the duty to homeless people who are not in priority need. The evidence base for the amendment has been previously stated, so I shall leave it at that, but other Members of your Lordships’ House may want to add to it.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I support Amendment 16 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. The amendment seeks to make provision for non-priority-need homeless people to be afforded emergency accommodation. The charity Crisis collected considerable evidence that the homelessness service of local authorities does not always provide single people who are not in priority need with any meaningful assistance. A small extension of this provision to those who are not in priority need may be all that is needed to get people back on their feet, to help them to stay in employment and to prevent them from falling into a downward spiral. If the Government are not minded to accept the amendment, I ask the Minister to give the House an assurance that this matter will be looked at by the ministerial working party on homelessness chaired by Mr Grant Shapps MP, on which the noble Lord, Lord Freud, and the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, serve as members.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, was very brief in moving this amendment, for which I am grateful. I think that the best thing I can do is to say that I will certainly make sure that it is considered by the homelessness working party and I shall ask the Minister to take that on board. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I rise in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Given the range of the amendments that are about to be debated, having the context to them is very important in understanding the strategic problem around housing and homelessness. We have a rising number of households. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is absolutely right; we should be building somewhere between 200,000 and 250,000 new homes a year to keep abreast of new household formation. We got half the figure—around 139,000—last year.

Meanwhile, the housing market is volatile. There is a rising number of mortgage repossessions. There is 1 million more people renting their homes now than were renting six years ago, largely because of the economic situation and the difficulty of getting a mortgage. There are now more people wanting to rent than there are vacancies. In some parts of the country, rents are rising much faster than inflation, reducing individual capacity to save. Disposable incomes are declining, which adds to the problem. While short tenancies might be acceptable for many single people, they are not at all good for families where continuity and security matter, or for neighbourhoods where continuity builds social cohesion.

There will be very great pressure on the rented sector over the next few years. It is crucial that we ensure the protection and rights of tenants rather than seeing everything from the perspective of supply. We are not building enough homes, which is a failure of successive Governments over many years. This situation must be addressed urgently. It is the context of my view that we need to have local housing strategies because each part of the country will be different. Unless we understand the problem that we are trying to solve, we will not have the evidence base, making housebuilding programmes, the modernisation of homes and so on more difficult to achieve in the right numbers.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for his kind words from the Government Front Bench. They are much appreciated. The Opposition fully support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty. The proposal is strategic and practical. It sets up a context for the debate and other sections of the Bill. It provides both the Government and the local authority with valuable information for assisting the planning for housing need in the future. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to accept my noble friend’s amendment. If not, I hope that she will feel able to take it away and look at it over summer, maybe in the terms referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, in the previous amendment.