Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2017

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2017 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2017.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, these two Motions relate, first, to the disability elements of tax credits, as well as the guardian’s allowance; and, secondly, to the rates, limits and thresholds that govern national insurance contributions. Many of these changes are made simply to bring rates into line with inflation, as measured by the consumer prices index, which put inflation at 1% in the year to September 2016.

I speak first to the draft regulations for the uprating of disability-related tax credits and the guardian’s allowance. In short, the regulations provide for an increase in line with inflation to the disability elements of tax credits. This means that we are maintaining the value of support for both the disabled children whose parents or carers are in receipt of child tax credits and the disabled workers in receipt of working tax credits. The rise in rates also covers the new element for disabled children who were born on or after 6 April this year, regardless of the two-child limit for claims of child tax credit. The regulations also increase the guardian’s allowance in line with inflation, to sustain the level of support for children whose parents are absent or deceased. The two things I just outlined—the disability elements of tax credits and the guardian’s allowance—are exempt from the benefits freeze. This is so that we can provide support to those who face the additional cost of disability and care.

Let me turn to the other set of draft regulations we are debating: those that make changes to the rates, limits and thresholds for national insurance contributions, and make provision for a Treasury grant to be paid into the national insurance funds if required. These changes will take effect from 6 April this year. Starting with Class 1 national insurance contributions, the level of earnings at which employees start to gain access to contributory benefits, known as the lower earnings limit, will rise in line with inflation. The primary threshold, which is the level at which employees begin to pay Class 1 national insurance at 12%, will also rise with inflation. The upper earnings limit, which is the level at which employees start to pay Class 1 contributions at 2%, is being raised from £827 to £866 a week. This reflects the Government’s commitment to align this limit with the higher rate income tax threshold, which is being raised from £43,000 to £45,000 for the 2017-18 tax year.

As the Chancellor announced at the Autumn Statement, the levels at which employers and employees start to pay Class 1 national insurance are being aligned. To do this, the secondary threshold, where employers start to pay, is being increased from £156 to £157 per week. This will be the same as the primary threshold for employees from 6 April this year, and will make it easier for employers, as they will no longer have to operate two similar thresholds at slightly different rates.

Finally, for the employed, the level at which employers of people under 21 and of apprentices under 25 start to pay employer contributions will keep pace with the upper earnings limit and rise from £827 to £866 per week. This maintains our commitment to reduce the costs of employing young apprentices and young people. This is an above-inflation increase and maintains alignment with the upper earnings limit, meaning that employers pay national insurance only for the highest earning young apprentices and those under 21.

Moving on to the self-employed, the level at which they have to pay class 2 contributions will rise with inflation to £6,025 a year, and the weekly rate of class 2 contributions will also rise in line with inflation to £2.85. Self-employed people who earn above the lower profits limit, currently £8,060, also pay class 4 national insurance contributions at 9%. This threshold will rise with inflation. Above the upper profits limit, the self-employed instead pay 2%. Like the upper earnings limit for the employed, this limit for the self-employed will rise from £43,000 to £45,000 per year.

Finally, for those making voluntary class 3 contributions, the rate will increase in line with inflation from £14.10 to £14.25 a week.

I note that these regulations make provision for a Treasury grant of up to 5% of forecast annual benefit expenditure to be paid into the National Insurance Fund, if needed, during 2017-18. This is a routine measure which does not impact the Government’s overall fiscal position. A similar provision will also be made in respect of the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund.

I hope that has been a helpful overview of the changes the Government are making to increase rates of support and contributions to the Exchequer in line with inflation. Noble Lords will of course be aware that the Chancellor announced yesterday that the main rate of class 4 national insurance will be increased to 10% in 2018-19 and 11% in 2019-20. This, alongside the abolition of class 2 NICs, is a progressive change to the self-employed NICs system. Over 60% of self-employed people who have to pay national insurance will be better off as a result of these changes. However, the rate of class 4 is not affected by these regulations and there will be an opportunity for noble Lords to discuss this measure in the Budget debate next week. I commend to the Committee the draft regulations on tax credits and the guardian’s allowance, as well as on social security contributions. I beg to move.

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these two instruments. The first on the agenda, the Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations, would enact the annual re-rating of national insurance contribution rates, limits and thresholds and allow for the payment of Treasury grant not exceeding 5% of the estimated benefit expenditure for the coming tax year to be paid into the National Insurance Fund. These come into effect in April this year. Given that we are dealing with national insurance contribution rates, I am sure the noble Lord will not be surprised by my first question, to which he has already referred. In view of the surprise announcement in yesterday’s Budget, which is attracting some controversy, is he able to clarify or provide further information on the proposed changes?

The second SI is on tax credits and guardian’s allowance upratings for the increase in working tax credits and child tax credits for individuals who are disabled or severely disabled. It would also increase the weekly rate of the guardian allowance, again with both changes taking effect in April 2017. Since 2011, the inflation measure used to determine the uprating of social security benefits is the CPI. The uprating is based on the change in level of the CPI from September 2015 to September, recorded at 1%.

A rise in support for working families, however small, is welcome, and we have no intention of opposing either of the orders this afternoon. However, although I do not want to rehearse the arguments that will be had during the Budget debate next week, it is important to consider on the record this 1% uprating in context. Inflation is rising, and indeed is expected to increase further still over the course of this Parliament. As the Resolution Foundation has recently reported, the result of that could mean that average earnings in 2020 will be only just higher in real terms than they were 15 years ago and, crucially, we could see a fall in real pay at the end of this calendar year as price increases outstrip pay rises.

The same report from the Resolution Foundation found that the Government’s benefit freeze will raise an extra £1 billion a year by 2020, or £3.6 billion over the Parliament, compared with what was expected in the 2016 Budget. My noble friend Lady Sherlock asked a question about this figure last week in Committee but was unable to get an answer, so I hope the Minister will be able to respond today. Is the figure accurate? If not, will the Minister tell the Committee the value of savings that the Chancellor expects to make?

The Resolution Foundation analysis has been supported by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which has underlined that the Government’s approach represents,

“a shifting of risk from the Government to benefit recipients”.

The institute has also stressed that this risk is borne by low-income households and that, unless this policy changes, higher inflation will reduce their real incomes.

I have one final question regarding the Treasury grant. In what circumstances do the Government anticipate such a grant would be made; when was a grant of this nature last paid into the National Insurance Fund; and what does 5% represent in real terms? The economic outlook for working people is one of less disposable income. Although we do not oppose these instruments, it is clear from the Government’s overall approach that their priorities are not compatible with a society that truly wants to support the most vulnerable. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her support for these measures. I will try to answer the three or four questions that she put to me, starting with the easiest on the provision of a Treasury grant. The provision in the estimates does not mean that it will be drawn down. Indeed, this year the provision is being made only as a precaution. The 5% provision is equivalent to £5 billion in the case of the GB National Insurance Fund, and £134 million in the case of the Northern Ireland fund. A Treasury grant was last paid into the National Insurance Fund in 2015-16. We do not anticipate a payment being made in the current year because the reserves in the fund seem at the moment to be adequate.

I turn to the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, about the savings from the uprating freeze. I hope I can provide some helpful information. When we legislated for the four-year uprating freeze in the Welfare Reform and Work Act, we published an impact assessment of those rates included in the four-year uprating freeze. Both Houses debated the clauses and passed the Bill, which received Royal Assent in March last year. At Budget 2016, which was the last fiscal event before the change came into effect, the freeze was expected to save £3.5 billion in 2020-21 to help to deal with the underlying deficit. However, neither the Government nor the OBR has re-costed the freeze. The uprating freeze has already been implemented and is subsumed within the welfare spending forecast. I hope that gives the noble Baroness the information that she asked for.

On the report by the Resolution Foundation and the impact on household incomes and distribution, we considered the impact of the four-year uprating freeze when we announced the policy in the July 2015 Budget. The background was that we found that the majority of working-age benefits and tax credits had grown faster than earnings since 2008. As part of our commitment to make work pay, we introduced the four-year uprating freeze to reverse that trend of benefits rising faster than earnings. We introduced the uprating freeze alongside other measures to support work incentives such as the national living wage, and we exempted elements of benefits and tax credits that related to the additional cost of disability and care, in recognition of the additional costs that these claimants face. Indeed, the regulations today increase those elements of tax credits in line with prices.

With regard to the legitimate question the noble Baroness posed about inequality, income inequality is now lower than it was in 2010 and the share of total income tax paid by the top 1% is 27%. According to the latest data from the Office for National Statistics, income inequality in the UK is at its lowest level since 1986.

Finally, as I have said, there will of course be an opportunity to discuss yesterday’s Budget announcement in the Budget debate and when the necessary legislation comes before the House. I am not sure that I can add to what the Chancellor has said, not just in his Budget but in his many interviews during the day. The background is basically that, at the moment, self-employed people pay less in national insurance contributions than people in employment and, historically, this was because the self-employed received much less in state pension and contributory benefits. Since last year, because of the changes that we have made, self-employed workers now build up the same entitlement to the state pension as employees, which is an £1,800 a year pension boost for the self-employed. At the moment, someone who is employed and earning £32,000 will incur, with their employer, over £6,000 in national insurance contributions, while a self-employed person earning a similar amount will pay £2,300. That is why we needed to address the point of fairness in the national insurance contributions, which fund the NHS and pensions. That is the background which has given the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, the ammunition she needs to come back next week with her colleagues in the debate on the Budget. I welcome what she has said about these regulations and I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Tax Credits and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating etc. Regulations 2017

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2017 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Tax Credits and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating etc. Regulations 2017.

Motion agreed.

Legislative Reform (Private Fund Limited Partnerships) Order 2017

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2017 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Legislative Reform (Private Fund Limited Partnerships) Order 2017.

Relevant document: 17th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the venture capital and private equity industries are important parts of the UK financial services cluster, and the limited partnership structure provided by the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 is a popular vehicle for establishing investment funds in these industries. Currently, approximately 250 fund managers operate some 780 venture capital and private equity schemes in the UK under this structure. This equates to around £142 billion in assets under management, and 20 to 30 new schemes are launched each year. These businesses are important contributors to the UK economy, providing high-wage direct employment and indirect employment through the use of professional services firms, as well as contributing tax take to the Exchequer. The venture capital and private equity industries play an important role in providing funding to start-ups and small businesses and in improving the UK’s productivity.

In 2013, the Government launched their investment management strategy—their comprehensive strategy to make the UK one of the best places globally for asset managers to do business. As part of the investment management strategy, the Government committed to consulting on amendments to the Limited Partnerships Act. While limited partnerships are a popular vehicle for private equity and venture capital schemes, the legislation was not originally drafted with its use primarily as an investment vehicle in mind. Rather, it was originally drawn up to apply to trading entities. The result is that some provisions in the Act are not suitable for the needs of investment funds.

The investment management strategy came at a time when the competing jurisdiction of Luxembourg was updating its own limited partnership regime. Further to this, since 2013, France and Cyprus have also introduced structures to compete with the UK regime. With the UK’s imminent withdrawal from the EU, there is even more pressure to maintain our status as a leading global financial services hub. Therefore, it is timely and urgent that the UK looks to update its structures for the private funds sector.

The Government propose by way of this order to create a new category of limited partnership, the private fund limited partnership, which will differ from the existing structure in areas that currently create unnecessary administrative burden and legal uncertainty for partners. The existing 1890 and 1907 partnership Acts were originally designed to apply to trading businesses rather than investment funds. When an investment fund is established as a partnership, extensive legal work is necessary, using powers of variation under the legislation, to clarify the respective roles of: the general partners, who are in practice the fund management entities who have wide powers to manage the affairs of a partnership but face unlimited liability in respect of its activities; and limited partners, in practice the investors who have no general powers of management over the affairs of the partnership but have limited liability in respect of its activities, up to an amount specified in the partnership agreement.

The proposed order will introduce a list of activities that limited partners are permitted to carry out without taking part in management, to increase legal clarity for partners on the current state of the law. It will also make some other minor changes to the Act to remove unnecessary administrative burdens for private funds structured as partnerships.

Limited partners in a private fund limited partnership vehicle will not be required to contribute paid-in capital to the partnership. This will make the administration of investments simpler. All capital requirements set out in Financial Conduct Authority regulations will continue to apply. Statutory duties which are inappropriate to the role of a passive investor will be disapplied in a private fund limited partnership. These statutory duties are already generally disapplied through the partnership agreement. The partnership will not be required to advertise changes in the London Gazette, Edinburgh Gazette or Belfast Gazette, with the exception of the requirement to advertise when a general partner becomes a limited partner. Limited partners will be able to make a decision about whether to wind up the partnership where there are no general partners, and to nominate a third party to wind up the partnership on their behalf.

These reforms will reduce administrative and legal costs associated with the establishment of a fund. The updated structure will increase investor confidence in the UK as a jurisdiction for fund domicile. This order will reduce the burden for businesses and make the UK a more attractive jurisdiction for funds. I beg to move.

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order. As he has outlined, this instrument would enable a limited partnership which is an investment firm to be designated as a private fund limited partnership. It also amends some of the provisions of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 as they apply to PFLPs and to partners in PFLPs. This change has been in the pipeline for over a decade, since the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission published proposals in 2003. In 2008, the then Labour Government published a consultation on limited partnerships. However, in response to the stakeholder responses, the decision was taken that it was not possible to continue with those reforms.

We will not be opposing this order. However, I wish to put a number of questions to the Minister, and perhaps the most sensible place to start is with the Labour Government’s objections. The consultation response in 2009 stated that concerns were raised about particular issues in Scotland, as well as how the order was drafted. I appreciate that the order has undergone revision since then, but have stakeholders raised objections on the instrument in front of us today? Furthermore, has the draft been altered to reflect the concerns raised by funds with client interests in Scotland?

