Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My noble friend is largely right. That is why fuels derived from waste products get two renewable transport fuel certificates, whereas short rotation first generation crops get only one certificate. However, there is a difficulty and the policy needs to be designed so we do not get indirect land use change problems. My honourable friend Mr Norman Baker is working closely with the European Union to get a solution to that problem.

[Lord Whitty]

I understand this global concern about using what was previously food production land for biofuels. However, when we first proposed the obligation, about 50% of the market was expected to be met from waste using the kind of operation that my noble friend Lord Kennedy is concerned about. There is also the separate problem that British Sugar has planted new land and made a substantial investment. If we renege on or reduce the obligation, it will not bring any return to a major investor in some of our important rural areas.

Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (Tribunal Composition) Order 2012

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I support both amendments, but I will concentrate my remarks on the second. In one sense, I apologise to the Minister for repeating some points that I made in the Moses Room. However, I find that his response—in the Moses Room, here today and in correspondence—does not address the issue that I raised. He claims that he is not basing the assertion that the raising of the threshold will increase the propensity to employ on anecdotal evidence. Yet he does not adduce any statistical evidence. The crude evidence is that the last time the threshold was lower, there was an increase in the propensity of employers to employ. That can be dismissed on the basis that it was part of the business cycle, but I am sure that the noble Lord’s department has statisticians who could take out that effect. We have, as the Minister proudly claimed, had some provision on unfair dismissal for 41 years, introduced in the 1971 Act to which those of us who were in trade unions at the time were, in general, opposed. However, the Government of the day thought that some balance was needed in terms of the attack on trade unions that that represented and individual employee rights. Therefore, they rightly inserted the right to claim against unfair dismissal.

Since 1971, either the threshold or the scope of that right has changed five or six times. There are therefore clear points where a change in the legislation could be related to the change in employment patterns. The Minister and his colleagues have failed completely to adduce any of that evidence and present it here today. Instead, they continue to rely on anecdotal evidence. When we were in the Moses Room, I put this down to listening too much to the saloon bars of the Home Counties; we may since have learnt that it may have been raised in the private dining room of No. 10. Either way, it is not statistical evidence. It is anecdotal and it is not proven that that is how employers actually behave. Until the Government prove that, they have not got to base 1 for justifying the macroeconomic effects of these changes.

For Joe Public sitting on the Clapham Omnibus, it is a pretty counterfactual argument to say that the best way of creating jobs is to allow employers to sack people more easily. Some economics is counterfactual, I agree, but without statistical evidence, it is difficult to argue in favour of these changes. That evidence has never been there. In the mid-1990s, there was the famous case of Seymour-Smith and Perez, which went all the way up to the European Court, about indirect discrimination in terms of the higher threshold. I am not arguing that case now, but I am saying that in the course of it, every court at every level, from the High Court right up to the European Court of Justice, accepted that the Government had not proven that, whether or not this was indirect discrimination, there was a bigger good in that more employment had resulted from an upward movement of the threshold. The Court of Appeal said that,

“nothing in the evidence, either factual or opinion … obliges … us to draw the inference that the increase in the threshold period has led to an increase in employment opportunities”.

That was the case 17 years ago. In the intervening 17 years nobody has proven to my satisfaction that the connection is there. The evidence was not there then and it is not there now.

There is a wider context to this, too, as my noble friend Lord Borrie has indicated. This may be the first of many changes in employment law that the Government are bringing forward, and their intention is probably to do so under statutory instruments. I appreciate that it is the convention of the House that we do not vote against statutory instruments, and we are not doing so today. I have a slightly different view, because in the list of government defeats under the previous Government, the first two were against me, so I do not have quite the same compunction as other colleagues. However, if a central tenet of primary legislation is undermined by a series of statutory instruments as the beginning of this series suggests it will be—3 million people taken out of the protection that primary legislation allows—and that continues, we have to look at the way in which the Government are using statutory instruments. I say no more on that.

The other, wider, point, as my noble friend Lord Beecham said, is that we are talking about a vulnerable subset of the population—people who have been employed for a relatively short time, most of whom, regrettably, do not have the protection of trade unions—which is excluded from the basic right not to be unfairly dismissed. This is part and parcel of other legislation which the Ministry of Justice rather than BIS is bringing forward. We have excluded from access to legal aid not only issues of employment but of housing, social security, industrial injuries, for the most part, and industrial diseases—all of which disproportionately affect the most vulnerable elements of our society.

In his opening the remarks, the Minister said that it is vital that the justice system is fair, independent and must not be compromised. I agree—but if you cannot get before a court or a tribunal in the first place, however good and balanced the court and tribunal systems may be, you are being discriminated against. The combination of taking away employee rights in this legislation and taking away access to legal aid in the Bill we regrettably passed last night is a severe restriction of the access to justice.

I fear that those of us who hoped for a relatively liberal Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice, and a very liberal Minister in this House from that department, will be disappointed. The Ministers’ epitaphs will be that they excluded significant sections of the most discriminated against population from access to justice. That is a bad epitaph for both the parties opposite. I hope that this legislation will not be an additional contribution to that negative effect.

[Lord Monks]

The difficulty with making changes through statutory instruments is that they convey the impression that the changes being made are minor and of a technical nature. However, these changes are not technical and they are certainly not minor. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, 3 million people will be taken out of the scope of unfair dismissal legislation and protection. That is a major change which will have a major impact on the British labour market.

Why is this happening? The justification from the Government is that it will aid job creation. Have any employers said, “If you make that change, we will take on more people”? Have they given any undertakings or promises? Of course they have not. This is all in the impressionistic world and it is a matter of conjecture whether anything will change. I do not believe that it will have anything other than the most marginal effect on employers—and I know a lot of employers—but it will have more than a marginal effect on those 3 million workers, or at least some of them. In most jobs—there may be exceptional ones—you do not need more than a year to check whether or not a person is suitable. Probation periods are rarely longer than one year.

Nor is an employer likely to be found guilty of unfair dismissal if a worker does not first achieve and then maintain the required standards of competence or behaviour. Provided that a warning is given, the employer will not make the minor procedural mistakes that the Minister warned about in his moving remarks. I do not mean “moving” in an emotional sense—I wish to make that clear—but in moving the Motion. Bad employers are being given carte blanche for an extra year and the effect will be a rise in insecurity and grave injustice.

Cutting the role of lay members is not a minor issue—this is a step towards a tribunal becoming a full court, with a judge on his own. That will be a daunting prospect for many applicants, which is softened at the moment by the fact there are lay people with some understanding of their world of work. That is not a criticism of judges, for whom I have a lot of time generally, but we will miss a tremendous amount of experience in tribunal hearings because of this change.

As others have said, these may be the first two steps in implementing some of the ideas that are circling around the Beecroft report. We have not seen the report yet, but this venture capitalist has been let loose like a bull in a china shop in the delicate field of employment law. I ask the Minister for an assurance that if any changes are to be made in the future in employment law, they will not be smuggled in through the statutory instrument route but will be a matter for primary legislation so they can have a proper debate and proper exposure in this House.

