Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 8th September 2020 Grand Committee

My noble friend Lord Young has become a pretty good poacher since he ceased to be a gamekeeper but, because of his long experience in Executives, he still has an innate partiality for them. I hope that, on Report, an amendment along the lines of this one, or that of my noble friend, or maybe a combination of the two, will be incorporated in the Bill. It would be very wrong if this seminal piece of legislation—which is what it is—went on to the statute book leaving ultimately untrammelled power to the Executive to choose the moment. That they must not have the opportunity to do, and I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that build-up. I will speak to Amendment 7 in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Randall and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem. Like the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Cormack, it puts a time limit on the interval between the submission of the reports by the Boundary Commissions and the order being laid before Parliament. My noble friend has outbid me by shortening my proposed interval of three months to six weeks, but otherwise the objective is the same; six weeks might be too tight. Amendment 9 is a consequential one, applying the same time limit to Clause 3, which deals with the statement of modifications.

The objective of the amendment is to deliver the Minister’s commitment in his Second Reading speech that,

“the recommendations of the Boundary Commissions, developed through the meticulous and consultative process I have described, should be implemented without political influence or interference”.

In the next paragraph of his speech, my noble friend reinforced the point by saying that,

“the purpose of this measure is straightforward: to bring certainty and confidence to the citizen and the elector that updated constituencies will be implemented without interference and further delay.”—[Official Report, 27/7/20; col. 38.]

My noble friend’s point about delay is apt, as we have seen two years pass after the Government got the last recommendations in 2018 and there is still no Order in Council. Any future Government could do the same.

I know that many noble Lords want Parliament to have the final say, and we have had that debate. Crucially, my amendment is neutral on that issue. Indeed, the amendment is essential to those who want Parliament to have the final say because, unless the Government lay the order, there can be no debate or vote in Parliament. So those hostile to automaticity should support this bridge-building amendment. I should say at this stage that I am grateful to the Minister and his officials for two virtual meetings, one in July and one at the end of last week. They were courtesy itself in explaining the practical problems with time limits, but I have not so far been persuaded: hence the amendment.

I will not repeat what I said at Second Reading, when I gave two examples of political interference in the implementation of Boundary Commission recommendations, one in 1969—to which my noble friend the Minister has just referred—and the other following the report in 2018. In a nutshell, without a time limit, the objective of the Bill could be neutralised. I will come later to the argument about “as soon as practicable” being liable to challenge in the courts if the Government delayed.

After Second Reading, I contacted the Electoral Commission, whose remit includes promoting public confidence in the democratic process and ensuring its integrity. I enclosed a copy of my Second Reading speech and asked for its views. This was the response:

“The Commission has not made any comments in regards to this legislation, as it doesn’t directly relate to the administration of elections or the regulation of political finance. However, we can see how greater clarity about the timescales for implementing any recommendations from the Boundary Committees would probably be helpful for Electoral Registration Officers, Returning Officers and campaigners ahead of any election that will use the new boundaries, so that they can confirm their plans in good time.”


I think it is fair to say from that that the Electoral Commission supports the principle of the amendment. I have permission to quote the email.

I also contacted the Boundary Commission, drawing attention to my amendment and asking what the length of time had been between receipt of reports by the Government and the laying of Orders in Council. I emailed them at 18:52 on 30 July. At 21:17 the same day, the acting secretary to the Commission, Tony Bellringer, replied. I mention him by name because of the promptness and detail of his reply, long past any reasonable working hours. I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I quote from his reply:

“The last General Review to be implemented … was the Fifth General Review which reported to Government on 31 October 2006. The Order to implement the recommendations that it contained was subsequently made on 13 June 2007. The report of the Fourth General Review was dated 12 April 1995 and the subsequent Order to implement was made on 28 June 1995. The report of the Third General Review was dated 1 February 1983 and the subsequent Order to implement its recommendations was made on 16 March 1983. As you will probably be aware, these Orders are actually laid in draft and subject to debate in both Houses, under the draft affirmative procedure, so the date of laying the draft of the orders will have been some time in advance of the “Made” date. (In other words, the gap is even shorter than the dates I have just given.) Unfortunately we do not have records of when the Government actually laid the draft Orders in each case. Either the Government itself or the Parliamentary authorities may possibly retain the records.”