One of the changes made following the latest consultation was the removal of the strike-off procedure. The original proposal would have removed dissolved PFLPs from the partnership register. However, concerns were raised that limited partners would lose their limited liability status. We therefore now have a two-tier system for limited partnerships and PFLPs. What consideration was given to delaying introduction of this instrument until all the cracks surrounding the strike-off procedure are ironed out? The explanatory document promises that the Government will look into further steps that could be taken in relation to this issue “in due course”. Can the Minister say what further steps are being taken and when we can expect to be informed about them? There have been strong concerns raised about the burden that this two-tier system will create.

The Government’s stated aim is to,

“reduce the administrative and financial burdens that impact these funds under the current limited partnership structure”.

However, as the BLP law firm identifies, there is a chance that the reduction in the compliance and administrative burden under the new PFLP regime may be short-lived and may well be replaced by other initiatives to increase accountability for limited partnerships more generally. What measures are included in the instrument to ensure that the Government’s stated aim is achieved?

The introduction of a white list brings with it much- needed clarity on the activities of a limited partner, but there is real concern around whether the Government have achieved the right balance in the role of limited partners in the new PFLPs. The proposed changes allow a limited partner to take part in the committee and to vote on proposals by the general partner, while at the same time maintaining limited liability status. Do not the Government consider that this is an inappropriate power for a limited partner? I would certainly be interested to hear what criteria the Government have used to determine the content of the white list. Getting the balance right is vital, so do they intend to conduct a review of the white list and, if so, to what timescale?

Page 8 of the explanatory document—which I found very helpful as someone coming new to this issue—makes a forceful defence for the reforms, stating that:

“Without such changes to current legislation, the UK risks becoming a less attractive domicile for funds when compared to other jurisdictions”.


That is a strong claim, but I could not see any evidence in the document to support that contention, so I would be grateful if the Minister would address that issue. I would certainly be keen to hear his explanation of the role that PFLPs will be playing in making this a more “attractive domicile”.

Finally, I have two minor technical points. First, the impact assessment states on page 2 that 600 private equity and venture capital fund managers will be affected by this change. However, it states on page 8 that as many as 1,030 could be affected. Which of these figures is correct and what percentage of the current limited partnership landscape does that represent? Secondly, what discussions have the Government had with Companies House, which will be responsible for processing applications by firms wishing to become PFLPs, about the changes being made? Has it requested additional resources to deal with the increased administration costs of these charges? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the welcome. To deal first with the typing error on page 2, it should read 250 fund managers, not 600. As I said in my opening remarks, we estimate that there are 250 fund managers managing 780 funds. I shall address some of the other issues that she raised. If I do not cover them all—some of them were quite technical—perhaps I may write to her to fill in the gaps.

She mentioned the concerns of stakeholders and Scottish funds. She is quite right: a range of stakeholders raised concerns which the Government listened to, and we amended the order in several areas in response to their feedback. We took into account the views of Scottish stakeholders, including the Law Society of Scotland, while developing the order. On the broader concern expressed about Scottish limited partnerships being used for fraud, the Government have listened to stakeholders’ concerns and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy recently launched a call for evidence on the issue, covering all forms of limited partnerships, including these. The Government are committed to implementing any consequent reforms in respect of private fund limited partnerships, as well as other partnerships.

The noble Baroness asks why we did not postpone the order until we had the results of that survey. Strike-off procedure is an issue for wider limited partnership policy, and any process for removing partnerships from the register would need to apply to both private fund limited partnerships and other forms of partnerships. BEIS recently launched a call for evidence looking at the possibility of limited partnerships being used for criminal activity—a subject I mentioned a moment ago. The call for evidence closes on Friday 17 March, and BEIS will consider what further action is necessary. In answer to her direct question—why did we not wait?—the Government’s view was that it was important to press ahead with this package of amendments now because competing jurisdictions are acting quickly. Luxembourg updated legislation in 2013; France and Cyprus are introducing measures now; and UK withdrawal from the EU makes this reform timely. That is why we decided to go ahead now.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 8th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Stevenson is really a probing amendment, designed to ask the Minister why we have Schedule 5 and why we need it. We have more than five pages on powers of entry and search, from the power to issue search warrants to those of inspecting, copying, seizing and retaining items. It all sounds terribly dramatic, and the reasons for it are not at all clear. Such a power was not in the 1992 Act and has never, as far as we or those connected with the higher education sector are aware, been necessary before. Perhaps the Minister can say whether there are problems that we are not aware of which are so serious that they demand a schedule all to themselves.

When it comes to Schedule 5, the Explanatory Notes refer us to the commentary on Clause 56. That does not enlighten us all that much, although it goes into slightly more detail:

“The warrant may permit or require a constable to accompany an authorised person and that constable may use reasonable force if necessary”.


That all sounds as though something serious is envisaged by the Government. Three-quarters of the Technical and Further Education Bill currently before your Lordships’ House is taken up with insolvency procedures—something that the Government do not envisage happening other than in extremely rare circumstances. Perhaps the Minister will say the same about Schedule 5. We certainly hope so, because we do not want these powers to be used at all, but certainly only sparingly. If entry and search is deemed to be required, it should happen only after a serious breach of a registration condition is suspected. That is why we set out fraud or serious or wilful mismanagement of public funds as conditions that must be met. Short of that, the vague conditions of the schedule do not meet the test. Can the Minister explain why this is necessary and in what situations he envisages where it might be necessary? I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way that he posed his questions as to why we need these powers, and I agree that we hope that they will be used rarely. We are revisiting a debate that we had in Committee, and I am grateful to those who participated in that debate, particularly my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay.

In the light of the debate that we had in Committee, we have carefully reflected on the schedule, but remain of the view that it should stand as drafted. This will ensure that the Office for Students and the Secretary of State are able to investigate effectively if there are grounds to suspect serious breaches of funding or registration conditions at a higher education provider.

The proposed amendments would narrow these powers so they could be used only where there are suspicions of fraud, or serious or wilful mismanagement of public funds. We believe that most, but not all, cases where these powers would be used would fall into that category. However, narrowing the powers in the way proposed could affect our ability to investigate effectively certain cases where value for public money, quality, and the student interest was at risk, but where these might not clearly constitute fraud, or serious or wilful mismanagement of public funds at the time of the application for the warrant.

Higher education providers will be subject to OfS registration conditions. As an example, the OfS could put in place a condition to limit the number of students a provider with high drop-out and low qualification rates was able to recruit: for instance if the OfS considered that those performance issues are related to the provider recruiting more students than it can properly cater for.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I hear what the Minister says. He is talking about low-qualification and high drop-out rates. Could it be that we have never needed this power until now because of the present university architecture, but given the expectation that there will be new arrivals on the scene, the Government are implicitly saying that they foresee dangers in future that have not been considered a threat hitherto?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I will come in a moment to why at present there is not provision for these types of institutions, where there is for every other, and I hope that that may answer the noble Lord’s question.

I was explaining that a breach of such a condition may not clearly constitute wilful mismanagement of public money if the provider was using the tuition fees in line with their purpose—the provision of a designated higher education course to an eligible student. However, there is a significant risk that value for public money, quality of provision and the students’ experience will be seriously negatively affected. If the OfS has grounds to suspect that the provider is in any case undertaking an aggressive student enrolment campaign, it is important that evidence can be found swiftly to confirm this, and to prevent over-recruitment.

If the amendment were made, a warrant to enter and search may not be granted in cases such as that. The amendments would also amend the powers so that the search warrant must state that all the requirements for grant of the warrant specified in Schedule 5 have been met. My noble friend Lord Younger wrote to Peers at Committee stage to clarify that it is not usual practice within powers of entry provisions for the magistrate to certify that conditions for grant of the warrant have been met, and we are not aware of any examples of this.

Schedule 5 sets out the conditions that must be met for a warrant to be granted, and we have full confidence that this constitutes a strong and sufficient safeguard to ensure a warrant would be granted only where necessary. This is a standard approach used in existing legislative provisions relating to search warrants and powers of entry. Examples from recent legislation include the powers to enter and search within Section 39 of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 and the powers to enter within Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

To be clear, a requirement to state that conditions have been met would not provide an extra legal safeguard. The requirement for these conditions to be met already exists in the schedule as drafted. There are strong safeguards in place to ensure these powers are used appropriately—and, I hope, rarely. A magistrate would need to be satisfied that four tests were met before granting a warrant: that reasonable grounds existed for suspecting a breach of a condition of funding or registration; that the suspected breach was sufficiently serious to justify entering the premises; that entry to the premises was necessary to determine whether the breach was taking place; and that permission to enter would be refused or else requesting entry would frustrate the purpose of entry.

These criteria will ensure that the exercise of the power is appropriately limited. Further limitations are built into Schedule 5, including that entry must be at a reasonable hour and the premises may be searched only to the extent that is reasonably required to determine whether there is or has been a breach. Powers of entry, such as these, already exist for a wide variety of other types of education. Ofsted has inspection powers in respect of schools, colleges, initial teacher training, work-based learning and skills training, adult and community learning and education and training in prisons.

Local authorities have powers to enter the premises of maintained schools. Regulators of qualification awarding bodies also have powers of entry. So, to answer the noble Lord’s question, currently HE providers are an exception as neither the Department for Education nor the Higher Education Funding Council for England has a statutory right to enter an HE provider if serious wrongdoing is suspected. To that extent, we are bringing these institutions into line with other institutions in education, and indeed other fields. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment, against the background of the reasons I have given for the schedule remaining as it is at the moment.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I thank the noble Lord for that, but I have to say that I am even less reassured than I was before moving the amendment. The Minister mentioned, as I did earlier, low qualification levels and high drop-out levels, and he then went on to talk about aggressive student enrolment campaigns. That conjures up images of press gangs going round the bars in ports and people being carried off, never to be seen again—or, in this case, to be seen again in a new higher education institution near you. It is a rather bizarre concept that I cannot quite picture in my mind.

The question is basically, “Why now and why not in the past?”. As far as anyone is aware, and the Minister has not suggested it, there has been no lacuna. The Minister said he is bringing this sector into line with parts of other education sectors. I do not know the detail on that, but my basic question is: where did the demand come from? Five pages in a schedule does not exactly suggest a tidying-up exercise, if we are allowed to use that phrase. It seems rather odd. However, I shall leave it at that. It does seem rather odd but in the circumstances, none the less, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

I think that that is certainly so; my understanding of time and practice here suggests that it is. Perhaps I may continue.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brown, made the point that the noble Lord was making on the previous amendment: that this is really rather novel. You can imagine the effect on a higher education provider if it appeared in the newspaper that, the night before, a search warrant had been issued for its headquarters. In answer to that, my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie said that the conditions are very strict, and he read out the fairly detailed conditions. I thought it might be a simple safeguard to require a signature to say that these conditions had been met. I got a letter the day after that suggesting that this was an unheard of stipulation. As you can imagine, that slightly worked me up to see what I could do about it.

The provisions say that a search warrant must specify the name of the authorised person who applied for it and so on, and,

“state that it is issued under this Schedule”.

That is a fairly important provision. It occurred to me that all one had to do was add after that the following simple words,

“and that all the requirements for the grant specified in this Schedule are met”.

That seems very straightforward and easy.

Look at how these magistrate’s search warrants are granted. One must remember that where the conditions in a particular provision are important, the magistrate may not have in his head exactly what the conditions are. Therefore, I suggest that this amendment is a rather easy and convenient way of making sure that the magistrate’s attention is directed to the detailed requirements of the schedule, which have to be met before the warrant can be granted. That seems very straightforward and I cannot see anything wrong with it. So far, I have not heard any reason why it would not work. Therefore, I beg to move this amendment.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, might I respond to the points that my noble and learned friend has raised? In so doing, perhaps I will respond very briefly to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, in concluding the previous debate about why these powers were necessary and where the demands came from.

As I said, at present, neither HEFCE nor the Secretary of State has the statutory right to enter a HE provider to investigate if serious wrongdoing is suspected. This compromises investigators’ ability to obtain evidence of what may have happened and makes it harder to tackle rogue providers.

In its 2014 report on alternative providers, the National Audit Office said that the department has no rights of access to providers and that this affects the extent to which it can investigate currently. Therefore, we believe that these powers are needed to safeguard the interests of students and the taxpayer and to protect the reputation of the sector.

I apologise to my noble and learned friend, but I tried to address Amendment 125 when I—

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I appreciate that he is taking the opportunity to clarify that last point, but to some extent he has stirred the pot again. He is talking now about rogue providers. My point was that, up until now, we have not been aware of rogue providers. There is clearly a fear that in the not too distant future there will be rogue providers, and that surely is a bigger issue than the question of having five pages in Schedule 5 to deal with them.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

No, the provisions are not required for the reasons that the noble Lord has suggested but because we believe they are necessary for the current institutions and in the light of the NAO report, which was written before these new providers came on to the scene. The department has no right of access to the providers. This affects the extent to which it can investigate currently rather than in future.