Localism Bill

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this amendment, but I feel that I must reply to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. Like many here, I have great regard for the individuals at London TravelWatch and the work that they do. However, the very citation from ATOC carries its own message that, of all the groups in London, the train operating companies would prefer the body which they find they can more easily ignore to the one that they must take seriously. That is entirely in character with the functioning of the TOCs and ATOC. It is precisely to have a much bigger impact on behalf of passengers that it makes sense to make this move from TravelWatch, integrating it into the GLA.

I may have misheard the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, but he seemed to suggest that, if there was that integration into the GLA, there would be a fracturing of the transport voice. Yet the GLA is already holding TfL rigorously to account. I was on the board of Transport for London and I can tell your Lordships which body it was afraid of—it was very much the GLA. It is the ability of that body to pound away on behalf of the passenger that would be gained by this shift, so I support this amendment.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I hope that the Government’s reservations, to which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, referred, are indeed strong. This needs to be rejected. I do not want to repeat everything that my noble friend Lord Faulkner said but I would go for the fundamental point. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, since he is a battle-scarred veteran of the Public Bodies Bill, will probably recall my advocacy of separate representation for the consumer interest in publicly provided bodies and in those which are regulated publicly. The Government wisely backed off from including in lists various bodies, including Passenger Focus, which could have been abolished, while for those that they are going to change they have provided an alternative but still independent body, either in another quango or in the third sector. It is a central provision of public services or those that are regarded as public utilities in this country that we have a separate consumer organisation. That applied when we set up the nationalised industries, when we privatised and liberalised those industries and when we passed the Greater London Authority Act to set up that body. It should continue to apply.

I suppose that I should apply two past interests here, both as a consumer champion as chair of Consumer Focus and as the Minister who, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will recall, brought the Greater London Authority Bill through this House. He will also recall that it was the second longest non-financial Bill ever—the absolutely longest, the Government of India Bill in 1935, was never implemented. The implementation of the Greater London Authority Act has left some problems but I do not believe that this is one of them.

It is important that we retain the distinction between the provider, and those who oversee the provider, and the consumer interest. The mayor is responsible for the provision and the London authority for overseeing that provision. In that sense, they are not much different from a private sector board as regards their consumers, so I am afraid that it does not impress me that all parties on the Greater London Assembly welcome and support this move. It is no more impressive to me than if there was a unanimous vote on the board of Thames Water to say that it wished to abolish the Consumer Council for Water, or that Michael O’Leary and the board of Ryanair said that they wished to abolish the Air Transport Users Council or—to go back to my past interests—that the boards of British Gas or npower should say that they wished to abolish Consumer Focus and any successor powers.

We must distinguish between the role of a consumer interest representative and those who are providing, or are part of the governance structure of those who provide, a service. Indeed, in London, predecessor bodies to this go back to the private company of London Transport, through the nationalisation process, through the GLC, through the abolition of the GLC, into the establishment of TfL and through to the London authority and the 1999 Bill. That was sensible. London Assembly members may well have reservations about aspects of this and may well feel that some changes need to be made—that might be right—but this clause does not say that, nor does it say that there should be some rationalisation between the London authority and Passenger Focus.

It might be conceivable that the transfer of this body into Passenger Focus was a rational move; I do not personally think so, but it would still provide an independent consumer voice focus. Actually, however, for the reasons that my noble friend points out, London is unique in this response. London is the only city in this country where the vast majority of people go to work by public transport. TfL has responsibilities way beyond the bus and train area—for roads, taxis and so on. As has also been pointed out, people outside London, and therefore with no voice in the election of GLA members, have an interest in this. So there is no principled argument that would call for the abolition of this body. I would be prepared to consider, and I suspect that the Government would be prepared to consider, something less than that, which allowed for easier changes, but the straight abolition of an independent consumer voice in the most complex, most difficult and in many respects most integrated transport system in the whole country would be a seriously retrograde move and I hope that the Minister will soundly reject it.

Localism Bill

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 92. Amendment 91 would insert a new clause to give power to the Secretary of State to lay down in regulations the standards that private sector letting agents and management agents must adhere to. This would enable the Secretary of State, at a later date, to lay down statutory guidance to regulate private letting agents. A similar provision was passed recently in Scottish legislation. As there are currently no regulations governing the conduct of letting agents, such a clause would act as a starting point for a debate on what sort of regulation would be effective.

Both tenant and landlord organisations have long reported problems with private sector letting agencies, including the charging of exorbitant fees, failure to enforce basic health and safety standards in properties and inadequate client money protection provisions. The situation is such that the largest professional body for letting agents in the UK, the Association of Residential Letting Agents, which has been at the forefront of self-regulation, is strongly in favour of statutory regulation to tackle problems in the industry. This amendment is also supported by the British Property Federation, the National Landlords Association and housing charities.

The amendment would allow the Secretary of State, following further consideration and consultation, to specify new standards for the regulation of letting agents. It does not require guidance to be drafted immediately but ensures that the possibility is open, and will act as a starting point for a debate on how best to regulate the sector. There would of course have to be wide consultation on the scope and nature of any regulations, but the Bill is likely to be the best legislative opportunity to make progress on this issue for a significant period.

Around 60 per cent of private landlords use one of the estimated 8,000 letting agents or managing agents in England. However, half these agents do not belong to any of the professional trade bodies. Research has shown that tenant satisfaction levels are lower—reportedly 71 per cent—where the property is managed by an agent than where it is managed by a landlord directly, reported to be 81 per cent. In an online survey of 1,289 tenants who visited the Citizens Advice website over a three-month period, it was found that 73 per cent were dissatisfied with the service provided by their letting agent. Less than one-third of agents willingly provided full written details of their charges to CAB workers when asked. There are particular concerns in relation to letting and management agents having a lack of expertise and firms not having professional indemnity insurance or client money protection.

The current voluntary approach has significant drawbacks, with the worst agents being the least likely to submit to a voluntary scheme. Voluntary regulation, covering only an estimated half of all agents, is unfair, as it creates extra hurdles for the more reputable agents while not doing so for those who are most likely to be responsible for problems. The Association of Residential Letting Agents believes that the quickest and most effective method to eliminate unprofessional, unqualified and unethical agents from the rental market is through statutory provision via this amendment.

There is currently no mandatory licensing scheme for letting agents or landlords in the UK despite 95 per cent of consumers believing that there should be. The Association of Residential Letting Agents introduced a licensing scheme for its members in May 2009 which ensures the highest standards of service for those who use members of the scheme. Its introduction was supported by a wide variety of organisations including Trading Standards, Shelter and the National Landlords Association. The scheme delivers higher standards of service for tenants by ensuring that licensed members abide by the relevant codes of practice and rules of conduct, hold recognised qualifications and are covered by professional indemnity insurance, a recognised client money protection scheme and an independent redress scheme. The licensing scheme has many other facets to improve service, such as ensuring that all members undertake at least 12 hours of continuing professional development each year.