So I went to the Library and am most grateful to Edward Scott for the following information about the gap between report and the order being laid, rather than made, as this is the time necessary to check the recommendations. The first periodic review for England was submitted on 10 November 1954, and the order was laid eight days later, on 18 November. The second periodic review was in 1969, when the unhappy sequence of events already referred to took place, so it is not representative. The third periodic review for England was submitted on 1 February 1983 and the order laid on 14 February, 13 days later. The fourth review for England was submitted on 12 April 1995 and the order laid 55 days later on 20 June. The fifth review took longer. It was submitted on 31 October 2006 and laid 118 days later—just outside my three months. The one for Scotland was submitted on 30 November 2004—perhaps that was what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes referred to—and the order was laid 14 days later on 14 December. It is not clear why the fifth report took longer, because the legislation was the same.

So it is not at all clear why an open-ended commitment is necessary. It is worth noting that all the other processes in the Bill have time limits attached to them. The Boundary Commission, local authorities, political parties and individual electors all have time constraints on their involvement, some tighter than at the moment. The only party not subject to time constraints are the Government. My noble friend Lord Hayward, psephologist in residence, may develop this point.

I will now deal with my noble friend the Minister’s response at Second Reading. In his wind-up speech, he chose his words carefully in responding to my suggestion. Noble Lords will have their own unhappy experiences of their amendments being unacceptable to Ministers. What my noble friend said was the mildest possible put-down:

“We are not minded to go in that direction.”


I put that in the same category as that well-known ministerial response: “We have no current plans”, often a precursor to a change in policy.

My noble friend had two arguments. The first was that the current words were needed

“purely in order to maintain some flexibility for the necessary work in preparing the draft boundary order and the associated order that designates the returning officer for each newly drawn constituency. Time would be needed to allow for this preparatory work and setting hard time limits can cause practical difficulties down the line.”

The second argument was:

“Any Government who sought to drag their heels over the submission of a draft Order in Council would be at risk of legal challenge. With something as high profile as a boundary review, it seems likely that the move to challenge would be swift.”.—[Official Report, 27/7/20; col. 94.]


So far as the first argument is concerned, I will quote from an article published by the LSE on 1 May 2019 by Ron Johnston, professor in the School of Geographical Sciences at the University of Bristol; Charles Pattie, professor of politics at the University of Sheffield; and David Rossiter, an independent researcher. This is an extract.

“The Minister was then asked about progress on the preparation and tabling of Orders in Council to implement the Boundary Commissions’ recommendations.”


They quote the Minister’s reply—not this Minister, but a Minister in the other place—that

“once the orders are prepared, they are ready to go before the House. It is a complex motion, given that it covers every street and house in the United Kingdom, in terms of ensuring that they are appropriately represented in this place. It will be submitted in due course.”

Of course it was not, but this is what the academics say about this alibi:

“This is an odd statement … The Parliamentary Constituencies Order (England) 2007 is a lengthy document but all but two pages comprise a schedule listing the new constituencies and their component wards. That list was in the Commission’s report and could have been compiled and checked relatively quickly. The same is the case with the Commissions’ reports delivered in 2018; it is difficult to understand why Orders implementing the four sets of recommendations could not have been prepared and tabled within weeks of delivery.”


My amendment allows three months.

I have the relevant two pages of the Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order 2007. It is 27 lines: Citation and commencement; Parliamentary constituencies in England—which refers to the Schedule from the Boundary Commission; Electoral registers; and Revocation. There would be no difficulty in drafting that in a day. As for checking the work of the Boundary Commission for England, its work and decisions would have been trawled over by the political parties—all only too anxious to spot inaccuracies—during the process set out in the Bill. Again, my noble friend Lord Hayward might amplify this point.