I turn to my noble and learned friend. I am not sure that I can usefully add to what I said earlier. I would not of course challenge for a moment what he said about practice in the judiciary. My understanding is that it is not usual practice within powers of entry provision for the magistrate to sign a certification document, and we are still unaware of any examples of this. The relevant clause in the Bill, as I think I said a moment ago, sets out the considerations that magistrates would have to take into account when making their judicial decision to grant a warrant, and we have full confidence that this constitutes a sufficient safeguard to ensure that a warrant will be granted only where necessary. For that reason, we are not persuaded that his amendment, in saying that it would have to be signed, constitutes an extra safeguard to ensure that a warrant would be granted only where necessary. I hope that, against that background, my noble and learned friend will feel that he does not have to press his amendment.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

I am very sorry, but it strikes me as absolutely essential that the warrant be signed. I do not think that there is any question but that the magistrate has to sign the warrant. Given that the warrant has to contain a statement that it is under the schedule—in other words, the magistrate has to say that it is under the schedule—it is only common sense. There are special conditions here, which my noble friend relied on as justifying the proposition that they should have this provision, in spite of what the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, said about how detrimental it might be to a higher education provider. I am not disputing the need for the warrant at all; all that I am suggesting is that it would be a very important safeguard that magistrates’ attention would be drawn specifically to these quite elaborate conditions. They are quite detailed, and I do not think that it is likely that a magistrate will have them in his head, or her head, as they approach the grant of a warrant, when whoever it is comes along and applies for it.

Therefore I am not asking for any separate signature—one signature is enough—but the signature would include the phrase that I have put in this amendment, after the fact that it is under this schedule. That seems to be absolute common sense, and I am extremely sorry that the Government have not had the willingness to accommodate this, which occurred to me in the course of dealing with the matter here. Surely, that is what Committee stages are for. If the Government are to cast aside what I have suggested, given that I have a certain amount of experience of magistrates’ warrants and so on, I sincerely hope that before Third Reading this is taken into account. Otherwise, it seems to me an absolutely idiotic attitude from the Government to simple improvements suggested in the course of the discussion.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to my noble and learned friend, and of course I will with my colleagues have a look at this between now and Third Reading, but what we have done here is to take a standard approach used in existing legislative provisions relating to search warrants and powers of entry. We are simply seeking to replicate the procedure that already exists in similar circumstances, when for whatever reason powers of entry are required. We are simply applying best practice and extending to these institutions powers that already exist to institutions in the educational field. However, in view of the very strong feelings that my noble and learned friend clearly has on this, and in view of his greater knowledge than mine in matters judicial, of course we will take it away and have another look at it. Against those undertakings, I hope that my noble and learned friend might feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

Certainly, with that understanding, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment and I sincerely hope that wise counsels will prevail by the time we come to Third Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Willis, which were explained very well by the noble Lord. They would contribute to a better understanding of all the issues that have arisen during the course of the Bill and would be a source of good data for the future as we see how the system being brought into play works in practice.

My Amendment 130 stems from Clause 61, which would place a duty on the relevant body or the Office for Students to put in a series of measures in relation to data that are to be published. The requirements are not very detailed—there is broad discretion—but the broader areas relate to student entrants, the number of education providers of different types, the number of persons who promote the interests of students and a good range of other things. Curiously, it does not really go down into the detail of some of the mechanics mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, when she spoke on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and these are the issues picked up in my amendment. It happened to be topical because, when the Committee stage took place, there was an investigation into the use of part-time, non-permanent and permanent staff in higher education on zero-hours contracts—I think that was the term used. This amendment at least points in that direction but I think that it has a wider resonance, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken in this debate for addressing data issues. I entirely share the view of my noble friend that as much data as possible should be made openly available as soon as possible, and I have no difficulty in endorsing the broad principles that he enunciated.

However, I do not think that the issue here is about the powers to obtain data under the Bill. The current drafting already enables the OfS to make data available in connection with the performance of its functions and it also gives the Secretary of State the power to require application-to-acceptance data for qualifying research purposes. I am sure my noble friend will accept that, however we draft the powers of the OfS, data protection rules will necessarily mean that open data are subject to restrictions on sensitive and personal data.

With regard to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, although I sympathise with its intent, the OfS will be a regulator of HE providers, with the power to require such information from them as is required to perform its functions. However, it is not feasible to expand its remit to impose conditions on private companies that it does not regulate and with which it has no regulatory relationship.

Although I do not believe that these amendments are the answer to overcoming barriers to accessing data, I agree that greater collaboration between sector bodies on sharing and making comparable data available to students and researchers is something that we must continue to strive for. We would expect the OfS and the body designated to compile and publish higher education information on behalf of the OfS to play a part in encouraging that collaboration. The requirement to consult on what, when and how data are published will ensure that the interests of the sector, as well as those of students and prospective students, as called for by my noble friend, are taken into account. Moreover, in the spirit of co-regulation we must also recognise that the sector is already taking measures to address the points raised by my noble friend through the recently published HESA open data strategy, along with the recommendations made in the Bell review around the co-ordination of data.

I turn now to Amendment 130, which relates to an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, in Committee. I understand his concerns about the job security of higher education staff and I can reassure him that the Government value the crucial contribution of HE staff. I remind the noble Lord that we are not seeking to determine on the face of the Bill exactly which data must be collected. Data requirements and needs evolve over time. The relevant data body needs to maintain the ability to adapt to changes and therefore data requirements will be decided through a period of consultation. The OfS will have a duty to consult on data collection and publication in conjunction with the full range of interested parties. In respect of the publication duty, the OfS will also have the discretion to consult persons that it considers appropriate, including any relevant bodies representing the staff interest. It would be inappropriate to specify workforce data when all other data requirements will be agreed through a period of consultation. It also risks pre-judging the consultation process.

However, I can offer the noble Lord some reassurance on workforce data. The current data body, HESA, already collects data on so-called “atypical” academic staff whose working arrangements are not permanent. This is governed by the code of practice for higher education data collections. Discussions were held last year between the trade unions, employers’ representatives and HESA on improving understanding of employment patterns in the HE workforce. This has led to proposed improvements to the HESA staff record. These are currently going through consultation with a view to being implemented in 2017-18. We are confident that this issue will be considered as part of the data consultation and that the OfS will want to build on HESA’s positive action in this area. I would therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. He has answered all the points I raised very satisfactorily.

I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, spoke to his amendment as well. There are datasets that are not obvious but which can have a great effect on the way the sector progresses. If the sort of information he is suggesting is made public, there will be a trend towards better behaviour. Students care about these things. If you are considering a university, you care about who is going to be teaching you and what sort of workforce it is. Also, the fact that a university has a strong cadre of highly valued permanent staff who have been in post for a long time is something that can be used in its recruitment policy. It is the sort of thing that students like to know, so I would encourage the OfS to look wide in its definition of data, and certainly to include things like gender relationships and relationships in general between students and staff. That sort of thing is a great driver of good behaviour. From time to time we hear stories of bad behaviour, so unless the information is surfaced and it becomes commonplace for higher education institutions to have to tell people what is going on, these things can too easily be hidden.

I commend the Government for their attitude to data and I look forward to the OfS following the diktat that my noble friend has just outlined. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, Amendments 131 and 132 mirror those that we brought forward in Committee. They concern the entitlement of higher education staff to be consulted prior to the OfS making a recommendation of a body suitable to perform the data functions. In such situations, this schedule provides for a number of registered providers of higher education, covering a broad range of different types of providers, a broad range of students on higher education courses and a broad range of employers of graduates, which is perfectly understandable and acceptable.

That is it, apart from the catch-all,

“such other persons as the OfS considers appropriate”.

In Committee, the Minister said that the Government did not think it appropriate to restrict the ability of the OfS to consult such other persons as it considered appropriate. These amendments do not do that. If we had extended them to delete the reference in the schedule to “such other persons”, that would have closed things down. However, we are not doing that; we are leaving it there and suggesting that we should add another provision to ensure that staff working in higher education are part of the process. That does not mean only academic staff but includes all categories of people who contribute to making the experience of students fulfilling in every way possible. These people know higher education and the way in which institutions work, and so caretakers, catering staff, IT support, technicians and other categories should be asked to bring the benefit of their experience to bear in the decision either to designate a body or to remove that designation.

The Government do not give adequate consideration to the role that staff working in higher education can play. They have a contribution to make and they should be enabled to make it. This is not a radical suggestion—it certainly ought not to be—and adding one more category to those who must be consulted would certainly not be onerous for the Office for Students. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I repeat what I said in an earlier debate: we appreciate the role of all HE staff and there should be no imputation to the contrary.

This is another issue which we discussed in Committee. The amendments would require the OfS to consult HE staff on designation of the data body and would require the Secretary of State to consult HE staff before removing such a designation. We are committed to a system of co-regulation for the designated bodies, and this means that both the OfS and the sector should have confidence in the designated data body. Therefore the Bill already contains a requirement for the OfS to consult a broad range of registered HE providers on designation of the data body, and the Secretary of State must also consult before removing such a designation.

Providers are, of course, made up of HE staff, and in consulting HE providers we would expect their responses to be inclusive of the views of their staff, not only the academic community at that institution but the administrative and support teams, who in many cases directly gather and then submit the data required. So we expect that the views of staff on data and designation will be represented in their institution’s response.

However, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent direct consultation with staff groups. The OfS and the Secretary of State will have the discretion to consult any person, including a staff representative body. We would expect it to adopt an open approach, and we bear in mind the remarks that have just been made by the noble Lord.

The legislation must be broad and flexible to stand the test of time and therefore, despite the urging of the noble Lord, we should resist specifying this sub-group, or any other group with an interest, in the list of consultees when the current drafting of the Bill is sufficient to ensure that the views of HE staff will be represented both in the designation process and in the removal of designation. Against that background, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I find that partially encouraging. The Minister’s initial remarks will be noted by those who represent staff—trade unions and other organisations—and in future will be shown to the management of higher education institutions when the time comes for them to be consulted on designation or “dedesignation”, if there is such a word, in this context. I am sure the Minister did not mean to be disparaging, but for the staff to be described just as a “sub-group” undervalues the role they play in the running of an institution. That is why we believe there is a case to add one more provision, while still leaving it open for anybody else to be included.

However, the Minister’s remarks have been helpful. It would be even more helpful if at some stage they could be issued as some form of guidance to higher education institutions, but it is up to staff representatives, trade unions or whoever to use those remarks and ensure they are turned into meaningful representation within higher education institutions. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)]

My Lords, I do not want to say very much about this. I did not withdraw the amendment which my noble friend Lady Brown and I originally tabled and which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, kindly introduced, because I wanted the opportunity to say in the House how very much we appreciate the fact that the Government listened to us on this and how convinced we are that introducing the Regulators’ Code into the OfS’s actions will be entirely for the good. It will take care of a great many anxieties we had about details in the Bill and we are truly appreciative of that.

I also want to agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said about the realities of dealing with students who are in a university and how you cope with problems, complaints and all the issues which come to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. It is really important that the Government take account of the fact that this is not like a situation where you buy a coffee and if you do not like it you go and buy another coffee. My noble friend spoke very eloquently. I hope the Government will listen to her on that as much as they listened to us, and I thank them very much.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken to these two amendments for their contributions to this debate. I shall deal with the easy one first.

My noble friend explained in his letter earlier this week that he had listened to concerns around the regulatory powers of the OfS and the assurance that noble Lords, many of whom have spoken in this debate this evening, are seeking around its adherence to the Regulators’ Code. As already stated in the Bill, under Clause 3(1)(f), we share the aspiration that the OfS should comply with recognised standards of good regulatory practice. We remain wholeheartedly committed to the principles of the Regulators’ Code, and because the OfS is the sector regulator, we agree that it should sign up to the code. I am therefore pleased to confirm the announcement made on Monday that the OfS will voluntarily commit to comply with the code, with a view to its regulatory functions being formally brought into scope when the list is next updated via statutory instrument.

I now turn to the more difficult amendment about the respective roles of the CMA and the OfS and what the interface is between the two. In his letter to noble Lords earlier this week, my noble friend recognised the concern over the respective roles and responsibilities of the CMA and the OfS. I will explain why we believe that this a not a substantiated concern. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, used the right expression when she said, “We expect collaboration”. That is exactly what we expect.

The CMA is not a sector regulator but an enforcer of both competition and consumer protection law across the UK economy. The CMA has the specific role and specialist expertise to enforce competition law and consumer protection across the whole of the UK economy. It would be unprecedented, as has been suggested at times, for the competition and consumer enforcement functions of the CMA to be transferred entirely to a sector regulator. Even where sector regulators have enforcement functions, the CMA retains powers as an enforcement authority, with appropriate arrangements for co-ordination of concurrent functions.

In the past the CMA has provided general advice to HE institutions on complying with consumer law. In addition, its consumer enforcement powers have been used in relation to the sector. Specifically, it has received undertakings from providers around, for example, academic sanctions for non-fee debts, such as accommodation debts; information for prospective students on additional non-fee costs; terms and conditions on fee variations; and fair complaints procedure.

HEIs are expected to comply with consumer law, enforced by the CMA. The OfS will be expected to take on board the CMA’s guidance and best practice when it develops the details of the regulatory framework. It is perfectly usual for an organisation that is subject to sector regulation to be required to comply with legal requirements that are enforced by bodies other than the sector regulator. For example, even in regulated sectors the Environment Agency carries out regulatory and enforcement activity in relation to the environmental aspects of an organisation’s activities—for instance, as regards waste and contaminated land—and the Health and Safety Executive enforces health and safety requirements.

Although the CMA and OfS share areas of common interest in relation to competition and consumer matters, their roles are distinct and complementary, not contradictory. This is the joint view not just of Ministers but of the CMA. So we expect the CMA and the OfS to work productively together, just as the CMA works well with other regulators—indeed, as it does with HEFCE at the moment—and we see no reason for this to be different once the OfS is established. There will be a further opportunity to explain respective roles and responsibilities, as necessary, as part of the consultation on the regulatory framework this autumn.