I do not regard this amendment as contentious. It seems eminently sensible because it is simply providing a means whereby statutory legislation can be introduced by giving the power to the Secretary of State to do so at some future date.

Finally, Amendment 92 relates to a slightly different issue but it extends the courts’ discretion to postpone or suspend the execution of possession orders in cases where there is no specific statutory power to do so. The problem is that Section 89 of the Housing Act 1980 severely restricted the power of the courts to suspend the effect of possession orders in cases where the courts had no specific statutory power to do so but had, to that point, relied on their general powers. The effect of this was that no possession order could ordinarily be suspended for longer than two weeks; in cases of exceptional hardship the court could suspend further, but only up to six weeks. The effect of this has been that an evicted tenant and his or her family are only permitted two, or at most six, weeks to find alternative accommodation whatever the circumstances of the family as regards, for example, size, medical or location needs or education.

Even if those restrictions were realistic in 1980, they are now out of date, in view of the continued pressure on the availability of affordable housing, the recent reductions in the provision of housing benefit and the increase in the types of tenancy to which Section 89 applies since it was enacted. To find alternative accommodation within the timescale provided by the 1980 Act is virtually impossible, and has been for some time, yet the courts have no power to order more. This amendment would simply enable a court to exercise greater flexibility in considering the suspension of possession orders and to allow the appropriate length in the circumstances of the case, balancing the hardship to the tenant caused by the eviction against the landlord’s need for the property. I beg to move.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I support Amendment 92. Those of us who are looking at the housing market recognise that the role of the private rented sector is likely to increase and that there are serious problems with both quality and delivery within that sector. I am sorry I had to be out of the Chamber when Amendment 85, on the accreditation of private landlords, was debated. However, the vast majority of tenants and potential tenants will come across the property via an agent, and, as the noble Lord says, their actual arrangements for rent, repair and general customer service will be with the agent, not directly with the individual landlord. In those circumstances, the role of lettings agencies and management agencies is vital. Therefore, it is important that this Bill provides for some ability to set standards for them. As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, it is very important that the professional trade bodies in that area—the National Landlords Association and the British Property Federation—support a degree of statutory intervention on this front for the very clear reason that good landlords, effective landlords and landlords concerned with service for tenants can get undercut by bodies that do not observe decent standards.

The amendment is permissive on the Minister and clearly will be subject to some assessment of need. However, as the noble Lord says, if we do not provide for some ability to issue regulations in this area, then a whole sector of housing provision will remain unregulated, with the better agents in that area being undermined by the worse. I hope that the Minister can at least give a positive response to this amendment.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, I apologise for my delay in getting back to the Chamber. I had jobs that I simply had to do in the House.

It is important to consider the impact of this in terms of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, of which I am a member. I wonder whether these are the sort of powers that that committee is very opposed to giving, because they are too wide and would mean that the Government could do pretty well whatever they wanted. I have clear memories of, I believe, the Wilson Government introducing rent controls, which had a disastrous effect. They appeared to work temporarily but were a terrible failure after that. Everyone found that their rents jumped up terribly, which was worse than if they had increased gradually. I have reservations on those two grounds and should like the Minister to take them into consideration.

Localism Bill

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I hesitate to speak, having not taken part in previous work on this Bill, but my noble friend’s amendment and his words bring to mind some research that was brought to my attention some years ago into lone mothers living in isolation with their children, scattered around cities. They were often forced to live a long way from their communities and extended family because there was insufficient housing stock to enable them to be placed closer by. So if my noble friend’s amendment will help local authorities to supply enough housing to ensure that parents—more often than not mothers—bringing up children on their own had easy access to their communities and extended family, I certainly want to support it.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I also strongly support this amendment. First, if we look retrospectively, had this provision applied from the start of right to buy, much of the pressure on social housing, and by extension on other housing sectors, would not have arisen. I am not saying that it would have completely resolved it, but it would have made a major contribution to stopping us being in the position that we are in.

The second point, which the noble Lord, Lord Best, emphasised, is that it would have enabled a lot of our worst housing stock to develop the manner of mixed tenure, creating a stable, reliable and interactive community instead of the isolation into which some of those estates have fallen.

The other point, also made by my noble friend Lord Beecham, is that I do not understand the economics of this. It would be an asset on the books of part of the public sector. Economically speaking, the deficit relates to the totality of public borrowing. In international opinion, raising money relates to the total deficit on public spending. The fact that it is in the Treasury’s accounts rather than the local authorities’ accounts economically makes no difference. It makes a bit of difference to the credibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer from time to time, but economically this has always been nonsense and it is nonsense that we should now end. If we are to interpret localism and self-financing of the housing activities of local authorities effectively, surely this anomaly needs to be rectified. I hope, therefore, that at some stage the Government are going to recognise that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, not least because he is only the second Conservative Back-Bencher to speak in seven hours of debate on Report. I dare say we will hear a great deal more from him and, I hope, others as we go forward.

I entirely endorse the remarks that have been made so far by noble Lords, and I share the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, of serving as a local councillor. It is frequently a local councillor’s task to take up tenants’ complaints, as one does, with the relevant housing department or ALMO—many authorities have now transferred their stock—to help people through the council’s complaints procedure and to help them move complaints to the ombudsman. Many of us have done that. I find it rather patronising of those who suggest that it is somehow necessary to reconnect councillors with social housing. Most of us who represent areas with social housing regard that as part of our daily, weekly and monthly routine.

However, there are some additional issues to which I would like to refer briefly. First, as I read the Bill, there need be no nexus between the individual making a complaint and the councillor for the area in which he lives, because the Bill speaks of a member of the housing authority. It could be from one end of Newcastle to the other in my own case. There is no necessary connection between the tenant and the member he approaches, and that is hardly sensible, even if one follows the line of the Government’s thinking on this matter.

Secondly, I presume that under the adjudication by the ombudsman there may be the possibility of an award of compensation. That is not necessarily binding on an authority, but it is pretty indicative and most authorities, though I regret to say not all, comply with those recommendations and make a payment when one is indicated. On the face of it, it would seem that the individual member adjudicating would also have that responsibility. It seems distinctly worrying that there should be implicit pressure on a member not only to make a finding but also, perhaps, to award compensation. That does not seem to be a healthy relationship between an elected councillor or, for that matter, a Member of Parliament, and a constituent.

The third factor that we may have to bear in mind is that there are pending changes in the legal aid and advice system that will effectively strip people of their right to legal aid and advice. In this housing area, whether it be with local authorities, housing associations or other landlords, there is frequently a need for legal advice and support, and one fears that effectively removing that source will be unhelpful to tenants. Frankly, imposing the responsibility on elected members, whether councillors or MPs, is by no means a substitute for such proper advice.