I will make one related point: it is not the case that when the report lands on the Government’s desk its contents are a total surprise. The vast majority of the recommendations will have been put to bed months before, with only a few cases going to the final stage. There is ample time for the department to scrutinise the bulk of the work if it wanted to before getting the report.

As to my noble friend’s second point about legal challenge, I make two brief points. First, in the two years since the last recommendations were submitted, there has been no legal challenge, despite it being manifestly obvious that there has been ample time to lay the orders. Why was progress not made? It was because the Government did not want progress to be made. That is exactly the sort of interference that the Minister has made clear it is the object of the Bill to prevent. Secondly, if that is the long-stop, it does confidence in our democratic system no credit if the Government have to be dragged through the court to deliver the orders, with legal arguments as to whether or not it was reasonable and practicable so to do. It is far better to have the clarity of a time limit in primary legislation as with the rest of the Bill. Finally, I ask my noble friend to think again about this between now and Report and see whether there is the possibility of some movement in the Government’s position at Second Reading.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 27th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the Bill so ably introduced by my noble friend, even though the 1986 Act that it amends abolished the Ealing Acton constituency I represented for 23 years, making me politically homeless until the good voters of North West Hampshire offered me their hospitality.

The most controversial aspect of the Bill is its so-called automaticity. Some Peers do not like this because it goes too far; my concern is exactly the opposite —that it does not go far enough. The Government contend that this change will

“provide certainty that the recommendations of the independent and impartial boundary commissions will be implemented without political influence or interference from either government or Parliament”.

This is a worthy objective. Many noble Lords will remember—my noble friend Lady Pidding referred to it—how the Labour Party and the Lib Dems, here and in another place, joined up to postpone the boundary recommendations in 2013, even though they implemented legislation put on the statute book by Nick Clegg. Noble Lords with longer memories will recall, in 1969, Jim Callaghan laid the necessary order in the Commons and then invited his party to vote it down, described by Callaghan’s official biographer as a “a cynical partisan manoeuvre”

and

“pragmatic delay, untrammelled by principle”.

He was said in later life to have regretted what he did.

Those two examples show the importance of insulating the Boundary Commission from political interference, but the Bill does not do this, because Clause 2 retains the words

“as soon as reasonably practicable”,

referring to the interval before the Government lays the Order in Council to give effect to the recommendations of the Boundary Commission. This was the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. Any Government could undermine the purpose of the Bill by simply not doing this.

We have a recent example of exactly this happening. The Boundary Commission submitted its last report in September 2018 and, under the law, Ministers should have laid the order “as soon as practicable”. It still has not been laid nearly two years later. No one could argue that it was not practicable to have done so, but there has been no legal challenge. What would prevent a future Government, who find the recommendations not to their liking, simply not laying the order?

I ask my noble friend whether he will look kindly on an amendment in Committee to replace the words “as soon as practicable” with a specific time limit to remove the possibility of gerrymandering and achieve the objective of the Bill, as set out in the quotation I referred to. That would thereby achieve objectives that I otherwise wholeheartedly support.

Finance Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee negatived (Hansard) & Committee negatived (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 17th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I applaud my noble friend the Minister’s opening remarks, and the comments of my noble friend Lord Hunt.

I will make three points: one minute each. First, as it addresses the challenges that noble Lords have been talking about, the Government should make it clear that they are not bound by their manifesto commitments. One was:

“We will not borrow to fund day-to-day spending,”


which is already out of the window. Another was that the national debt would be

“lower at the end of the Parliament”.

It would be insanity to pursue that. On 16 June, when I asked whether the Government would review these manifesto commitments, my noble friend Lord True replied that

“this Government are still fully committed to meeting all commitments made in the 2019 manifesto.”—[Official Report, 16/6/20; col. 2046.]

The opportunity should be taken at the end of this debate for my noble friend to clarify that remark and make it clear that the Government will not have their hands tied by those commitments.

My second, related point, is that at some point—not now—taxes will have to be raised, the difficult part referred to by my noble friend the Minister and others. I will ask your Lordships a pub quiz question: who made this statement?