Students—in addition to being students—have consumer rights, and universities and other higher education providers that do not meet their obligations to students may be in breach of consumer protection law. Compliance with that law is important not just to protect the students but to maintain student confidence and the reputation of the HE sector, and to support competition.

The noble Baroness asked whether there was confusion about the regulatory roles of the CMA, the OfS and the OIA. I applaud the work that she did at the OIA. As I think I said a moment ago, subject to the passage of the Bill, the OfS will be the regulator for higher education providers in England. The OIA will continue to operate as the body designated by government to operate the student complaints scheme in higher education, so it is not a regulator and it will continue to deal with individual student complaints. The CMA is not a sector regulator but an enforcer of both competition and consumer protection law across the UK economy, and it has the specific role and specialist expertise to enforce competition law and consumer protection across the whole of the UK economy. So there is no overlap of responsibility between the CMA, the OfS and the OIA, although the OfS will be expected to take on board the CMA’s guidance and best practice when developing the regulatory framework.

As I said, there will be an opportunity, as part of the consultation on the regulatory framework this autumn, to explain, discuss and identify the respective roles and responsibilities of these three bodies as necessary. In the meantime, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the Minister for that reply. On the relatively simple question—the good news, as he called it—of Amendment 135, I echo the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. We are very grateful for the listening and reflecting that has taken place. The end-result is exactly as we would want it. This is a body that will be carrying out regulatory functions. It would be better if it were fully subscribed to the Regulators’ Code. I understand that there will be a transitional arrangement. If that is the intention, we wish it well and that will be the right solution for that.

However, I am a bit more puzzled about the question of the overlap and links between the CMA and the Office for Students, particularly in relation to the very powerful case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, whose experience in the OIA leads to real and very important questions about where this is all going to go. As she pointed out, and I do not think was picked up by the Minister in detail—although I will read what he said in Hansard—there are three bodies with very different functions and aims. They have very different cultures, missions and outturns that they will be looking for. I do not quite see how that all fits together.

I understand that there will be a consultation period, but we are starting from a very odd position. With the competitive focus and the competition issues—the possibility that institutions might seek to challenge the work being done by other higher education institutions through the Competition Appeal Tribunal—this is a new world that is going to cause quite a lot of concern, worry and cost. It is certainly a deflection from their main purpose of the higher education institutions engaging in this. That has not been dealt with, and I wonder whether it might be possible for more information to flow our way.

On the detailed precision about where the CMA sits in relation to the Office for Students, I understand that will have to evolve. I am not in any sense being critical of that, and I have already admitted in my opening statement that we understand the role that Parliament has given to the CMA. That cannot be taken away but, surely, there is a case here for a memorandum of understanding at least—some sort of written documentation so that we would at least have a baseline on which to operate. I did not hear that from the Minister. Perhaps he could reflect on that and write to me about it.

It was a good aphorism to say that these are complementary but not contradictory groups working here, but it will be very difficult to see for a few years where this will all settle down. He may be right in what he asserted: it may be that this is in the best interests of students, but it is a bit hard to see that at the moment. While I see no particular case for progressing this amendment, or any others related to it, to improve the Bill, I wonder whether it might be sensible to have a quick meeting about this. Those who are keenly involved in this might just share experiences about where our nervousness comes from to ensure that there is nothing to be picked up, at least by a statement about a way forward to set out the broad understandings under which we will start the system before we get to Third Reading. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 6th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)]

My Lords, this is a probing amendment to clarify a situation which concerns, pretty specifically and possibly uniquely, the Guildhall School of Music and Drama. The Guildhall school is a very unusual institution, partly because of its history, and partly because of its ownership. It is an unincorporated body. It does not have the legal structure common among higher education colleges. It was set up 137 years ago, in 1880, by the City of London Corporation as a conservatoire, and has never changed its corporate structure since. It is owned by the City of London Corporation, its court of governors is appointed by the City of London Corporation and close to a third of its funding comes from the corporation. It is, indeed, an integral part of the whole structure of the City of London, in the same way that Hampstead Heath, Epping Forest, and various other schools are run.

This gives the problem under the Bill that the Guildhall is a body that does not really fit into the definitions of what the White Paper was trying to create. The White Paper, which informs the Bill, indicates that the governance principles of the Office for Students, under the powers conferred on it under Clause 15, will be,

“comparable to those currently required of HEFCE-funded providers in line with the HE Code of Governance”.

This code has been developed by the Committee of University Chairs, and has been deployed successfully by the Guildhall. There is every reason to assume that the governance principles envisaged by Clause 15, which the Office for Students will be developing, can be applied to the Guildhall with equal success. The clause, however, introduces statutory backing for the principles, and the concern is that in moving to this more formalised position, some of the current flexibility will be lost and the ability to take account of the possibly unique governance structure of the Guildhall will no longer be applicable.

The amendment is to try to flush out whether it is possible to have sufficient flexibility under the new structure to enable the Guildhall to continue in the way that it has in the past—in other words, to be an integral part of the Corporation of London. I am trying to work out whether things can go on as they are or whether they have to change for the Guildhall, possibly with unfortunate consequences. On that basis, I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend who, not for the first time, has raised in your Lordships’ House interests of concern to the City of London Corporation.

Clause 15 enables the OfS to take over the responsibility of scrutinising providers’ governing documents against the list of public interest principles. I can reassure my noble friend that we do not anticipate any impact on current higher education institutions being recognised by the OfS as higher education providers in the future. The intended practical application of the current and future list is to ensure best practice within already existing and recognised higher education providers’ governing documents, and it is not the intention of these principles to prescribe the corporate form of providers. I hope that gives my noble friend the comfort he is seeking.

The OfS must consult on the new list of principles. With the exception of the requirement that there should be a principle protecting academic freedom for staff, which I am sure the Guildhall has no difficulty with, the Bill does not prescribe what should be included in that list. There is nothing in Clause 15 that should concern the Guildhall School of Music, and it should be able to continue doing the valuable work it has been doing for so long. Against that background of assurance, I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I did not intend to speak on this issue but I want briefly to say something very important. If any of us had children who we sent off to higher education, we would expect that institution to give them the support and development they needed. There are private colleges that have their courses validated by individual universities. Of course, those private colleges could, under certain circumstances, get into difficulties and cease trading. What happens then to the students and to their student loans? As the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, rightly said, we are seeing this already in further education, where training providers are going into liquidation. They are all right—they have gone into liquidation—but the poor student is left high and dry. I hope that when the Minister replies he might give assurances on this matter.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, which has raised the important issue of student protection in the case of suspension of registration or indeed deregistration. I think that there is no disagreement that student protection is important, and that is why in this Bill we have gone further than ever before by including an express provision that will enable the OfS to ensure appropriate protections for students through a key condition of provider registration. The noble Lord and others have made some helpful suggestions regarding the likely content of student protection plans, which we agree need to be robust and comprehensive in their coverage. These plans are likely to include a diverse range of measures to protect students, as well as a diverse range of possible triggers for a student protection plan, including suspension of registration.

In response to the concerns that have been expressed in the debate, I can say that draft guidance will be prepared for consultation with the sector and with students as part of the regulatory framework consultation later this year. We would expect it to include information on how and when a provider should refer students to its student protection plan, for example during suspension of registration. It would be wrong to pre-empt the consultation by including these measures in the Bill itself, but I would seek to reassure noble Lords that the measures I have just referred to could include, for example, provision to teach out a course for existing students; offering students an alternative course at the same institution; making arrangements for affected students to switch to a different provider without having to start their course from scratch; and—in response to an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Watson—measures to compensate students who are affected financially. I hope that these examples provide some reassurance to noble Lords that we do have in mind the contingency arrangements they have outlined in the debate.

Clause 17 places a clear duty on the OfS to notify, through its maintenance of the register, when a provider has been suspended, and a similar duty is imposed on the OfS by Clauses 19 and 23 whenever providers are deregistered. The OfS already has the power, given in Clause 7, to require a provider’s governing body to make sure that students are promptly informed about its actions.

However, widespread publicity of preliminary compliance measures may not always be appropriate in every case. Before the OfS can impose a sanction of suspension and deregistration it must notify a provider of its intent to do so, unless an urgent suspension is being imposed, and then allow the provider the opportunity either to argue its case or to put matters right. As I am sure noble Lords will agree, the desired outcome for the benefit of students and the provider alike is that the provider takes the actions necessary to ensure that it complies with the conditions of registration that have been placed upon it, which would mean that no further action would be required.

There are also important matters of confidentiality at play here, which is a key concern that has previously been raised by Universities UK and a number of noble Lords in the debates in Committee. Higher education providers would not wish the OfS to announce that it was carrying out an investigation into a provider as this could lead to unnecessary reputational damage if the OfS subsequently decided not to take action. We must also be careful not to unsettle or panic students unnecessarily. Disclosing details of possible sanctions when the OfS has yet to decide to take action would not in our view generally be appropriate or helpful to students. It is the inclusion of the words “intention to” that I find real difficulty with in Amendment 56.

On Amendment 57, I have listened to the thoughtful debates we have had today, and indeed I read the debates in the other place, on the issue of student transfer. We tabled Amendment 100 on this important issue which we have already discussed. Our amendment will require the OfS to monitor and report on the provision of student transfer arrangements by registered higher education providers. It will empower the OfS to facilitate, encourage or promote awareness of these arrangements. In doing so, the Government are creating the conditions to allow the necessary flexibility for students to make the right choices for themselves and to have control over those decisions, whatever the reason for their transfer. The amendment that has been proposed and to which noble Lords have spoken would result in the OfS trying to make arrangements for students to be placed on other courses if their current course closed. However, the decision about what courses to offer falls within the institutional autonomy of each provider.

While I recognise the importance of students being able to transfer, particularly where their institution ceases to offer their planned learning, it is not and nor should it be in the OfS’s gift to determine whether institutions accept students from elsewhere. This has never been a role undertaken by the OfS’s predecessor, HEFCE, and there is no intention for it to be taken on by the OfS. It must surely be preferable for the sector to be in control of transfer processes, including where appropriate as part of the student protection plans, and for the OfS to play a greater role in facilitating and encouraging the availability and take-up of such arrangements.

In response to my noble friend Lord Norton, who was concerned that students would not know what protections they have, we have listened to concerns on this issue. That is why we brought forward an amendment in the other place to require plans to be published and therefore brought to students’ attention. This balanced approach is what our amendment sought to achieve. Against that background, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 55.

Building More Homes (Economic Affairs Committee Report)

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the whole House understands why the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, was unable to wind up the debate. We extend our sympathy to him and to his wife, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, on the recent loss of her father, although no one would know that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, had not been working on that wind-up speech for several weeks.

If political students wanted a textbook example of how a committee in your Lordship’s House could influence and reshape government policy, I would direct them to the report we have been debating this afternoon. As the noble Lords, Lord Horam and Lord Best, explained, its context was the Housing and Planning Bill, introduced by the newly-elected Government in 2015, which contained a number of measures to increase housing supply, particularly for first-time buyers, but was not free from political controversy. It provided the back-drop to this report, which was published a few weeks after Royal Assent.

A few days after publication, there was, in effect, a change of Government. All DCLG Ministers but one were moved and a new team arrived, with the political space to revisit policy and with your Lordships’ report in their in-tray to assist that process. I have been genuinely impressed by the fresh approach adopted by Gavin Barwell, as I know have many others, who have admired the way he has shown his commitment to tackling the challenges of his portfolio and engaged with all the stakeholders. As a former Chief Whip I would caution against praising him too highly, just in case he is headhunted by the Prime Minister and his skills are applied to other challenges that may confront the Government in Whitehall. But it was perhaps a tacit acknowledgement of the influence of your Lordships’ report that the title of the subsequent White Paper, Fixing Our Broken Housing Market, was lifted from the introduction to this report: “Housing, A Broken Market?”.

I cannot think of any Select Committee report in either House that has had so many of its recommendations adopted so quickly, sometimes at the expense of Government reordering earlier priorities, as my noble friend Lord Horam said, and as also mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Turnbull and Lord Kerslake. Perhaps the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans would describe it as repentance. We are taking forward measures that fit with over half of the committee’s 13 final recommendations as well as a host of other points raised in the report. So I commend the committee on the timing and the targeting of its report, its chairman for his perceptive introduction and all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. The White Paper was, of course, a consultation document, so everything that has been said in this debate will be taken into account in that process.

I have discovered in my short time in your Lordships’ House that Whips are often invited to respond to debates on subjects in which they had, until shortly before, displayed but a fleeting interest. I hope that that is not the case today; like other noble Lords, I have chaired a housing association. Unlike other noble Lords, I was a housing Minister at various levels of seniority from 1981 to 1994, with a discontinuity from 1986 to 1990 when I fell out with Margaret Thatcher over the poll tax. Indeed, as Under-Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment, I first spoke in a housing debate in October 1981 about making the best use of government land to support the housebuilding programme—a subject still topical today, as the committee highlighted in its report.

Let me say how the Government have acted on the committee’s recommendations, and try to address the points raised in today’s debate, recognising that I may not have time to address all of them, in which case I will of course write to noble Lords.

The report rightly acknowledges that housing has become too unaffordable, whether to rent or to buy—a point strongly made by the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, when he introduced the report; and many others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey have explained the impact this has on the lives of those who are affected. They reminded us that the average house costs almost eight times average earnings—an all-time record. This means it is too difficult for too many people to get on the housing ladder, and the proportion of people living in the private rented sector has doubled since 2000. For the average couple in the private rented sector, rent now takes up roughly half of their gross income, a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, who also mentioned the anxiety that many of those in the private rented sector feel because of the absence of security. That figure, of roughly half of their gross income, is even higher in London. Noble Lords may ask themselves, as indeed do many others, how their children and grandchildren will be housed when they grow up and leave the family home. The Government are determined to reform the housing market so that housing is more affordable and people have the security they need to plan for the future. That is the background to the White Paper.