All these factors tend to the same direction, namely that the amendment should be accepted by the Government. There is no huge political issue here. As we have heard, there is no demand for this outside, from tenants, their representatives or anybody else. There is no logical basis for the recommendations and I hope that the Minister will indicate that she will think again about the desirability of this additional superstructure on a system which is working perfectly well.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, my name is on Amendment 68, which provides for a dual system. I do not think anyone is arguing that the tenants or leaseholders should not have the right to call in their councillor, MP or tenant panel. The issue, as has been said, is whether they should also have—from the start, not just when they have already been to their councillor—the ability to go direct to the ombudsman.

I have two points on this. First, it is not only a contradiction to principles of administrative law, it is also a direct contradiction to most consumer practice in the rest of the economy. As the noble Lord, Lord Newton, said, there are numerous ombudsmen. Some were set up by Parliament, such as the financial services and energy ombudsmen, and some are industry-based, dealing with anything from double glazing to property. In none of those cases is there a filter after the initial filter of having to raise the complaint with the provider in the first place, as my noble friend Lady Hollis has said. After that point, there is not a single example where a third party, of whatever description, is required to intervene. That may be discrimination against the English, but it is certainly discrimination against tenants and leaseholders as compared with any other consumer.

Secondly—this ought to be an obvious point, but it has not yet been spelled out in this crude way—there are a lot of reasons why individual tenants and leaseholders may not want to go to their local councillor. They may have fallen out with them, or had a terrible decision from them, or they may be their political opponent. There are also all sorts of reasons why they may not wish to raise the issue through the tenant panel, although I believe that is a good innovation. They may know people on the panel whom they disagree with or they may not approve of earlier decisions made by the panel. It surely should not be for Parliament to say to them that, despite all their reservations and previous experience, they must go through one of these three channels. All three channels are important and should be there, and if they need to be put on the face of the legislation let us do so. But we must not deny the ordinary social housing tenant or leaseholder within social housing provision the right to go direct to the ombudsman. I plead with the Government to drop this absurdity.

[Baroness Eaton]

My Lords, I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred more positively to the role of councillors than has been the case elsewhere, except for the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I am very supportive of stock transfer, but I do feel that with these arrangements there has sometimes been a reduction in the ability of councillors to be involved in housing activities in their area.

As we all know, in our role as councillors—and I declare that I am one—we are expected to be community leaders. One of the most important parts of the well-being of a community is how its housing operates and functions on behalf of tenants—the social housing aspect. I firmly believe that it is important that elected members have the opportunity to work closely with tenants. As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said, those of us who are active in that area already do not really understand why some people do not agree. It has become less obvious nowadays to tenants of housing associations and ALMOs that councillors really are their first port of call. I very much support the role of the councillors in this activity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

I entirely accept that. However, in my experience, not all housing associations are the same and some do this better than others, which is inevitable with any type of organisation. In a sense, if there are housing associations or social landlords that do not do it quite as well as the organisation in which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is involved, that is an even more important reason why tenants should be able to go to the housing ombudsman as easily and quickly as possible.

Like my noble friend, we on these Benches would have preferred that this proposal from the Government was not in this Bill. It seems to go back to a local government ombudsman system that, as noble Lords have said, used to exist in local government but that, frankly, was not necessary and in some cases was harmful. There is no doubt whatever that on some occasions councillors used to find reasons not to pass complaints on or tried to persuade people not to pursue them. I always took the view that unless it was clearly vexatious I would automatically pass it on, even on one occasion when it concerned a complaint against the borough council about a housing matter in which I had been closely involved. I was chairman of the housing committee and I still said, “I will pass it on because it is right and proper that it gets dealt with”.

At Lancashire County Council, on one occasion I made a complaint against the education authority. Shortly after, I went to a reception of important people at county hall in Preston. As soon as I walked in the room, the then education officer came bounding across the room and at the top of his voice tore a strip off me for daring to question the reputation and organisation of that education authority. He then marched back to the other side of the room. I was much younger and a bit more timid than I am now but I still marched after him and, in an equally loud voice, tore a strip off him and told him that he was undermining democracy. In a sense, I should not have had to be there as part of that system. The people involved should have been able to go direct.

Along with other noble Lords, I think, around the Chamber, we have had quite a few discussions with members of the Government, particularly with Grant Shapps, who I believe is in charge of the housing parts of this Bill. We came to the view that we might win the argument but would not win the process of this legislation of removing these parts of the Bill or of putting in an amendment along the lines of that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, which I would otherwise strongly support.

To help the Government, in these discussions we are looking for some compromise that at the very least provides a backstop so that, if any of these designated persons are not helpful and try to resist or are just incompetent in passing on a complaint, the tenant can nevertheless go direct to the housing ombudsman. It is a slightly messy process and it is not as good as now, but it can work and at the very least would maintain their right to go direct to make the complaint, even if someone else tries to persuade them otherwise or to block it.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, does not the noble Lord accept that if a tenant has reservations about their circumstances, which may be very personal, it is not just a question of whether if they go to them they may be rebuffed, but that they would be seriously inhibited about going to their councillor or their tenants’ panel, or possibly even their MP, in the first place? We should take that into account.

Localism Bill

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Reay]

My Lords, in moving my Amendment 170A, I should like to start by quoting what the Minister, Mr Greg Clark, said in another place at the Report stage of the Bill:

“There is also a case for looking at the fact that the costs of losing appeals can sometimes hang over local authorities. Sometimes the threat of losing an appeal dissuades a local authority from turning down an application that it might want to turn down. We should look at that”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/5/11; col. 274.]

My only quarrel with that statement is that it is not so much the threat of losing an appeal as the costs of fighting one, whatever the result, that can dissuade a local authority from turning down a planning application that it should turn down and/or might otherwise want to turn down. This is more true today than ever now that local authorities are having to make severe budget cuts.

Following my having taken up that point at Second Reading, my noble friend the Minister kindly wrote to me on the 20th of last month and ended her letter by saying that she hoped to be able to update me shortly with news on,

“how we propose to do that”;

that is, deal with the concerns about appeal costs. I am hoping that she may be able to tell us today what that is.

I have singled out onshore wind farm applications because it is particularly scandalous that it is the subsidies that wind farm developers are promised that place them in a position to outbid local authorities and local action groups. Without those subsidies, the planning applications would never be made in the first place. Just to remind noble Lords, the subsidy takes the form of a promise to take on to the grid for 20 years all the electricity that the wind farm can produce at a price which is currently over twice the market rate. If for some reason the grid cannot accept the electricity, as we have seen happen recently and I am sure we will again, it will still pay for it at the subsidised rate. It is of course the consumer, including the consumer who is being pushed into fuel poverty, who is then charged on his electricity bills with these costs, and who thus pays for the subsidy.

This of course creates the very antithesis of a level playing field. The result is that this is an area where final planning decisions are emphatically not taken by local authorities or local communities. Localism does not rule. It is routine for developers to waste no time in appealing once the local authority has rejected, if it has had the courage to reject, their planning application. In the first place, the developers hope to intimidate the local authority with the threat of a protracted and expensive public inquiry into granting their planning applications. If, nevertheless, the local authority stands up to them, they hope to defeat the local authority at the public inquiry. As developers are invariably able to afford better legal and administrative representation than the local authority, and certainly than the local action groups, they are favourites to win.