“In principle, there is little economic difference between income and capital gains, and many people effectively have the option of choosing to a significant extent which to receive. And in so far as there is a difference, it is by no means clear why one should be taxed more heavily than the other. Taxing them at different rates distorts investment decisions and inevitably creates a major tax avoidance industry.”


It was my noble friend Lord Lawson, in his March 1988 Budget Statement; my noble friend Lord Lamont may have been Financial Secretary at that time. He went on to say:

“In other words, I propose in future to apply the same rate of tax to income and capital gains alike.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/3/88; col. 1005.]


That policy was subsequently watered down. If reintroduced, the IPPR estimates that it would raise £90 billion. It is worth another look.

Finally, along with other noble Lords, I spent 90 minutes on Zoom last week with Stephanie Kelton, author of The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People's Economy. To those of us who learned economics in the 1960s, modern monetary theory is John Maynard Keynes on steroids. It asserts that there is no budgetary constraint on government spending, that we should not be fixated on debt and deficit, that the only constraints on government spending are the limits of real resources and the threat of inflation, and that we should aim at full employment. The new director of the OBR is moving in this direction with his work for the Resolution Foundation, asserting that we should stop worrying about national debt and instead focus on increasing net worth, looking at both sides of the balance sheet.

Although I have two economics degrees, I venture no comment on either of those theories, but will make this point. In the 1920s, we clung to an outdated economic theory. We stayed on the gold standard and did enormous harm to the country. A century later, we should avoid the same mistake. We should be open to fresh thinking that may help us navigate our way out of this crisis.

House of Lords: Relocation

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2020 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to relocate the House of Lords to York.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, noble Lords will know that, in light of the principle of exclusive cognisance, this is ultimately a decision for a sovereign Parliament.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con) [V]]

My Lords, in the words of an exasperated Lord Speaker, “Here we go again.” It is all very well to say that it is a matter for Parliament, but it is the Executive, not Parliament, that keeps this hare running. Government policy was set out in May last year:

“We agree with the Committee that the R&R programme should ensure that the Palace of Westminster is fit to serve as the home of the UK Parliament in the future.”


Has government policy, now in primary legislation, changed? Have Civil Service resources been considering moving your Lordships’ House to York? If so, who authorised it and what is the remit and the costs so far?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I can only repeat the position that I have stated: this is a matter which would, in the end, be resolved by Parliament and in Parliament. I say to my noble friend, whom I greatly respect, that, given the circumstances, I think it is reasonable for all of us to examine how every part of Parliament may find itself closer to the people.

Manifesto Commitments

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2020 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review their manifesto commitments as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, the coronavirus pandemic is an unprecedented crisis. The Government have rightly focused on providing stability and support to the people, families and organisations most affected by the outbreak. However, as the Prime Minister confirmed at the end of May in his evidence to the Liaison Committee in another place, this Government are still fully committed to meeting all commitments made in the 2019 manifesto.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con) [V]]

I am very grateful to my noble friend for that reply, but one of the commitments in the manifesto said:

“We will not borrow to fund day-to-day spending”.


Another promised that the national debt

“will be lower at the end of the Parliament”.

Sticking to these commitments in circumstances that no one could have foreseen, as my noble friend just said, would prevent the Government continuing on their commendable path of doing what it takes to mitigate the recession. Will my noble friend encourage the Prime Minister to modify that statement?

[Lord True]

My Lords, my noble friend recognises that we are living through un unprecedented crisis at the moment but, as he will well know, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that later this year there will be a Budget Statement, which will address a number of the concerns raised by my noble friend.

Census (England and Wales) Order 2020

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 12th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister who took the Census Act through your Lordships’ House last year—I am grateful to the Minister today for his kind words—I have a paternal interest in this order, which I hope will secure the same broad support that the Act received last year.

I have a number of issues for my noble friend. He suggested—and other noble Lords have referred to this—that this could be the last census of its type, as other, more timely sources of information become available. As he said, it is too soon to say whether this is indeed the last census, but can he say what is happening in other countries that like us have relied on censuses such as this and which, I understand, may be moving away from them?