The starting point, as the committee has recognised, is to build many more homes. Since the 1970s we have delivered, on average, 160,000 new homes each year in England, far below what the committee and numerous independent assessments have said we need. The White Paper sets out a comprehensive plan to deliver the step change in housebuilding—as the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, described it—which capitalises on the substantial additional funding secured in the Autumn Statement. The figure of £1.4 billion was referred to by a number of noble Lords as extra money available for affordable housing. In deciding how that money should be spent, the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Newcastle and the Bishop of St Albans stressed the importance of stable communities where young people can buy a home and have a stake in the area in which they live. We were invited by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans not to overlook the needs of rural housing. That is, indeed, a priority and there is a new community fund to provide £60 million per year to support housing in rural areas. It is interesting that in the Neighbourhood Planning Bill a number of neighbourhood plans came forward with more homes in their village or community than were actually required by the district plan. That addresses the point so well made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, that nimbyism is moving on, although it may not have totally disappeared.

To achieve this goal, the White Paper sets out a four-pronged approach. First, release more land for homes where people want to live. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, reminded us that there are regional variations in the equation between supply and demand. Secondly, ensure homes are built more quickly, once they have planning permission; thirdly, open up the housing market to a wider range of providers and methods of provision; and fourthly, help people in the meantime while our reforms take effect. We think that that is a comprehensive and realistic plan to deliver the homes we need, and others agree. David Orr, chief executive of the National Housing Federation, said that the White Paper contained,

“extremely positive steps towards ending the housing crisis”.

How have we addressed the committee’s recommendations? It raised the importance of ensuring that local authority planning departments are properly resourced—an issue raised by my noble friend Lady Eaton and others. As noble Lords have mentioned, the Government are boosting local authority capacity by raising planning fees, by 20% where local authorities commit to spending the additional income on planning services. The Federation of Master Builders has said that this is,

“one of the biggest game changers”,

in the White Paper. I hope that those extra resources might enable planning authorities to recruit the ecologists referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, where they are needed and also to deal with some of the sharp practices that we heard about from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. An additional 20% is available in areas that are delivering on their housing plans.

The Government agree with the committee that we need to act to ensure that homes are built more quickly once planning permission has been granted, which was an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. The White Paper includes a package of measures to address slow build-out. The committee highlighted the suggestion that planning consents should be limited to two years. We encourage local authorities to consider shortening the timescales for developers to implement a permission from three to two years, as set out in the White Paper.

The committee recommended that the community infrastructure levy needed to be simpler, more transparent and responsive to the concerns of builders and we are looking at that carefully. That includes the workings of Section 106, which was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos. We will make an announcement at the conclusion of those considerations in the Autumn Budget this year.

More broadly, we are tackling the barriers that can hold back development on-site, including through the £2.3 billion housing infrastructure fund, by helping to put the right infrastructure in the right places—an initiative welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Hollick—and by streamlining the licensing system for managing the great crested newt. Too often, lack of infrastructure prevents development, and that substantial sum should unlock up to 100,000 new homes. We will hold the feet of local authorities and developers to the fire to account for the delivery of new homes, including through a new housing delivery test, to ensure that local authorities are on track with their plans.

The committee made several recommendations about making better use of public land to deliver new homes. The Government aim to dispose of surplus government land in England with capacity for at least 160,000 homes by the end of March 2020. This follows our successful programme in the last Parliament, in which land was released for 109,000 homes against a target of 100,000.

Progress with the current programme is good. The programme’s annual report, published on 20 February, shows that by the end of September 2016 departments had already sold or identified land with capacity for 145,492 homes—91% of the programme’s ambition. I hope that publication of that report, which of course came after the publication of the committee’s report, has addressed concerns about when information on monitoring the new programme would be available. We will publish a further report in July, with data about the number of homes built on land released under the programme—an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone.

Alongside this, the Government’s new accelerated construction programme will deliver up to 15,000 housing starts in this Parliament on surplus public sector land and encourage new developers with different models of construction to build new homes at up to double the rate of traditional housebuilders.

We agree with the committee that we need to diversify the market to increase supply. That includes supporting housing associations and local authorities to build more—an ambition recommended by the committee in Chapter 5—alongside supporting smaller developers and new investors.

We want to support housing associations with ambitious plans for growth—for example, L&Q, which has recently merged with East Thames housing association and acquired the strategic land firm Gallagher. I was interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, about the merger between Peabody and Family Mosaic with the specific aim of enabling the combined association to build more homes. We welcome new investors into different types of housing, such as the joint venture in supported housing between Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd and Morgan Sindall Investments Ltd—a subject raised by a number of speakers, including the right reverend Prelate. Although we have taken initiatives to sustain supported housing with some ring-fenced funding, I understand that there are residual anxieties, which I will certainly pass on to ministerial colleagues.

We want to see local authorities deliver new council houses, as stressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle. Numbers of new council homes have been increasing year on year, and they are an important source of new supply, particularly in areas where there is acute housing need.

We will work with local authorities and key partners to consider the options for increasing housebuilding further. This may include innovative approaches—such as the one in Ashford mentioned by my noble friend Lady Eaton—and the use of local housing companies to deliver new affordable and market housing. In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, I understand that there is no fixed budget for this. The department responds to requests on a case-by-case basis, focusing on areas of high demand.

My noble friend Lady Wheatcroft raised points about diversifying the market and the potential for the greater use of modern methods of construction, such as off-site construction. We will stimulate the growth of the sector through government programmes—for example, partnering with off-site manufacturers through the accelerated construction programme—and we will work with lenders to ensure that homes built off-site can access finance on the same basis as traditionally built homes. Therefore, in direct response to the question from my noble friend, we recognise the imperative of government leadership in this area in getting the initiative off the ground.

The committee called for more homes for rent alongside those for sale. The White Paper includes a package of measures to boost new privately financed build-to-rent developments, as well as additional investment and flexibility for more affordable homes, including those for rent. That was a subject raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and perhaps I can focus on it for a moment. I have always been amazed that pension funds and insurance companies in this country have invested in almost every conceivable asset apart from residential accommodation for rent. They have invested in gilts, equities, commercial property, commodities, gold and silver, but, had they invested in homes for rent, they would have achieved both capital appreciation and income buoyancy unparalleled by almost any other investment. I have nothing against buy-to-let investors, but there would be more stability and professionalism in this sector if there were this long-term institutional investment, as suggested by the noble Lord.

A number of major investors have already invested and are already building schemes—Legal & General, M&G, Grainger, Moorfield, Lone Star, Hermes, Realstar, Essential Living and Delancey, to name but a few. I noted that the property consultancy Knight Frank estimates that investment appetite could grow to £50 billion, representing 250,000 homes.

The committee highlighted barriers to entry for smaller builders. The White Paper includes a package of measures to help smaller firms—an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Layard—from making more small sites available through the planning system, to loan funding of £1 billion as part of the home building fund to support small and custom builders. Many noble Lords spoke about those on the waiting list and those threatened by homelessness, which I hope will be assisted by the Bill being taken through your Lordships’ House by the noble Lord, Lord Best.

Increasing the supply of social housing for rent will of course help those looking to the sector for a solution to their housing problem. I have always favoured schemes that help social tenants move on to home ownership, such as HomeBuy. Some of these, where tenants move into a new property such as Help to Buy, can help to secure a re-let at a fraction of the cost and time of a new build. That can promote mobility through the sector helping both tenants and those in housing need.

The committee and noble Lords raised a number of questions about the Government’s housing target. Our ambition is to deliver 1 million new homes by this Parliament, by March 2020. We have made good progress so far with 189,650 new homes delivered in 2015-16. However, there is clearly more to do, as the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Kerslake, reminded us. No one who has listened to this debate could draw any conclusion other than that we need to go a lot further to meet that ambition.

I turn now to some of the points raised in the debate. A recurring theme was the need to raise the borrowing limit for local authorities. In addition to doing a spell as a Housing Minister, I also did a spell in the Treasury so I can see both sides of the argument. On the one hand, the Housing Minister wants the maximum borrowing capacity for local authorities and on the other hand the Treasury sees an imperative to manage public debt. Clearly, there is tension between the two. I would like to write to noble Lords because there is a real danger of getting bogged down in fiscal theology as to what scores and what does not score as a public expenditure. I will set out more clearly what we are doing and what the constraints might be. But in the Autumn Statement 2013, £300 million of additional borrowing was made available to councils in England and £127.2 million was taken up. In 2015-16, local authority borrowing headroom is set to be £3.4 billion on top of almost £2.5 billion of general housing revenue account—the reserves accumulated by local authorities.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, asked what the housing delivery test was. It is about assessing progress in housebuilding against local planning authorities’ targets. It compares the number of homes that local planning authorities set out to deliver in their local plans against the net additions in housing supply. It is not just about planning but about how many actual houses are built.

My noble friend Lord Forsyth raised the issue of the PRA. I will raise again with the Treasury and the PRA the issue of the capital weighting of loans to small builders. I have many other answers, but my time is drawing to a close so I will sum up. The Government are committed to fixing the problems with our housing market, many of which the Committee highlighted in its excellent report. By building the homes that Britain needs and giving those renting a fairer deal, we will give those growing up in society today a greater chance of enjoying the same opportunities as their parents and grandparents, as part of our wider ambition to make this a country that works for everyone. I welcome the committee’s interest in this area and, in light of the impact of its report, hope that it will consider looking at the issue of housing again, possibly later in this Parliament.

Parking Places (Variation of Charges) Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard) : House of Lords
Friday 24th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in support of the Bill’s Second Reading. I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lady Redfern on taking her first—of many, I am sure—Private Member’s Bill through the House. I also congratulate my honourable friend the Member for Bosworth for his hard work, in his 30th year in Parliament, in getting his first Private Member’s Bill through the House of Commons. I am grateful to those who have spoken. I will come to the serious issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, in a moment, but I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for the support from his Benches for the Bill.

Parking is an issue that will be familiar to many of us. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Redfern assures me that as leader of North Lincolnshire Council she has always made sure that her local business community is properly consulted on changes to parking charges. North Lincolnshire Council has also led the way in providing targeted free parking in support of its high-street businesses. More than 1.5 million free parking permits were issued in 2015-16, double the number in 2012-13, by her council.

As my noble friend said, and was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, high streets and town centres are an essential part of the fabric of our lives and are the social core of local communities. The need for affordable parking to access town centres is critical to the sustainability of our high streets. The coalition Government brought forward reforms to make it mandatory for local authorities to give 10-minute grace periods for all on-street parking bays and all off-street car parks. This gives consumers greater flexibility to allow them to complete their business in the town centre without having to worry too much about feeding the meter. That Government were also concerned about the use of CCTV camera cars as a revenue-generating tool. That is why, in addition to the grace periods, they banned local authorities from sending parking tickets through the post. This means that individuals can have a degree of certainty that, when they get a ticket, they know about it on the day.

My noble friend the Minister for Local Government noted that further reforms to the local government transparency code will follow. A recent consultation set out the Government’s intention to amend the code so that everyone will be able to see first-hand a complete breakdown of the parking charges their councils impose and how much money they raise, promoting accountability.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, raised the issue of what consultation is. I would like to take that away but perhaps my noble friend Lady Redfern, who also consults at the moment on parking charge changes in North Lincolnshire, can shed some light on best practice in her part of the country.

My noble friend’s Bill recognises on the one hand that all councils need flexibilities, but that they also need to involve local communities in the decision-making process. Her Bill offers a real opportunity for a small but sensible reform to local authority car parks. It will give the Government powers to scrap the bureaucratic requirements on local authorities if they wish to lower their car parking charges. This would allow councils to take a flexible approach in supporting their high streets—for example, by responding to the opportunity of local festivals that can be used to celebrate town centres.

While there is a need to offer councils flexibility in respect of car parking charges, it is important that we recognise that charging levels are a significant concern to town-centre businesses. The Government therefore think it fit and proper that councils are responsive to local concerns before seeking to increase charges. My noble friend’s Bill provides for a consultation requirement if local authorities want to raise their charges on an existing traffic order. I believe this is a sensible and proportionate reform that balances the needs of the local authority to set fair pricing policies, but takes into account the views of local communities.

I listened with interest to the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and I was concerned to learn about the problems that face many disabled motorists in private car parks when they have difficulties paying or with other issues. Of course the Equality Act applies to all bodies, and the Government urge those who operate private car parks to discharge their responsibilities under that Act. We are carefully considering our response to the discussion paper that we published on private parking in 2015, which focused on a range of issues including disability. We will announce our response in due course and I will make sure that the concerns expressed in this short debate by the noble Baroness are taken on board.

The Government are supportive of the Bill’s intentions because it helps to deliver a more effective parking model that is supportive of Great Britain’s high streets and town centres.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 4, Schedule 1, Clauses 5 to 9, Schedule 2, Clauses 10 to 13, Schedule 3, Clauses 14 to 44, Title.

Motion agreed.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

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

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 69 and 75. They are pretty much self-explanatory. The former simply requires that guidance should be provided when there are temporary rights that can be granted at the same time over the same piece of land. Amendment 75 is rather more important because it provides that the section should not come into force until guidance has been published in relation to it. I assume that is the Government’s intention, and I hope they will accept that amendment.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the co-pilot is back in charge. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Beecham, for tabling their amendments to Clause 14. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made it clear that his amendment was probing. Before I move on to discuss these and the government amendments to this clause, it may be helpful if I begin with a brief description of Clauses 14 to 26, which introduce the new temporary possession power.