The Government are complicit in this unjust process because they maintain the subsidies. The Government also apply immense pressure on the Planning Inspectorate through statements in every conceivable piece of legislation and guidance to help deliver, through its decisions at public inquiries, the Government’s renewable energy targets. In many cases the inspector does give priority to local concerns or to landscape considerations, but it still seems to be the case that in a majority of cases he will give priority to government policy. So by means of the subsidies to renewable energy electricity generators and the pressure on the Planning Inspectorate to deliver the Government’s renewable energy targets, the Government are doing everything in their power to thwart local opponents of onshore wind farm schemes. Yet they still claim to want to devolve decision-making powers in planning matters to local communities. How do they justify that blatant contradiction? I am afraid that it invites the charge of hypocrisy.

Yet it is still the case that the Government have signalled their recognition that the ability of developers to intimidate local planning authorities into granting planning permission because of the costs of going to appeal represents a problem, which is why I hope that my noble friend will say today what the Government propose to do about it. My amendment might result in developers thinking twice about taking local planning authority refusals to appeal. In doing so, it might give some encouragement to local authorities to stick to their guns with the result that more final decisions might be in accordance with the wishes of local communities. Perhaps naively I thought that that was meant to be the main purpose of the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I trust that the Government will give no credence to this intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Reay. Government policy for encouraging the development of alternative energy—which is essential to our future—includes onshore wind farms. If he wishes to pursue his opposition to that policy, he should pursue it under energy Bills and the various regulations that are brought before this House under the energy Bills. He may well have done so. However, this is not the appropriate point to do it.

His amendment would do the opposite of what he is suggesting. It would discriminate against developers of wind farms as compared with any other developer, as well as cutting across what has been a cross-party consensual position in terms of encouraging alternative energy, including wind farms. In reality, the number of wind farms that have been rejected on planning grounds is at least equivalent to those that have gone forward and the number on which a decision has been challenged.

I do not want to use the same intemperate language as the noble Lord, Lord Reay, but, in practice, on wind farm applications, the nimbys have generally won. In this, at least, let us recognise that there is an overriding national consideration that this Government, the last Government and all parties in this House have accepted. This is not the point at which to further discriminate against wind farm developers.

[Lord Marlesford]

In case the House were to think that my noble friend was in a minority of one, I rise to support his amendment strongly. Frankly, the essence of the planning system is that planning decisions should be made on planning grounds. To attempt to distort those decisions is thoroughly undesirable and totally contrary to the whole basis of what was set up by the party of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, when it was in power in 1948. It was one of the great achievements of the Labour Government—the other being the health service. England would not be the country it is if it had not had that planning system.

My noble friend is talking particularly about wind farms, which is quite relevant because of the element of subsidy. However, very undesirable pressures have been put on planning authorities, for example, by supermarkets, which have proposed to build in quite inappropriate places and have threatened expensive public inquiries and local authorities with damages if they presume not to grant the application. My noble friend Lord Reay is absolutely on to the right idea. I strongly advise the Government to think very carefully before they distort the planning system in this sort of way.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Whitty]

170CL: Before Clause 126, insert the following new Clause—
“Local housing strategy
(1) All Local Housing Authorities in England must draw up an analysis of housing supply and demand in their areas and this analysis should include all forms of tenure in their area and cover at least the following—
(a) trends in housing supply and demand in the owner occupied, private rented and social housing sectors,(b) trends in housing prices and rents,(c) new developments, new build and conversions,(d) empty properties, and(e) second homes, andthis analysis should be related to broad demographic and employment trends in their areas.(2) On the basis of this analysis each Local Housing Authority in England should draw up a rolling ten year housing strategy for their area.
(3) All measures required of local housing authorities in relation to social housing and homelessness as a result of Chapters 1 to 4 of this Part of the Act shall be required to be undertaken in consistency with the housing strategy required by subsection (2).”

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, we now move on to the part of the Bill dealing with housing, social housing particularly, that probably has the most direct and immediate effect on millions of people around this country. Many of the issues we have been discussing so far are, of course, very important, but for most people they will seem somewhat esoteric. For the millions who are in social housing, wish they were in social housing or ought to be in social housing, the issues dealt with by the subsequent clauses in relation to changes in the provisions on tenure, the responsibilities on local authorities, changes in the obligations on local authorities in relation to homelessness and changes in housing revenue will all hit, in one way or another, positively or negatively, many of our fellow citizens. In addition to that, in the welfare Bill which we were supposed to discuss yesterday, there is a major change in the housing benefit provisions which will affect many of the same people.

This part of the Bill is very important for a lot of our fellow citizens. While I do not want to give the usual channels too hard a time, the fact that we are moving at this stage into this section of the Bill—and I suspect we are unlikely to allow all the amendments which are tabled in this section to be debated by 7 o’clock—is a matter of some regret to me. I hope there is still time for the usual channels to discuss that.

However, my attempt in this amendment is to set a background for the discussion on the social housing provisions. We did touch on this issue in part in discussions on planning under an amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross—who is not currently in her place--but I think it is more appropriate to discuss it here. If one just reads straight through this Bill, social housing is dealt with in isolation and in a very bureaucratic, contractual, legal and financial way. The reality is that social housing has to be seen against the background of the housing market as a whole, local authority by local authority.

I declare an interest. I have recently become chair, with a non-pecuniary interest, of a new organisation called Housing Voice, which deals with social housing. The provision of social housing is only one part of the issue. We need to look at the total supply and demand of housing, nationally and area by area, and to relate it to the demands and requirements of the population; the economic demands for employment within the area and travel to work from housing, and the effects of inward and outward migration, because our populations are changing dramatically. Every local authority, in its planning and social housing provisions, must recognise its responsibility to ensure that there is adequate housing for all those who need it, and that as far as possible, supply and demand are reasonably in balance. They must therefore provide housing, in whatever form of tenure, at a price or a rent which is affordable for most people. None of the housing market currently meets those propositions nationally, and in most parts of the country it does not do so locally either.

In the owner-occupied sector, successive Governments have had policies to increase the proportion of people in this type of housing, and some of that has been significantly successful. I do not wish to reverse that, but that fact is that nowadays, it is virtually impossible for young families to get into the owner-occupied market, both in our inner cities and in our rural areas. The latest information is that the average age for getting a first mortgage is 37, and in a few years’ time it is likely to be well over 40. Those of us who were fortunate enough to get on to the homeowning ladder in our twenties do not recognise that picture. Unless one has some support from parents or elsewhere, one cannot get a mortgage if one is much younger than 40 these days. Even for those who do have this support, the deposit required rules it out for many people, and of course advances from building societies and banks in this area have largely reduced as a result of the housing crisis.