Secondly, I understand that, before the census next March, there were—or are—to be some trials. Can the Minister say how those trials went, if they took place, and what lessons have been learned from them, particularly in respect of the new voluntary questions?

Thirdly, we all hope that, by next March, we will have put this pandemic behind us, but we do not know whether there will be a second wave, or whether social distancing will have been entirely phased out. While most people will complete the census online, there was concern during the passage of the Bill about, for example, the homeless and rough sleepers; forms were to be made available in shelters and night centres. What contingency arrangements are there in case, by any chance, life has not returned to normal? Has the pandemic in any way impeded the arrangements in the run-up to the census? Are there any circumstances in which it would be necessary to postpone the census, as has happened this year in other countries?

Finally, there was a loose end in our discussions last year, referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, was concerned that, while we had abolished the penalty for not answering questions, we had not abolished the underlying offence. I was delighted to hear from both noble and learned Lords that white smoke has now emerged and that that loose end has now been tied up.

Income Equality and Sustainability

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 6th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the House is grateful to the most reverend Primate for this debate. It is timely because the Government are about to embark both on a spending review and a Budget which between them will shape the nation’s response to the pandemic, as well as setting out the Government’s response to the competing priorities we debate this afternoon.

On 12 March, the Prime Minister said, “I must level with the British public.” He was talking about the impact of the virus on the nation’s health. We now need the same frankness about its impact on the nation’s economy. Six months ago, a number of commitments were made in good faith by my party in its manifesto:

“We will not borrow to fund day-to-day spending … We promise not to raise the rates of income tax, National Insurance or VAT”,


and

“debt will be lower at the end of the Parliament”.

Those commitments are unsustainable, and we should say so now. In particular, leaving untouched the most progressive tax we have makes it impossible to respond to the compelling case made by the most reverend Primate and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham.

I have two practical suggestions. First, we should abolish the universal winter fuel allowance, and roll the savings of up to £3 billion into social care, which has had a raw deal in recent settlements.

Secondly, we should introduce at least one new council tax band on top of band H. In a recent report, the IFS described council tax as

“increasingly out of date and arbitrary, and highly regressive with respect to property values. It is ripe for reform.”

It is absurd that the most valuable properties pay only three times as much tax as the least valuable. Ideally, there should be a revaluation, but that will not happen. However, a new, higher band would make the tax more progressive and bring in more resources for local government.

Clarity on the manifesto; replacing an untargeted benefit with help for social care; and a more progressive local tax. Those are the building blocks towards the fairer society advocated by the most reverend Primate.

House of Lords: Membership

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, further to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, he will know that a year after his original report, he produced a progress report, which set benchmarks or targets for each of the main groups, for the remaining years of the 2017 Parliament. Since then, we have had a general election. Would it not make sense for that committee to be reconvened and new benchmarks for the current Parliament to be set, so that we can see what progress is being made towards the target of 600? Do the Government accept that 600 is a realistic target to aim for?

[Lord True]

My Lords, on the first point, it is a matter for your Lordships’ House. We have had two follow-up reports from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the Lord Speaker, which have been very informative and helpful. As far as a specific number is concerned, the previous Prime Minister did not commit to that; nor I think will this one.

Ministerial Code

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this brief but topical debate, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Butler, about a proportionate response to any inquiries. If we look at how we discipline ourselves in your Lordships’ House, or how the code of conduct is administered in the other place, there is a proportionate, rather than absolutist, response to the offence—I agree with that point.

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, noted the foreword to the code:

“There must be no bullying and no harassment”.


Last summer, my noble friend the Leader of the House took the initiative and asked all Lords Ministers to go on the “Valuing Everyone” course. I know there was a good response, and I personally found the course very helpful. It showed that even the most well- meaning of people can cause real and unnecessary distress by thoughtless remarks or actions.