All acquiring authorities may need to enter and use land for a temporary period. For example, they may require land to store materials for a scheme or to provide access to a construction site, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, explained. The problem is that, currently, only certain acquiring authorities have temporary possession powers—for example, under special Acts which are needed for very large schemes such as the Crossrail Act 2008. Crucially, compulsory purchase orders cannot authorise temporary possession. There is no good reason for this difference, and it is unfair to those who do not have the powers. Clauses 14 to 26 seek to create a level playing field by giving all acquiring authorities the same power to take temporary possession of land. It may also be in the interests of those on the receiving end of a CPO to have the possibility of being deprived of their land temporarily rather than permanently.

In giving acquiring authorities this power, we shall ensure that those whose land is taken are fairly compensated and that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect their interests. That is set out in Clause 19. For example, temporary possession will have to be authorised in the same way as compulsory acquisition. Also, in certain circumstances, owners and occupiers will be able to require the acquiring authority to acquire the land permanently instead of occupying it on a temporary basis, if that is what they want.

Government Amendments 66, 67, 70, 71, 74 with Amendments 105 and 106 and amendments to other clauses, which I shall deal with later, remove the requirement for the temporary possession to be linked directly to a scheme for the acquisition of other land either by compulsion or agreement. Decoupling is the word that the professionals have been using. The reason for this change is that there may be situations where an acquiring authority needs to take only temporary possession of land. For example, an acquiring authority may need temporary possession of land for a contractor’s compound when they have been able to buy all the land needed for their scheme by agreement, or they may need access to land temporarily to maintain a highway. That is the impact of some of our amendments.

Government Amendments 105 and 106 are consequential on Amendment 66; they simply remove definitions of terms that are no longer required. Non-government Amendments 65, 68 and 72, which were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, also seek to remove the requirement for the temporary possession to be directly linked to a compulsory acquisition scheme. I hope, therefore, that he will agree they are unnecessary in the light of the Government’s amendments.

On Amendment 69, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Kennedy, I agree with the noble Lord that we need to ensure that the interests of leaseholders are adequately protected in introducing this new power. However, I believe that that amendment is not needed, because we have already built in a safeguard which would deliver the same outcome that is requested, but in a more flexible way.

Amendment 69 would restrict the temporary possession power so that it could never be used when a leasehold interest would have less than a year to run after the land was handed back, even if that was the preference of the leaseholder, the freeholder and the acquiring authority. It sounds counterintuitive to prohibit that. The effect of this amendment would be that, if the land was essential to the delivery of the scheme, the acquiring authority would instead be driven to exercising the more draconian power of compulsory acquisition of the land permanently. However, as I have said, we have already built in a safeguard for leaseholders, which I believe will achieve the outcome that noble Lords are seeking. The safeguard is in Clause 17(3), which allows leaseholders to serve a counternotice preventing the acquiring authority taking temporary possession of the land. On receipt of the counternotice, if the land is essential to the delivery of the scheme, the acquiring authority can proceed as if the land were subject to compulsory acquisition and take the land permanently. In these circumstances, the leaseholder would, of course, be compensated for both the value of his lease and losses caused by reason of being disturbed from possession of the land taken. I believe this is a neater solution, which gives leaseholders the flexibility to decide what is right for them.

Amendment 73, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seeks to clarify what will happen when a tenant’s land is subject to compulsory purchase. As government Amendment 103 seeks to do the same thing—although our approach is different—I will speak to both amendments together. Government Amendment 103 provides that the terms and obligations under the tenancy, with the exception of the payment of rent and the length of the tenancy, will be disapplied to the extent that the temporary possession prevents reasonable compliance with them. Any expenditure which a leaseholder incurs as a result of the temporary possession would be claimed back from the acquiring authority. The noble Lord’s amendment, in contrast, provides that all the terms and obligations are unenforceable for the period of temporary possession.

The reason we have disapplied the terms and obligations only to the extent that the temporary possession prevents reasonable compliance with them is that there may be circumstances in which only a small part of land subject to a lease is also subject to temporary possession. In these situations, there may be no easy way in which to separate out the terms that relate to the land subject to temporary possession from terms that relate to the remainder of the land.

The second point of difference is the exclusion of the payment of rent and the length of the tenancy. We have done this because, again, where only a small part of a tenant’s land is required, making these terms unenforceable could result in a tenant having to pay an uncertain portion of the rent for the land not subject to temporary possession. The loss that would be compensated is not the rent payable for the existing lease, but any rent payable for alternative premises, as that is the loss that has been caused. Under the Government’s amendment, responsibility for paying the rent for the land under temporary possession remains with the tenant. However, the tenant will be entitled to claim compensation from the acquiring authority in relation to any expenditure which a leaseholder reasonably incurs as a result of the temporary possession.

The other point of difference with the noble Lord’s amendment is to do with proposed subsections (4) to (6), which make provision with regards to those who have protected tenancies under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. Occupiers with such a protected tenancy have a right to apply for the grant of a new tenancy, provided they remain in occupation. However, if their land is subject to temporary possession they will no longer be in occupation and will lose this right. Government Amendment 103 and non-government Amendment 73 both seek to preserve this right to renew the tenancy. However, in doing so, the government amendment imposes a requirement for the tenant to confirm in writing to both the landlord and the acquiring authority that they intend to resume occupation after temporary possession. I think it is clear that both amendments are after the same thing: greater clarity for tenants and landlords as to what happens during the temporary possession period, including the treatment of rent.

Finally, in this group, I will respond to Amendment 75, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. The noble Lord made a very valid point, which I entirely agree with, that where the Government intend to provide guidance on the use of a new power, that guidance should be available by the time the provisions come into force. That is, of course, the Government’s intention. The particular element of the temporary possession provisions that the noble Lord has identified is in Clause 15(3)(a), which will allow both temporary possession and compulsory acquisition powers to be obtained concurrently for the same piece of land.

Although this so-called doubling-up of temporary and permanent powers can be authorised, it will not give acquiring authorities carte blanche to double up in all cases. It would not be fair to claimants if there was not a very good reason for an acquiring authority to make an order which included this doubling-up. It would not be wise to anticipate precisely what might be in the guidance at this point, but as I have just said, there would be a high bar to justify doubling-up. The most likely circumstances would be linear transport projects where the final design is not complete by the time compulsory powers are obtained. We know of a handful of orders in the last dozen years where this has been authorised, such as the Docklands Light Railway and the Nottingham tramway.

As for compulsory acquisitions, each case would be considered on its individual merits at a public inquiry before an inspector, and considered by the relevant Secretary of State, before a decision was made whether doubling-up was justified in the public interest.

I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, with a firm undertaking that the Government will be seeking views on the draft guidance and will publish it before these provisions come into force. I apologise to the Committee for a somewhat lengthy oration on these amendments, but there are quite a few of them. When the time comes, I will move government Amendments 66, 67, 70, 71, 74, 103, 105 and 106. In the meantime, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 65 and for noble Lords not to press Amendments 68, 69, 72, 73 and 75.

[Lord Shipley]

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I draw his attention to two facts. First, the Government have brought 34 amendments for consideration this afternoon, this Bill having passed in the other place. Secondly, some of them were tabled quite late, and after I tabled my amendment. I understand the need for all this to be brought together for Report, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

66: Clause 14, page 13, line 14, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert “a person (an “acquiring authority”)—
(a) has a power conferred by an Act to acquire land compulsorily (with or without authorisation from another person), or(b) is or has been, at any time, otherwise authorised to acquire land compulsorily.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

70: Clause 14, page 13, line 21, leave out “enactment” and insert “Act”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

74: Clause 14, page 13, line 31, leave out subsection (6)

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

76: Clause 15, page 13, line 35, leave out “same”

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, we now move to the second group of amendments on temporary possession. Clause 15 deals with the procedure for authorising temporary possession of land, requiring it to be authorised by the type of authorising instrument that would be required for the permanent acquisition of land—for example, a compulsory purchase order.

Government Amendments 76 to 79 remove redundant wording in Clause 15(2) as a consequence of government Amendment 66 to Clause 14(1). Government Amendments 80 to 82 amend Clause 15(3) to clarify that the same land may be subject to both temporary possession and compulsory acquisition powers concurrently. We debated the need for guidance relating to the clause a moment ago on Amendment 75, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, so I shall not repeat what I said about that. Government Amendments 83 to 85 and 87—the last also, happily, endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley—all remove redundant provisions in the context of the previous amendments. For example, Amendment 87 refers to “relevant land”: this is no longer needed because the concept of relevant land is removed by Amendment 66. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, Amendment 86 is in my name, and I want to ask the Minister a question. Clause 15 sets out the procedures for authorising temporary possession. It is not clear from the clause whether it is intended that there be a time limit for the life of a temporary power—for instance, three years for service of a notice post the confirmation of a compulsory purchase order. Do the three-year and five-year standards for compulsory purchase orders in statutory instruments apply, and does the power apply to post-construction maintenance during a defect period?

The Government’s amendments to remove superfluous words are helpful. I am not sure whether Amendment 87, which deletes subsection (7), is right—I am having second thoughts about it. I think it is right, but as the relevant land is the land required for the scheme, it seems appropriate to make it clear that temporary possession can be taken after action to secure the land required permanently. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comment.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I may need to write to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about the specific issue he has raised on Amendment 87 and subsection (7) relating to relevant land. As I said, this is no longer needed, because the concept of relevant land has been removed by Amendment 66, with which we have just dealt. However, I will make some inquiries following his representations.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has proposed in Amendment 86 that Clause 15(6) should be omitted. This is intended to be helpful clarification. It confirms that the authorising instrument—for example, a CPO—does not need to include the dates for any particular period of temporary possession. It would be difficult for an acquiring authority to do that, because it would not know the date of the confirmation at that stage. The cross-reference to Clause 16 points users to the provisions which specify the dates of temporary possession. The Government believe that there is no need for users of this legislation to be deprived of this clarification. He also asked a question about whether CPO powers would expire after a certain period. Again, I will write to him about this when I have made some inquiries. In the meantime, I hope that he will not move his Amendment 86.

Amendment 76 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

77: Clause 15, page 13, line 36, leave out “as is or would be”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

87: Clause 15, page 14, line 18, leave out subsection (7)

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for tabling his Amendment 88. I appreciate that his aim in doing so was to make things clearer, an ambition which I fully support. However, on this occasion I do not think that an amendment is necessary because subsection (7) provides that Clause 16 must be complied with,

“in relation to each subsequent period of temporary possession”.

That makes it clear that acquiring authorities can serve more than one notice. Having said that, this is the sort of thing that could usefully be covered in guidance. We will update our compulsory purchase guidance in light of the reforms in the Bill, and in the light of what the noble Lord has said, I will ask for this matter to be looked at again.

Amendments 89 and 91 to 93 deal with the counternotice provisions in Clause 17. These provisions are an improvement on the current temporary possession regimes, which have no counternotice procedure in them. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for tabling his amendments. No one would be keener than I to simplify all this, if it were possible so to do. I doubt whether it would be realistic wholly to redraft this clause between now and Report but I endorse his sense of direction. He is quite right to say that there is a difference between the treatment of leaseholders and that of freeholders. This is because the Government believe that there could be a greater impact on leaseholders than freeholders when their land is subject to temporary possession, as the leaseholder may be left with a useless lease at the end of the temporary possession period—for example, when there is only a short period left to run on the lease. We considered this in debate on Amendment 69.

Clause 17(3) affords leaseholders additional protections in these circumstances by giving them the option to serve a counternotice, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, providing that an acquiring authority cannot take temporary possession of their land at all. However, no such issues arise for freeholders. The justification for the temporary possession of the land will have been carefully considered on its individual merits at a public local inquiry before an independent inspector and confirmed only where it is in the public interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

I would not say that I was unduly disturbed, but I would be grateful if the Minister would comment on it.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am sorry for doing a disservice to the noble Lord.

Amendment 90, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Kennedy, seeks to limit the period of temporary possession of land not occupied by dwellings to three years rather than the six years proposed in Clause 17(2). It is a matter of judgment whether one draws the line at three, six or nine years. The limit of six years is designed to give those affected greater certainty on the total period that non-dwelling land can be subject to temporary possession. Restricting the period to three years, as suggested, would limit the usefulness of this new power, as the lower the upper limit, the more likely it is that an acquiring authority would, on a cautionary basis, decide to take the more draconian and unnecessary route of compulsory, permanent land acquisition instead.

As I said, there needs to be a balance between giving acquiring authorities the power they need to deliver their schemes and ensuring that the interests of those whose land is taken are protected. We consider that an upper limit of six years strikes the right balance. It is an upper limit and, of course, in many cases temporary possession will be for far less time and the issue will not arise. Where possession will need to be for infinitely longer, acquiring authorities might go for compulsory acquisition in the first instance. I assure noble Lords that we can and will keep this under review as the new power begins to take effect. The regulation-making power in Clause 24 will allow the Government to make changes if required. With those assurances and explanations—and with apologies for trying to take a short cut—I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his response in respect of Amendment 88. He is entirely correct that the intent of our amendment is just to get clarity as we debate the legislation. With compulsory purchase, I am conscious that there is the risk of lawyers getting involved at a later date and arguing about what something does or does not mean—although I know my noble friend is of course a lawyer, and I would not wish to deprive him of any work. I may be reading it incorrectly but Clause 16(7) appears to refer just to the one, single case. All my amendment sought was to add that you can have more than one. I may well be wrong about this, and the Bill may be perfectly correct, but I would not mind if the noble Lord and his officials looked at it once more before we get to Report. It may well be that guidance is all we need, but we are trying to get absolute clarity so that we do not get any problems in the future on this. Other than that, we are in complete agreement on this clause as it stands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, speaking as a lawyer, although happily not practising, I see no need to amend the term “injury” to “damage”. Legally, injury embraces damage of all kinds. I would not go to extremes to defend the Government on this or any other occasion, but if the Minister felt disinclined to accept the amendment, I would not dissent from his judgment.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful for this growing cross-party alliance on how to deal with one of the amendments. I shall deal with as much as I can in writing, but some government amendments are tucked into this group which I need to address.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for tabling his amendments, which, as he said, deal with compensation for temporary possession. Clause 19 provides that claimants will be entitled to compensation for any loss or injury which they sustain as a result of the temporary possession. Where the claimant is operating a trade or business on the land, they will be entitled to compensation for disturbance of that trade or business.