Housing for all our population, and particularly for young families, young couples and people who have to move away from their home area for work, is not now available. There are far too many people. The private rented sector is not much of an alternative: in our inner cities, particularly in London, the cost of private renting puts it out of reach for many people. Despite attempts by the previous Government to bring more housing into the private rented sector, particularly for key workers and so forth, the amount of private rented accommodation available, never mind its price, is also far too limited.

In the social housing area itself, we have a situation where there have been cutbacks in the amount provided and 4 million people in England alone are seeking to be included on housing lists. The provisions on social housing, which we shall come to later, need to take this into account. All this relates to the shortage of new housing coming on to the market, whether by new build, conversion or properties coming on to the market in other ways. Yet our society is moving in exactly the opposite direction. We have a degree of atomisation in the form of smaller households, as well as households forming and breaking up. People are living longer and moving around more to seek work or education. All this increases the demand for accommodation. The terrible truth is, though, that at the moment the rate of household formation is running at twice the rate of the provision of new housing. That is a completely unsustainable position nationally, and locally, as we know, conditions are even worse. There is massive overcrowding in many inner city areas, as well as homelessness, since people cannot find accommodation. Moreover, in many rural and suburban areas the housing situation is extremely difficult for young people.

This is an issue not just of social housing, but of the housing market as a whole. The previous Government attempted to do something about it by setting regional targets. By and large that did not work completely, although there were some successes. The present Government have abandoned those targets. In the context of this Bill at least, although I might argue the point elsewhere, I have no objection to that because the amendment is designed to recognise the localism of the issue and to place the responsibility clearly on local authorities to work out their own ambitions and decide the appropriate housing provision for their own populations. This clause therefore attempts to make it clear that it is their responsibility. They need to look at the local population and what is happening in their areas both economically and demographically, and assess the quantity and quality of the available housing for the various different groups. That is localism.

Some may object to the clause because it allegedly imposes an additional duty on local authorities, but in fact this duty is absolutely central to the local authority’s ability to provide for the well-being of their communities. In one sense it states the obvious, but it also puts into context the clauses that follow it. If it is to work, local authorities will need to go through the processes outlined in the amendment. They will need to assess need, economic trends and likely future provision. No doubt there are better ways of drafting this provision, and I am certainly open to that, but somewhere in this Bill it is necessary to have a provision which sets out what local authorities must undertake. It is not prescriptive in terms of the methodology they use or the numbers they put into their assessments for future plans and strategies, nor is it presumptive in terms of the balance between different forms of housing and of tenure. But it does require local authorities to recognise these wider obligations.

If we do not have a provision such as this, which gives the wider context, it could be interpreted that all we are concerned about in this Bill is, in effect, increasing flexibility in the social housing market and reducing the constraints on it by raising rents and eroding security of tenure, excluding from our richer areas people who are paying their rent with housing benefit and, effectively, trying to squeeze out of the existing stock a greater use of social housing. However, even if all that was to work—by and large I am against most of it—it would not solve the problem of the housing shortage across the board. We need to look at our housing supply and new build so as to offer quality and choice to our population. In the absence of a policy from the top down—although I do not dispute that—we need one that is built up local authority by local authority. That should be seen in this Bill and more widely as a central responsibility of the local authority in conjunction with its community. This clause would set the context in which that operates, so I hope that the Government will give at least some consideration, if not to accepting the precise wording of the amendment, to accepting the intention behind it. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. He was sharp, swift and brief—brilliant. We will have more of the noble Lord, if we might. On the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, I am once again going to say that we do not need it. While I admire the verve with which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has presented his case, there are already statutory provisions.

Local authorities are already under statutory provisions to provide plans for the housing needs of their population and to discharge their housing functions in accordance with their strategic priories as detailed in their housing strategies. Section 13 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires local planning authorities to keep under review matters that are likely to affect the development of their area, including size, composition and distribution of the housing for their population. In addition, planning policy statement 3 and the associated guidance on strategic housing assessment make clear that local authority plans should be informed by a robust evidence base of housing need and demand in its area for market and affordable housing.

Section 87 of the Local Government Act 2003 provides a power for the Secretary of State to require all local housing authorities to have a housing strategy, so the provision is there already. It is well understood that local authorities should be more than clear about the requirements in their area in this regard. The current guidance on local housing strategies in England stresses that the local housing strategy is the local housing authority’s vision for housing in its area. It should set out objectives, targets and policies on how the authority intends to manage and deliver its strategic housing role, and provides an overarching framework against which the authority considers and formulates other policies on more specific housing issues. That is the strength of my argument in saying that we do not need the amendment. However, I understand the concern that lies behind it and behind the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. We are dramatically underhoused.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has drawn attention to the limited housebuilding that has occurred over a number of years. Last year we had one of the lowest housebuilding programmes since 1923. We are trying to boost housebuilding. We have introduced the new homes bonus and are trying to encourage building through various means such as shared ownership and buy now pay later schemes. There are all sorts of plans to increase housing but you cannot do it overnight; it takes time to develop. However, there is no misunderstanding on the part of this Government that housing and a housing strategy are needed. With the assurance that this amendment is not necessary for the reasons I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and my noble friend Lord Kennedy for their support for the amendment. I also thank the Minister for at least appreciating what lies behind the amendment. I understand that bits and pieces of the requirement for a strategy are in various bits of existing legislation. However, the most coherent expression is to be found in the planning guidance. Indeed, I have sought to gather some of the themes of the planning guidance in one place and to give it statutory backing. The noble Baroness says that the amendment is not necessary. I may return to it but for the moment I accept that. As she rightly says, this is a long-term problem. It has arisen over a long time and will take a long time to resolve. Those of us who are veterans of the housing debate know that I was not particularly supportive of various aspects of the previous Government’s policy in this regard. I have yet to be convinced that the new Government’s policy is likely to deliver more housing, particularly affordable housing for the kind of people I have talked about.

There is a need for a strategic framework here. The Localism Bill, in so far as it redefines the decisions that are to be taken locally, is probably the right place for it. I will consider carefully what the noble Baroness has said. However, at some point in this whole housing policy debate and in the Localism Bill we will have to re-emphasise the fact that the national drivers—in so far as they worked—have largely gone, and that the real driving force in solving what is admittedly a long-term housing problem now rests with our local authorities. If I have at least got that message across and the Government follow it through, I will have achieved something. I have taken 20 minutes over this amendment, for which I apologise. I may return to it at Report, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 170CL withdrawn.

Localism Bill

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

I hesitate to express a slightly different point of view as a vice-president of the Local Government Association from our esteemed president, but I am not quite as reluctant as he is to see this kind of duty, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and my noble friend Lord McKenzie, incorporated into the law, particularly given the state of the housing market in general and the huge unmet demand for housing, particularly affordable housing. It is important that all authorities recognise that there is a need to promote the provision of more accommodation. It is noticeable that since the disappearance of the regional spatial strategy, something like 200,000 houses it is estimated will no longer be built that would have been built had those plans been progressed.