The Home Secretary was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and others. I welcome the steps the Prime Minister has taken to investigate the allegations and, in fairness to the civil servants who have made the complaints and to the Home Secretary who has denied them, we should allow the inquiry to take place, without seeking to influence it one way or the other. Can my noble friend confirm that, when it is completed, the same process will take place as with the previous inquiry concerning Damian Green? On that occasion a statement appeared on the Government’s website headed “Summary of the Cabinet Secretary’s report on allegations about Damian Green’s conduct”. It concluded that

“Mr Green’s conduct as a Minister has generally been both professional and proper”.

But it went on to say that

“Mr Green’s statements of 4 and 11 November ... fall short of the honesty requirement of the Seven Principles of Public Life and constitute breaches of the Ministerial Code”,

and that the Cabinet Secretary’s conclusions were endorsed by Sir Alex Allan, the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests. If that process were followed, it would deal in part with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, about the whole process being wrapped in secrecy. I agree that there needs to be some transparency.

Turning to special advisers, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, quoted paragraph 3.3:

“The responsibility for the management and conduct of special advisers, including discipline, rests with the Minister who made the appointment.”


I raised in Oral Questions last year the case of Sonia Khan, whose discipline was manifestly not the responsibility of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer but of Mr Cummings. I appreciate that this is still a matter of litigation, but can my noble friend confirm that the Government will respond to her claim for unfair dismissal within the time allotted, as there have been press stories of foot-dragging? Can he explain by what authority Mr Cummings instructed the police to remove Miss Khan from No. 10? Related to that, will he comment on the related story in the Daily Mail on 29 February? It said:

“A Downing Street source told the Daily Telegraph: ‘Before he took the job Dom made Boris sign a contract specifying what his powers were to be, that he would be allowed to hire and fire SpAds [and] confirming his authority over other key government projects.’”


If there is such a document, should it not be in the public domain? Has Mr Cummings been given the formal powers that were granted to Jonathan Powell and Alastair Campbell?

Finally, on spads, is it the case that No. 10 is now using contractors to circumvent the rules, the vetting and the limits on spads? We had the recent case of Andrew Sabisky, the super-forecaster who could not predict that his own employment would come to a premature end. I was surprised to read that he was working as a contractor and was present at meetings where highly sensitive matters were discussed. I confess that in my 23 years as a Minister, I had not come across this type of employment, where someone worked closely with Ministers and handled classified material without being either a civil servant or a spad. I agree with my noble friend Lord Norton: perhaps we need to revise the code to include something about contractors if they are to become part of the Whitehall scene.

I hope my noble friend will be able to shed some light on the issues I have raised, along with those raised by other noble Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

I will not ensure that Hansard records that remark from a seated position; I would not like to think that anyone would think that of me.

With regard to reviewing the code, my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth pointed out in a very authoritative speech the progress of the code over time. It is periodically reviewed, and Mr Johnson recently published an update in August. Ultimately it is not for me to say; it is for the Prime Minister if he or she wishes to make a change, but it has recently been revised and reviewed. I believe that the Ministerial Code is strong. It is subject to review and an assistance to good government—

[Lord Young of Cookham]

There is one question that I asked, and I wonder whether the Minister could reply. When the current inquiry into the Home Secretary ends, will there be transparency about the conclusions similar to what there was in the previous inquiry that I referred to?

[Lord True]

Ah, yes, my Lords, I apologise to my noble friend. I cannot absolutely give that assurance. As he knows, Sir Alex Allan publishes an annual report on what he has done or looked into. As far as each individual case is concerned, and this is not unrelated to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, the publication of any other summary is a matter for the Prime Minister to determine at the appropriate time. I am sure that the Prime Minister will take that decision in the appropriate way at the appropriate time. At the moment, a process is under way to establish the facts.

If your Lordships will permit, I will not repeat what I have said but I will say that the Ministerial Code is not as flawed as some have argued. It is subject to great scrutiny, including in Parliament, and I believe that we should all focus on making all aspects of good government work together, both Ministers and civil servants. From those two partners comes the best outcome.