I turn to Amendment 95, for which the noble Lord has explained his reasons. I think this comes down to a difference in approach to drafting. The Government have used the term “loss or injury” instead of “loss or damage”, as the noble Lord has suggested. Both terms have been used previously. In this instance, the Government have opted to follow the precedent of Section 20 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.

The important point is that both formulations have the same meaning. I am reinforced in my view by the recent intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham.

On the second part of this amendment, adding,

“as a result of the temporary possession of the land”,

is unnecessary because subsection (1) makes the same point.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

98: Clause 19, page 16, line 29, leave out “claim” and insert “cause of action”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

101: Clause 19, page 16, line 33, leave out from “section” to end of line 35 and insert “in relation to a particular head of loss or injury carries interest from the day after the last day on which that loss or injury occurs.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

103: After Clause 23, insert the following new Clause—
“Impact of temporary possession on tenancies etc
(1) Subsection (2) applies where an acquiring authority takes temporary possession under section 14(2) of land subject to a tenancy.(2) A person is not to be treated as being in breach of—(a) any term of the tenancy, or(b) any other obligation associated with the tenancy or the land subject to temporary possession,to the extent that the person cannot reasonably comply with the term or other obligation as a result of the temporary possession.(3) Subsection (2) does not affect terms or obligations about—(a) the length of the tenancy, or(b) the payment of rent.(4) Subsection (5) applies where—(a) an acquiring authority takes temporary possession of land subject to a tenancy to which Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (security of tenure for business tenants) applies immediately before the period of temporary possession,(b) the tenancy expires during the period of temporary possession, and(c) prior to the period of temporary possession the tenant notifies in writing both the acquiring authority and the landlord that the tenant intends to resume occupation of the land after the period of temporary possession.(5) For the purposes of Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 the tenant is to be deemed to continue to occupy the land in accordance with the tenancy mentioned in subsection (4)(b), and any tenancy which succeeds that tenancy, despite the period of temporary possession.(6) But if the tenant notifies in writing both the acquiring authority and the landlord that the tenant no longer intends to resume occupation of the land after the period of temporary possession subsection (5) ceases to apply.(7) In this section, “tenancy” includes a sub-tenancy.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and speak to Amendment 104A which requires the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to make provision for the reinstatement of land at the end of a period of temporary possession. This is not drafted particularly for the benefit of the residents of Aberystwyth or places in the vicinity; it stems from the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee which draws attention to a number of issues, only some of which are embodied in this amendment.

In dealing with the issue mentioned in Amendment 104A, the committee regarded it as inappropriate to leave the discussion of whether or not to include provisions about reinstatement in the regulations to the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers. Hence, it recommended that the clause should be amended to impose the duty referred to in the amendment. However, that was not the end of the committee’s concerns. In particular, it also took issue with Clause 24(2)(a), which it regarded as,

“inappropriately wide and should be redrafted to reflect the narrow policy intention referred to in the DCLG document which explained the power to modify provisions”.

In particular, the committee felt that the power goes much further than the declared objective in the policy document and,

“it would enable the regulations to make substantial changes to Clauses 14 to 26 in a wide range of cases, for example, by excluding the provisions about compensation”.

I confess that the document, only having reached us at the end of January, shortly before the amendments were drafted, ought to have been subject to an amendment specifically dealing with that issue. I do not expect the Minister to respond immediately, but I hope that, before Report, he will indicate whether the Government would be minded to accept the redrafting recommendation referred to by the Delegated Powers Committee. If not, I give notice that we will remedy the omission this evening and table an appropriate amendment.

The committee was clear about the issue that I have raised, but it also makes a more general point about the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers exercising this novel power, which could potentially have far-reaching consequences without first being required to consult interested parties. It therefore considered a consultation duty even more important, in view of the provision dispensing with the House’s hybrid instruments procedure. That raises issues about secondary legislation that have so often been raised. As I say, I would not expect the Minister to respond to something of which he did not have notice by way of an amendment tonight. I hope that the matter can be resolved en route to Report, but reserve the right to table amendments if it cannot be.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I shall deal first with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has just made. Of course, I have read the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and there are three relevant recommendations relating to this Bill, two of which he mentioned. We take this very seriously; we are considering all three recommendations very carefully, and intend to respond before Report, so I hope that the nuclear option mentioned by the noble Lord may not be necessary.

I turn to Amendments 104, 104A and 129B. Clauses 14 to 26 of the Bill set out the broad framework for how the temporary possession power will work, establishing protections and providing for the payment of compensation. Further technical provisions will be necessary for the implementation of the temporary possession power. Clause 24 gives the Secretary of State the power by regulations to make further provision in relation to the authorisation and exercise of temporary possession powers where necessary. We will respond on that—and in the meantime we set out in the policy document what we propose to do. There is something there about reinstatement.

On Amendment 104, certain special kinds of land, including land held inalienably by the National Trust, are afforded additional protection under the compulsory acquisition process. This additional protection provides that a compulsory purchase order may be subject to special parliamentary procedure when an objection is sustained to the relevant order by, for example, the National Trust, or when exchange land for that to be acquired cannot be given, perhaps because no suitable land is available. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, that National Trust land should benefit from additional protection under the temporary possession regime; this is also true of those other special kinds of land. The Government have set out their intention to do precisely that in a policy document; we propose to do that through regulations made under Clause 24. Paragraphs 48 to 51 of that document set out more details.

The Government’s proposed approach under temporary possession differs from that under compulsory acquisition. Where the temporary possession of special kinds of land is happening without any associated compulsory acquisition, the special parliamentary procedure would not apply. Instead, the temporary possession will be allowed only when the confirming authority is satisfied that it would not cause serious detriment to the owners and users. Such serious detriment could include, for example, irreparable damage to the land concerned, or blocking access to other land or assets. When both temporary possession and compulsory acquisition of a special kind of land is included in the same order, and the compulsory acquisition is subject to special parliamentary procedure, the temporary possession land would also be subject to the special parliamentary procedure. However, I have listened with great interest to the case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, who raises an important issue, and the Government will, therefore, give further careful consideration to it before confirming our approach, to which I have just referred.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

105: Clause 25, page 20, leave out line 43

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 107. I look forward to reading carefully in Hansard what the Minister has said, with a view to potentially coming back to this on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

108: Clause 27, page 21, line 25, after “land” insert “, or by the prospect of that scheme,”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

112: Clause 27, page 21, line 40, leave out “if the scheme had not been commenced or” and insert “in the exercise of a statutory function or by the exercise of compulsory purchase powers”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

120: Clause 31, page 27, line 27, leave out “section 333ZA and paragraph 19(1) of Schedule 11” and insert—
“(a) section 333ZA of this Act, and(b) paragraph 19(1) of Schedule 11 to this Act or Part 12 of the Highways Act 1980,”

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, we now move on to Clause 31, which deals with the joint acquisition of land by the Greater London Authority and Transport for London, and whose purpose I will briefly explain.

At the moment, for the GLA to bring forward a comprehensive redevelopment scheme in London involving both transport and other development, two compulsory purchase orders are needed: one promoted by the Greater London Authority for the regeneration or housing elements of the scheme, and the other promoted by Transport for London for the transport or highways elements of the scheme. This division makes no sense. It adds complexity and delay to the process and causes confusion among those most affected. Clause 31 removes this unnecessary division and allows the Greater London Authority to promote joint compulsory purchase orders with Transport for London and vice versa. It inserts new Section 403A into the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which enables either the Greater London Authority or Transport for London, or both, to acquire all the land needed for a joint transport and regeneration or housing scheme on behalf of the other.

The government amendments make two changes to the provisions as currently drafted. Amendments 120, 121 and 123 enable the Greater London Authority to promote a joint compulsory purchase order with Transport for London using Transport for London’s compulsory purchase powers as a highway authority under the Highways Act 1980 in addition to its general compulsory purchase powers under the Greater London Authority Act 1999.

Government Amendment 124 delivers the second change. New Section 403B of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 will enable a mayoral development corporation to promote a joint compulsory purchase order with Transport for London for a joint transport, including a highway, and regeneration project as an alternative to the Greater London Authority itself. Having set up a mayoral development corporation to regenerate an area, such as at Old Oak Common, the GLA would not normally seek to use its own powers in that area. I hope the Committee will agree with me that these are sensible provisions. With that explanation, I beg to move government Amendment 120.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I have Amendments 122, 125 and 126 in this group. I will speak to them very briefly and look forward to the noble Lord’s response to the points I raise. Amendments 122 and 125 seek to make the situation clearer and to avoid the suggestion that a beneficial interest may exist, by removing the words,

“on behalf of the other”.

We do not think those words are necessary, and I propose to remove them in Amendments 122 and 125.

Amendment 126 would insert a new subsection into Clause 32, which would ensure that the GLA, TfL or a mayoral development corporation has the power to acquire land compulsorily for purposes under the Housing and Planning Act if it was previously able to do that under Sections 403A and 403B of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. I hope that we again get a positive response from the Minister accepting that I have highlighted an important issue to which, if nothing else, the Government will respond on Report.

[Lord True (Con)]

I see the wisdom of what is proposed in these amendments, reinforced by government Amendment 124, where an MDC is involved. I take it that it means only one compulsory order so that TfL is able to acquire land to advance housing projects, et cetera.

This may be my ignorance or otiose, but it appears that the way that this is drafted, based on the Greater London Act, TfL could exercise this new authority only in concert with the GLA or an MDC. However, there are other development authorities and planning authorities in Greater London: the London boroughs. I can envisage circumstances where there is neglected land alongside on a red route where TfL is the highways authority and a borough has an interest, but it may be too small to attract the interest of the Mayor of London. I simply raise the question to seek elucidation. It may not be necessary. Will it be possible when this is liberalised for TfL to use this power in concert with a borough without needing to go via the GLA or to set up a mayoral development corporation?

TfL gets cross when I say this in your Lordships’ House, but it is not always the most nimble authority when it comes to development. Some boroughs might be able to encourage it a little. I do not expect an answer now, but perhaps my noble friend will consider the need for such flexibility if TfL is to be given this new partnership power to acquire.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My noble friend Lord True invites me to go way beyond my negotiating remit by extending to London boroughs the powers under the clause, which is intended to remove an existing duplication. However, I will of course consider his suggestion.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The noble Lord, Lord True, makes an interesting point. I am a member, although not the leader, of another London borough council. I think he makes a valid point which the Government could look at.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

It is indeed a valid point, but it goes wider than the narrow issue before us. As a former member of a London borough, albeit in 1968, I have an interest in enabling the boroughs to fulfil their full potential. I shall make some inquiries and write to my noble friend.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for tabling Amendments 122, 125 and 126. They deal with two different clauses—Clauses 31 and 32—but as Amendment 126 is consequential on Amendments 122 and 125, I shall deal with them together.

I shall briefly explain what Clause 31 does. The Housing and Planning Act 2016, which will be fresh in the memory of many Members of the Committee, extended the statutory power to override easements and restrictive covenants when undertaking development to all bodies having compulsory purchase powers. Clause 32 amends this power to ensure that it operates as intended for the GLA and Transport for London and brings land acquired by their landholding subsidiary companies within the scope of the powers so that development on that land is not hindered.

I turn to the noble Lord’s Amendments 122 and 125. The Government’s intention in bringing forward the measure in Clause 31 is to allow the Greater London Authority or a mayoral development corporation and Transport for London to use their powers more effectively by allowing them to promote joint orders, as I explained. The amendments the noble Lord is proposing go beyond that and are not quite as innocuous as the noble Lord implied. They would effectively allow both organisations to acquire land for purposes for which they have no statutory power. For example, they would allow Transport for London to acquire land compulsorily for housing or regeneration purposes. This raises broader issues about competence. For those reasons, the Government do not think they are appropriate. It is a key principle of a compulsory purchase system that acquiring authorities should be allowed to acquire land by compulsion only for purposes associated with their statutory functions. Housing is not a statutory function of Transport for London.

The noble Lord’s Amendment 126 relates to the power to override easements in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and appears to be consequential on Amendments 122 and 125 being acceptable, which, for the reason I have outlined, I am afraid they are not. I know it will come as a disappointment, but I invite the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, not to press Amendments 122, 125 and 126, for the reasons that I have given.

Amendment 120 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

121: Clause 31, page 27, line 33, after “Schedule 11” insert “to this Act or Part 12 of the Highways Act 1980”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

123: Clause 31, page 27, line 42, after “Schedule 11” insert “to this Act or Part 12 of the Highways Act 1980”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

124: Clause 31, page 28, line 13, at end insert—
“403B Acquisition of land by MDC and TfL for shared purposes(1) This section applies where a Mayoral development corporation and Transport for London agree that the purposes for which they may acquire land compulsorily under—(a) section 207 of the Localism Act 2011, and(b) paragraph 19(1) of Schedule 11 to this Act or Part 12 of the Highways Act 1980,would be advanced by one or both of them acquiring land for a joint project.(2) The purposes for which the Mayoral development corporation may acquire land compulsorily under section 207 of the Localism Act 2011 are to be read as if they included the purposes for which Transport for London may acquire land compulsorily.(3) The purposes for which Transport for London may acquire land compulsorily under paragraph 19(1) of Schedule 11 to this Act or Part 12 of the Highways Act 1980 are to be read as if they included the purposes for which the Mayoral development corporation may acquire land compulsorily. (4) The Mayoral development corporation and Transport for London may agree that one of them is to acquire land on behalf of the other.(5) Where subsection (4) applies, a compulsory acquisition is to proceed under—(a) section 207 of the Localism Act 2011 if it is agreed that the Mayoral development corporation will acquire the land, or(b) paragraph 19(1) of Schedule 11 to this Act or Part 12 of the Highways Act 1980 if it is agreed that Transport for London will acquire the land.(6) Subsection (7) applies where—(a) the Mayoral development corporation and Transport for London both propose to acquire land compulsorily for a joint project, and(b) the proposed compulsory acquisitions require authorisation by different confirming authorities.(7) The proposed compulsory acquisitions are to be treated as requiring the joint authorisation of the confirming authorities.(8) The Mayoral development corporation or Transport for London may acquire land by agreement for the same purposes as those for which that body may acquire land compulsorily by virtue of subsection (2) or (3).(9) The joint project mentioned in subsection (1) is to be treated as the scheme for the purposes of the no-scheme principle in section 6A of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (impact of scheme to be disregarded when assessing value of land for compulsory purchase).””

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My noble friend Lord Beecham and I fully support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord and look forward to a positive response from the Government on it.

The noble Lord mentioned Millwall Football Club. A couple of weeks ago, when the noble Lord, Lord Young, was speaking to an order on overview and scrutiny committees in combined authorities, I put it on record that I did not think the council got it quite right, to say the least. Thankfully the CPO has now been withdrawn and the council has made it clear that whatever goes ahead in future will do so only with the involvement and agreement of the club, local businesses and the local community. I was very pleased with that, and pay tribute to my overview and scrutiny colleagues for their work to prise information out of the council to enable them to convince the mayor and the cabinet that that was the way to proceed. I also pay tribute to the campaigners, fans, supporters and the club. We certainly had a lot of unhelpful publicity in recent weeks, but overview and scrutiny, in particular, did a very good job.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, argued eloquently for a comprehensive review of the compulsory purchase system, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. I listened to the very pertinent questions that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said needed to be addressed, including international comparisons, looking at marriage values of freehold and leasehold and all the other issues, and I read the first line of his amendment, which states that by the end of next year we have to complete a review and bring forward proposals. It seems to me a mammoth task to embrace all the questions that he has raised—of course there may be others—within a very challenging timescale.

The advice that I have is that, were we to undertake this review, it would take three years and we would end up with 250-plus clauses. I do not know about other members of the Committee, but 24 CPO clauses seems to me quite a lot. Then there would be a number of schedules. There is no realistic prospect of doing that within the timescale that the noble Lord suggests. However, I recognise that there is a strong desire among many for the compulsory purchase system to be simplified. We have heard speeches to that effect during our proceedings. As my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning said in the other place, he has some sympathy with that, but, as I said a moment ago, a comprehensive review would be a huge undertaking. While the Government do not rule it out completely, we would need very careful consideration before we took it forward, and there would need to be clear consensus on its terms of reference and objectives.

I appreciate that this does not go nearly as far as the noble Lord has suggested, but the Government have been tackling specific issues within the CPO regime which practitioners have identified as causing problems, and we have tried to do this in the Bill by introducing the temporary CPO processes and rationalising the Greater London Authority and TfL powers, as well as by clarifying the no-schemes valuation process. We hope that that will make a real, practical difference on the ground and allow the compulsory purchase system to operate more effectively.

It is relevant to mention briefly the White Paper published yesterday, Fixing Our Broken Housing Market, because it flags up two further areas, which I am sure that the noble Lord would want to add to his list. First, there is the role that the CPO could play in helping to kickstart development on stalled housing sites. The White Paper sets out our intention to consult on new guidance encouraging local authorities to use their existing compulsory purchase powers to support the build-out of stalled sites. Secondly, the White Paper sets out the Government’s intention to investigate whether auctions, following the taking of possession of the land, are sufficient to establish an unambiguous value for the purposes of assessing compensation payable to the claimant when the local authority has used its compulsory purchase powers to acquire the land. Furthermore, the White Paper also makes it clear that we will continue to keep compulsory purchase under review and notes the Government’s willingness to consider representations on how the process might be reformed further to support development.

As I said, we have an open mind on the need for further reform—but I hope that, in the meantime, noble Lords will agree that we should not delay progress on delivering the reforms that we already have in hand, including those in the Bill. So although I have enormous sympathy with the noble Lord’s amendment, it would be unrealistic to expect the Government to support it.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, for their support. The Minister seemed to hint that he is willing to accept the principle of the amendment; that is how he started off. I accept that it might take longer than we had anticipated. To be honest, until I came to write my few words, I did not know how many questions I was going to find in the maelstrom of information that there is out there. I believe that it really would be worth doing, if only to consolidate the legislation list that I read out. As the Minister rightly said, there are probably even more questions than those that I discovered. I look forward to further conversations on this point and hope that, sooner rather than later, the Government will address this area with seriousness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 128 is grouped with 129, both of which stand in my name.

Amendment 128 seeks to clarify the application of Section 31 of the Housing Act 1985 to TfL or its subsidiaries to dispose of their surplus land for housing development where that is considered appropriate as long as the price obtained is,

“having regard to all the circumstances of the case … the best that can reasonably be obtained”.

The amendment uses the wording of Section 31 of the Housing Act 1985 and contains a restriction in paragraph 29 to Schedule 11 of the GLA Act 1999 to ensure that the powers to sell and develop land for housing are consistent in this context. Amendment 129 is similarly worded and seeks to ensure that there is consistency between the TfL and the GLA in this regard. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, this will be my last contribution to this exchange. I am happy to end on a more consensual note than was the case on some of the earlier contributions.

Amendments 128 and 129 in the name of the noble Lord seek to make new provision in the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which would amend the powers of Transport for London and the GLA to dispose of land.

Amendment 128 seeks to give Transport for London the flexibility to dispose of land for housing, even if a higher value use was available, provided the best consideration reasonably obtainable for housing use had been achieved. To support this aim, Amendment 128 would also remove the requirement for TfL to,

“act as if it were a company engaged in a commercial enterprise”,

when disposing of land for housing.

Amendment 129 would make related provision in respect of the GLA. It would enable the GLA to dispose of land for housing without obtaining the Secretary of State’s consent, even if a higher value use was available, provided that the best consideration reasonably obtainable for housing use had been achieved.

I am very sympathetic to the intention of these amendments of providing flexibility to ensure that we can prioritise land for housing development. However, the legal issues involved are not entirely straightforward, and I think the public interest would be best served if a meeting was held between the Government, the GLA and TfL before Report to consider this further. With the reassurance that I will facilitate such a meeting, I hope that the noble Lord might be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Lord very much for that positive response to these two amendments. On that basis, I am very happy to withdraw the amendment and look forward to a very fruitful meeting between the various parties.

House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Friday 3rd February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for introducing this Bill, which has provoked yet another interesting, provocative and high-quality debate on the future of our House. It is the third such Bill in the current Session, and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.

I start by placing on the record that the Government recognise the value of this House and the vital role that noble Lords play in scrutinising legislation and holding the Government to account. In his powerful speech, my noble friend Lord Norton produced clear evidence that it is not just the Government who think that the House does a good job; the public agree that the House of Lords performs its function well.

In mentioning my noble friend Lord Norton, I pay tribute to the work of the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber, which I attended until I was barred from so doing. It has done sterling work in trying to find a consensus, and I am sure that it will submit its own proposals to the noble Lord, Lord Burns. It suggested the cross-party committee that the Lord Speaker has just set up, to which I will refer in a moment.

The Government are not unsympathetic to the aims of the noble Baroness’s Bill, which would introduce elections to the House of Lords—a measure that was included in each of the three main parties’ manifestos at the last election in some shape or form and in favour of which I spoke many times in another place when I was, as the noble Lord, Lord Low, said in somewhat disobliging terms, a career politician. However, the Government are clear that comprehensive reform of this House is not a priority in this Parliament.

Noble Lords have debated numerous Bills to reform this House, including two other Private Members’ Bills in this Session alone, but none quite like the Bill before us today, as the noble Baroness herself said. The Bill makes provision to introduce elections for 292 Members of this House to sit and vote. The noble Lord, Lord Low, pointed out that that is fewer than the 450 proposed by the coalition and he explained why it might be too low a figure.

Although life Peers and the Lords spiritual would remain Members of this House, they would no longer be entitled to vote, and the 92 excepted hereditary Peers would be removed altogether. However, taken as a whole, the Bill does not address the size of the House. Indeed, by adding elected Members while maintaining the right of all existing life Peers and Lords spiritual to sit, the size and therefore the cost of the House would increase. My noble friend Lord Caithness took us through a mathematical formula that explained that the number could reach 1,300 by 2030.

Another proposal was for two classes of Member. I have to say to the noble Baroness that that got the thumbs down during the debate. Almost everyone who took part voiced doubts about having voting and non-voting Members, including my noble friends Lord Norton and Lord Caithness, the noble Lord, Lord Beith, the right reverend Prelate and many others. Here I pay tribute to the work of the Bishops’ Bench in our proceedings. If I lived anywhere near Norwich, I would head for the cathedral every Sunday for a further glimpse of the evocative language that the right reverend Prelate uses to make his case.

I had difficulty with another point in the Bill: how the Cross-Benchers arrive in the second Chamber. This was touched on by the Leader of the Opposition. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said that the Cross-Benchers would then have a democratic mandate, but it is not clear what exactly that mandate would be because, as we have heard, the Cross-Benchers do not have a distinctive view on any subject. I am not quite sure how they would campaign during an election without getting drawn into party-political debates. I am not sure whether they would want to campaign against each other, as they would have to do under some electoral systems. It seems to me that the strength of the Cross Benches is that their Members are here for what they know rather than what they believe.

We then had some discussion on the noble Baroness’s points scheme for survival into the next round—a combination of voting and speaking. I think that the Whips on the Front Benches would welcome this proposal—we would be through with flying colours. However, as was referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, it has the perverse incentive of encouraging people to boost their performance in the three qualifying years. The noble and learned Lord put forward his own points system, including giving bonuses to people who vote against their party—not something that I would endorse from the Dispatch Box. If I could add my own suggestion, I would subtract points for long speeches.

The Government are clear that the size of the House needs to be reduced. As noble Lords are aware, in the last Parliament the Government introduced the House of Lords Reform Bill 2012, which sought wide-scale reform. Like the Bill before us today, it made provision to remove hereditary Peers and introduce an elected element to the upper House. As the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said, the Bill received an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons at Second Reading—and not just because I introduced that debate as Leader of the House. However, the Bill was withdrawn because there was no consensus on its subsequent passage through the other place. Noble Lords who have sat through our more recent debates on this topic will recognise that there is still no consensus in this House as to what reform should look like, an impression that has been confirmed by today’s debate.

In such circumstances, there is no prospect of introducing comprehensive reform without it taking up large amounts of parliamentary time. There are many other pressing legislative priorities to deliver over this Parliament, not least implementing the result of the EU referendum. The noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the Leader of the Opposition reminded us of the substantial task ahead in giving proper scrutiny to the primary and secondary legislation that derives from that. None the less, the Government remain open to the idea of pursuing pragmatic, incremental reforms where they are clearly able to command support across this House, just as we did in the last Parliament.

In response to the Leader of the Opposition, my noble friend Lady Chisholm has outlined several times the reasons why the Government feel unable to support the Private Member’s Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott.

Where measures can command consensus, the Government have worked with noble Lords to introduce some focused yet important reforms. With government support, the Bill sponsored in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Steel—now the House of Lords Reform Act 2014—enabled Peers to retire permanently for the first time and provided for Peers to be disqualified where they do not attend or are convicted of a serious offence. The following year, through what is now the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015, the Government supported the Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. It provided the House with the power to expel Members in cases of serious misconduct. I was privileged to steer that Bill through the House of Commons. These were important reforms that have made tangible changes to the culture of the House and, as suggested again by the Leader of the Opposition, that is the spirit in which we should proceed.

The Government welcome the Lord Speaker’s decision to establish a cross-party committee of Back-Bench Peers to explore practical and politically viable methods by which the size of the House could be reduced and we look forward to hearing its recommendations, which the Bill before the House today would of course pre-empt. Many noble Lords have come forward with suggestions that could be put before the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I refer to the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Low, about an expanded role for the independent House of Lords Appointments Commission, and the proposals set out by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, which he described as simple, although I might beg to differ on that. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, has legendary skills in seeking consensus. I think that he was brought in to resolve a dispute over the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill and last year he was involved in discussions about the Trade Union Bill, so we have hopes that his skills will pull a rabbit out of this particular hat.

In summing up my remarks, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for pursuing this important matter and to those here today for their contributions to the debate. However, I conclude by saying that the Government believe that now is not the time to attempt comprehensive reform of the House given our other more pressing priorities. As we have seen in the past, and speaking from personal experience, if reform of this House is to succeed, we must be able to work constructively together to make progress. That means focusing on pragmatic, incremental changes that can command consensus across the whole House. Although the Government are not able to support this particular Bill, we look forward to working constructively with noble Lords on alternative ways forward.