I add one further dimension to the prescription from the noble Lord, Lord Best, for encouraging new building. I entirely agree with him that it is very desirable for private builders and housing associations to help to cater for the needs of an increasingly ageing population and indeed others. To that I would add local authorities themselves. That might be something that they would appreciate. Perhaps as a quid pro quo for having the extra responsibility of drawing up plans for affordable housing, the fact that they might actually be able to provide some themselves might be an additional incentive. I hope that sweetener will persuade the noble Lord, Lord Best, that his qualification might safely be abandoned.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I support the principles of the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. A whole section of this Bill later on in Part 6 deals with social housing and changes many of the existing arrangements for tenure, what the local authority is obliged to provide and tenants’ rights. Some of them I support and some of them I strongly oppose. However, the whole point of a social housing strategy is that it relates to the totality of the housing need in the area. Unless there is a provision somewhere in this Bill, such as the provision suggested by this and related amendments, dealing with social housing in the abstract is nonsense.

All forms of housing tenure are in crisis. We know that a lot of people who would have got a mortgage by the age of 30 now can no longer get a mortgage until their late 30s or even into their 40s. More and more people are having to rent in the private sector and are being delayed in setting up an independent household. We know that the rate of household formation is growing because of various developments in society, but it is growing at twice the rate of new build housing. We therefore have to have an holistic approach to housing need, area by area. If we are not going to achieve the targets through the regional spatial strategies, which I admit were a bit Stalinist in their approach, we have to ensure that the local authorities themselves take responsibility for looking at housing need in their areas and assessing it against their private sector development plans and the social housing that they and the housing associations in their areas can provide.

Somewhere in this Bill we need to tell local authorities that part of their responsibility from now on must be assessing total housing need against costs, against price and against demographic trends. That is not covered by the 2004 Act in sufficient detail. Given what I would regard as something close to a crisis in the housing market in all forms of tenure, I think it would be appropriate for us to set that out in the Act. Then, when we consider the social housing provisions, we can set them against a requirement for every local authority to assess needs, supply, demand, price, and demographic and employment changes, and to set its social housing targets and provision against that background. Unless we do that, social housing is isolated and is a residual form of housing based on what is already there. It does not relate to the needs of the totality of the community in which local authorities operate. If the Government are prepared to accept the noble Baroness’s amendment here, they need to say that at least somewhere in this Bill, and we need to ensure that local authorities behave accordingly.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, this has been a very useful debate. I do not think that the Committee is very far apart on the essential importance of housing and making housing one of the key ingredients of the planning process. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for the typically intelligent and sensitive way in which she introduced her Amendment 148 and led the group.

The amendments that we are considering include those of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, which seek this numerical assessment by a local authority of current and projected housing needs, the balance of affordable housing and proposals for addressing those needs in local development schemes, which are the documents setting out the programme and timetable for producing plans. Also required is the publication of annual reports of the matters reviewed and the changes proposed to implement local plans, and the publication of a review of a range of environmental, social and economic issues specified in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 prior to preparing its local plan. As I said, I do not think that we are a million miles away on the objectives.

Postal Services Bill

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Wednesday 4th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Whitty]

7: Clause 2, line 6, after “company” insert “in relation to—
“(i) the minimum contract length for the commercial relationship;(ii) the details of any contractual break period that may be exercised by any party who enters into the commercial relationship;(iii) the total value of the contract to the Post Office company for the services provided under the terms of the commercial relationship for each year that the contract runs”

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for both tabling the amendment in her name—particularly the new subsection (3A)(a)—and for the additional information that she has given today. I am not sure, however, whether that goes far enough to meet the anxieties.

As noble Lords will be aware, the interbusiness agreement is absolutely essential for the future operation of both the Royal Mail part of the unravelled company and, particularly, for the post office network, which is my concern. It is therefore important that when the Secretary of State reports to Parliament on the basis of the procedure, the terms of the agreement between the two parts of Royal Mail are clear, understood and give a robust and sustainable basis for both parts to continue. It will also, of course, have a significant effect on the value of both parts of the set-up—the value to investors in the Royal Mail part and the value to the taxpayer and the community of the network.

The specifics in my amendment to the government amendment would require part of the report to set down the minimum contract length. I know that the Government have said that they wish it to be the maximum that is legally possible, but we have never had a proper explanation of why they feel that there is a serious legal constraint on the length of the contract. It is therefore important that, at the point at which the contract is concluded and the report comes back to Parliament, the terms of the contract are spelt out and that any legal reasons for those terms are likewise spelt out. In terms of the risk that both parts of the organisation take in their new form, there is the issue of which party and in what circumstances can break that contract.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Wilcox]

My Lords, I rise to respond to the noble Lords, Lord Whitty, Lord Christopher and Lord Young, on my amendment and the other two amendments. In response to the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, about the details to be provided in the Clause 2 report, I reiterate some of the sentiments I mentioned earlier. The information that we propose to include in the report includes much of the information that the noble Lord seeks in his Amendment 7. I would hope that the contract’s duration would be for the 10 years that many noble Lords are seeking, but the longest legally permissible duration will depend on other factors, such as volume commitments, which must be commercially negotiated between the companies. Finally, we must not require in Clause 2 the disclosure of information that might inadvertently damage the commercial interests of either business. That would damage the commercial sustainability of the post office network, which I am sure is not the noble Lord’s intention.

The noble Lord, Lord Christopher, raised a number of important points about how the postal service is provided in the Netherlands. I believe that these are consequences of the regulatory framework in the Netherlands, not of the ownership of its postal companies, but we will come to those matters when we debate Part 3 of the Bill, and I hope I will be able to provide him with further reassurance then.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, asked me to clarify what I said about the timing of a new contract between Royal Mail and the Post Office. As I said, negotiations are under way, and we expect a new contract to be ready to be signed by next spring. I hope that with those reassurances the noble Lord feels that he can withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Baroness has gone some considerable way. However, from what she just said it is clear that the information that the Government envisage in the report is on potential investors and the financial viability of both halves. There is a bigger public interest issue here. The post office network, which is so dear to many of our communities, depends on this agreement for one-third of its income. Unless this Bill spells out that part of the report to Parliament will cover something like the details that I have in my amendment, I do not think that the Government will be bound to provide a sufficient report on which Parliament can judge. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Empey]

My Lords, I should like to speak briefly. I am sure that the Minister in her response will argue that the amendment is not required because the main purpose of the Bill is to ensure the survival of the universal service obligation. However, the amendment indicates the level of concern in rural and remote areas that somehow, once the service is passed into the hands of the private sector, other things may happen. I hope that the Minister will again attempt to allay those concerns, which I know are real.

I said in my previous remarks in this House that many people regard the Royal Mail as a piece of national infrastructure. It is in that context that people, particularly those in remote areas who are already disadvantaged, fear—perhaps irrationally, but I nevertheless assure the noble Baroness that their fears are genuine—that somehow, despite the intentions of the Bill, things will ultimately change. I hope that that is not the case, but perhaps I may assure her that these concerns are genuine, and I hope that in her response she can give comfort to those of us who have these anxieties.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rogan and Lord Laird. The Minister will be well aware of my past engagement with Consumer Focus, the statutory body for postal services, which operates as separate entities in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. It has become apparent, when assessing the needs of domestic consumers of postal services and post offices, and also those of small businesses in using those services, that there are somewhat different considerations relating to the firm commitment to the network and the universal service, particularly in rural areas and in those countries.

In Northern Ireland, there are particular issues relating to the north and the south, to An Post, and to getting mail across the sea. While preserving the universal service, the body of the post office and the body of Royal Mail as parts of our United Kingdom national infrastructure, it is important that we recognise that any dilution of the service or differential treatment of the parts of the United Kingdom would be particularly detrimental to those countries. It is therefore important that the devolved Administrations are fully involved in any changes.

Perhaps I may gently say to the noble Baroness that it has been obvious that her department in Whitehall has not always been the best when consulting devolved Administrations on a whole range of issues, including this one. The department is getting better, but acceptance of at least the principle of the amendment would be appreciated and would help the Government’s approach. It would meet the fears of many businesses and individuals in those countries, particularly in rural areas and small towns.

[Lord Razzall]

My Lords, I was not going to intervene, but because the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, raised the point I made in Committee, we should put on the record that after the noble Baroness looked into this point she wrote to both of us and said that we were actually both right. As the noble Lord indicated, the cost of delivering items of mail in London is more or less the same as the cost in rural areas, and is significantly greater than the cost in other United Kingdom cities. The point that I was trying to make, obviously inelegantly, was that if I was really worried about what would happen I would worry about London. It is not only that the cost of delivery in London is greater, but London is such a huge element in the costs of Royal Mail, which has huge overheads, any third party looking at the overall cost of the Royal Mail—rather than looking at the Orkneys and Shetland—will have to look at the costs in London. It is Hackney that ought to worry, rather than the Orkneys and Shetland. That was the point I was trying to make.

Postal Services Bill

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Wednesday 4th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Whitty]

40: Clause 11, page 6, line 25, at end insert “including reporting for the UK as a whole and separately for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland against the total population residing—
“(i) within three miles of a post office outlet;(ii) within one mile of a post office outlet; (iii) in urban areas within one mile of a post office outlet;(iv) in urban deprived areas within one mile of a post office outlet;(v) in rural areas within three miles of a post office outlet;(vi) in rural areas within three miles of a post office outlet;(vii) at the level of each postcode district, within six miles of a post office outlet,”

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I shall speak also to the earlier amendments that were previously grouped with this amendment, and the amendment to which my noble friend has just spoken. They deal with the criteria for access to the post office network. I very much welcome the noble Baroness’s reiteration of the commitment to maintain a level of post office network and her comments on the criteria in relation to what the Post Office rather bizarrely calls “business as usual” closures, whereby a sub-postmaster gives up or the post office has to close for another reason. The criteria there are much tighter.

I am a veteran of the last stage of the previous closure programme, which was in many ways unsatisfactory and ended in anomalies. I am familiar with the territory in Vauxhall to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred, and the effect of what happened on the other side of the river. That experience has been repeated in rural areas and in deprived suburbs up and down the country. The determination to maintain a minimum network is very welcome.

The jury is still out on the move to Post Office Local. There are significant advantages, particularly in relation to opening hours and the flexibility that that provides. Consumer Focus has heard varying reports on the first batch of Post Office Locals, and that the range of services they provide is differentiated. For example, the USO for the parcel service refers to a 20 kilogram parcel service being available in all post offices, but a lot of locals were not doing that until about this time last year, when the Post Office advised them to do so. It is still not the case that all Post Office Locals, or some other post offices, are providing that service. I am not saying that there should be an absolutely rigid range of services available under Post Office Local, but we need to know that what will happen as a result of normal retirements and closures, new post offices opening, post offices opening in host premises will provide something like the previous minimum access criteria.

The new access criteria will be a matter for the Secretary of State and for Ofcom, but the amendments would require that there be a reporting mechanism which indicates not only how good the access is, in terms of mileage in rural and urban areas, to the nearest post office but what range of services is available. In other words, there would be a matrix that would indicate the services available as well as the number of outlets. In order to be able to monitor over time the effectiveness of post office services and the accessibility to them for communities who have, over the past two rounds of closures, seen some diminution in the number of outlets and now some diminution in the range of services, we need reporting criteria roughly along the lines that I propose here, which are the criteria which were broadly agreed at the end of the last round of closures.

I shall not press the amendments tonight, but the Government and the regulator will need a clear reporting process which covers not only the number of outlets but the range of services provided. As others have said, that range of services needs to include some enhanced commitment across Whitehall and local government to provide a wider range of government services—and digital access to them—than currently exists. Unfortunately, over the past 15 years, we have seen a diminution of government business going through post offices. Some of that has been due to technological and behavioural change; some of it has simply been due to false economies. Post offices have missed out there. The post offices should in most communities be the front office of government. In rural communities and more deprived outer suburbs, they are the point at which the community has access to the range of state services. We need to retain that, we need to build on it and we need to know under laid-down reporting criteria how well we are doing.

Although I welcome much of what the Government are committed to in enhancing the number of services that go through post offices as well as preserving the number of post offices in the network, we need to be able to monitor that. That is what my two amendments are about, and I will be interested to hear the noble Baroness’s comments. I will not press the amendment tonight, but we may need to return to it. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

I shall briefly support my noble friend Lord Whitty. He has made all the key points about the importance of the additional information that the amendments would provide.

I tend to agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in a previous debate about the potential for locals. They have to get the formula right; they have to get the transition payments right as well. The managing director, Paula Vennells, has assured us that they are learning quite a lot from the 60 or so pilots that are currently running. Interestingly, I received an assurance that they have all been instructed to accept parcels of up to 20 kilograms in weight. Clearly, the message has not filtered through to all of them but the intention is clear. Amendments 40 and 41 pose some important questions and I, too, will be listening intently to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those reassurances. Behind them is a recognition that some reporting provisions need to be laid down and maintained.

The main disappointment in her response was the reference to not accepting the need for separate reporting for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As we said before dinner when debating an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, the situation is somewhat different. The criteria need to be universal, but it is also important that the particular positions of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland must be focused on. There are some fudges at the border, but they are relatively small, and it is important that the Post Office network is seen as part of the social provision of the Government, particularly in remote rural areas, for the rural population and rural businesses. The devolved Administrations have a role in that. Therefore, it is very useful for them to have a separate reporting provision. This does not mean that the criteria should be significantly different, but it does mean that the kind of problems that meeting those criteria may create in those countries could perhaps be devolved by wider rural and social policy in those areas. I would be disappointed if the final form of reporting did not allow for separate or parallel reporting to the devolved Administrations.

Subject to that caveat, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 40 withdrawn.