Housing: Permitted Development Rights

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, all homes created through permitted development rights for change of use are required to comply with building regulations, including in respect of fire safety. We announced in a Written Ministerial Statement on 13 March our intention to review permitted development rights for the conversion of buildings to residential use in respect of the quality standard of homes delivered. This will inform any future decisions on permitted development rights for change to residential use.

[Baroness Thornhill]

I thank the Minister for that Answer, but building regulations are not quite the same thing as standards. Does he agree with Watford Borough Council in this instance that, with a total floor space of 16.5 square metres and containing no windows, these do not constitute homes in 21st-century Britain? As for the welcome review, the spring is quite a long way off. Can the Minister indicate how quickly changes will come into place and whether he can inject a little urgency into the process? Does he also acknowledge that these controversial permitted development rights have damaged relationships with an already anti-development public, who were quite incredulous that such standards were permitted without planning permission?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

On the case concerning Watford which the noble Baroness mentioned, the borough council may appeal against the planning inspector’s decision within the next few days, so she will understand if I put that to one side. I make two general points: first, I hope all noble Lords will agree that, if you have redundant office or industrial buildings in an area where there is a severe shortage of residential accommodation, it makes sense to convert the one to the other. That is why the coalition Government in 2013 issued the permitted development order, which said that if you have planning permission for an office, you have planning permission for residential. That policy has produced 46,000 new homes, the vast majority of which are of good quality. Secondly—here, I agree with the point the noble Baroness made in a debate last week and which the noble Lord, Lord Best, raised yesterday—there have been some very unsatisfactory applications of that policy and some homes of very poor quality have come on to the market. That is why we have announced the review. We want to learn from Watford. The review is scheduled to complete by the end of the year. I take what she says about urgency: we want the policy to produce properties of a decent quality.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

My Lords, can the Government not take this wonderful opportunity to praise the borough of Watford for not slipping us back to the 1940s and 1950s, when many of our poorest people lived in appalling conditions?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I hope the noble Lord will understand if I do not praise the London borough of Watford, as it may be about to take the Government to court—that might get me into difficulty. However, I agree with the thrust of what he said. It is worth reminding the House that the Prime Minister said last month that,

“I believe the next government should be bold enough to ensure the Nationally Described Space Standard applies to all new homes”.

I agree with that.

[Lord Cunningham of Felling (Lab)]

My Lords, would it not be illegal to keep animals in these circumstances, let alone human beings? What advice has been given to planning inspectors about such proposed developments? It seems astonishing to anyone who has worked in local government, as the noble Baroness and others in this House have, that these permissions are being given by planning inspectors.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Again, that is subject to the case, which may come before the courts, as to whether what was applied for in Watford constituted a dwelling house. That is the issue that may well be tested. I refer the noble Lord to the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 that comes into effect in March next year, which gives tenants additional rights if they believe their property is not fit for human habitation.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

Although the Government are right to conduct a review, surely it is not impossible to introduce changes to the present system so that all buildings must have windows and natural light?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

At the moment, building regulations do not require that, and that is one of the issues the review will look at. At the moment, there are no requirements for a property to have windows, natural light or minimum space standards. That is why we are reviewing the position, and the noble Lord is quite right to make that point.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, may I very gently correct the Minister? He said, “the London borough of Watford”, but the Borough of Watford is not in London; it proudly sits in Hertfordshire. The planning inspector says very clearly that he is constrained by the GPDO 2015 rules. He says he recognises that,

“living without a window would not be a positive living environment”.

When planning inspectors are so constrained, surely it is time urgently to review these planning regulations? They are clearly not fit for purpose. Can the Minister come back to the House as soon as possible with a revised review date?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

This Minister may not be in a place to come back to the House, but I take the noble Baroness’s point. There is clearly strong feeling in your Lordships’ House that the current position is wholly unsatisfactory. We are reviewing it and I take the point about urgency that all noble Lords have impressed on me; we will come back the moment we have some progress to report. I take on board what noble Lords have said: that people should not be required to live in properties of the kind described by the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham.