Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 20th March 2023 Lords Chamber

I look forward to hearing the debate and to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 294, in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, would oblige the Secretary of State to make short-term rental properties a distinct use class for planning purposes. The amendment is supported by the Local Government Association, of which I am, exceptionally, not a vice-president, and is based on changes made to secondary legislation in Wales in 2022.

A common theme running through all the amendments is the promotion of the country’s housing stock as a main home, either by raising the council tax on second homes or by using the planning system to control short-term lets. The planning system is not just about whether or not a piece of land is to be developed; it is about the use to which it is then put. For example, you need planning permission to convert a block of flats into a hotel. These use classes have been used to control changes that may be undesirable, and in a few cases they have been relaxed to promote changes between uses.

The Government have clearly recognised that we have now reached the stage where some form of control is needed if we are to maintain a proper balance between those who need permanent accommodation for rent and those who are making short-term visits. Clause 210, mentioned by the noble Baroness, introduced by the Government on Report and headed “Registration of short-term rental properties”, is a very useful step which I welcome. I also welcome the statements made about it in another place by Lucy Frazer, the previous Housing Minister. It proposes a new registration scheme for short-term lets, but this will not happen for some time, as consultation on the exact design of the scheme will not start until later this year, with decisions and actions later.

A registration scheme is a good first step but we need to build on this, as proposed in my amendment, and see much stronger controls. We need to do that if the planning system is to determine local priorities. We also need to make faster progress; only then will we see a better balance of housing options which will help families and young people who simply cannot find a place to live in some rural areas but also in London. Were she still able to attend, I am sure my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes would be speaking strongly in favour of this amendment.

A balance is important. Short-term lets can provide a useful boost to the local economy by promoting tourism where commercial accommodation is in short supply or very expensive, and they can be a useful source of income for those who do not need their homes all the time—for example, if they are away on holiday. However, we need a balance between second and first homes. My amendment provides a means of meeting that balance.

The Government’s legislation needs to go further by introducing a new use class for short-term rental properties, which, in turn, should be a precondition for the registration of such properties. We may not need to regulate short-term lets across the board, but making them a separate use class, as proposed in the amendment, allows full planning control in places such as seaside towns and the area just mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, where the growth in short-term letting has become a particular issue, or here in London, where there is pressure on the rental market.

There was a 1,000% increase in homes listed for short-term lets nationally between 2015 and 2021. That is 148,000 homes that could otherwise house local families that are available on Airbnb-style lets. In Cornwall, short-term listings grew 661% in the five years to September 2021. The county has roughly 15,000 families on social housing waiting lists and the same number of properties being marketed as housing lets. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, may mention his county, where short-term lets appear to be worsening an existing housing crisis, with nearly 4,000 homes taken out of the private rented sector and 11,000 added to short-term listings since 2016.

Currently, local authorities outside London have no legal means of preventing this loss of private rented housing to short-term lets. Several cases have come to light of people in rented housing in rural areas being evicted so that the property can be let on a short-term basis. In this context, it is worth mentioning the position in London as it shows a way forward. The Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973 —I declare an interest as I was on the GLC at the time—discouraged short-term lets by saying that the use of residential premises for temporary sleeping accommodation for fewer than 90 consecutive nights in London was a change of use, for which planning permission was required, so London residents face a possible fine of up to £20,000 for each offence of failing to secure planning permission. That position was basically confirmed in the Deregulation Act 2015. I see some advantage in simply extending this London provision to the rest of the country.

Finally, there are issues here that go beyond my noble friend’s department. Holiday lets get mortgage interest relief; residential tenancies do not. Holiday lets have no minimum energy and safety standards, and they qualify for business rates and small business rate relief. We need a cross-government approach to get a coherent and better-balanced policy on this important matter. Of course, I hope my noble friend will feel able to accept my amendment. If she cannot go that far—and I see from her body language that that may not be possible—will she commit to consulting soon on building on Clause 210, with a view to getting that better balance between the use of scarce housing stock in areas under pressure and to helping families for whom private renting is the only option?

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I will address the four amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Shipley and comment on some of the others. We have already heard numerous examples describing why we need to address the issues around empty homes, second homes and properties available for short-term rent. As noble Lords are aware, some parts of the United Kingdom have already introduced measures to tackle some of them; for example, certification of tourist accommodation in Northern Ireland and licensing schemes for short-term lets in Scotland and Wales. Sadly, at the moment, England is being left behind.

I am pleased that at long last the Government are tackling one issue—the way in which some second home owners have gamed the system so that they pay neither council tax nor business rates—but many other problems remain. I live in east Suffolk, close to the popular seaside town of Southwold. With the recent growth in second home ownership and the rapid rise in properties available for short-term rent, of the 1,400 properties, now only 500 have full-time residents, while 500 are second homes and 400 are short-term lets; in other words, nearly two-thirds are not permanently lived in, and this has had a significant impact.

Economic Update

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

If it is £1 less in real terms, that is an interesting definition of a swingeing cut. A medium-term fiscal plan is going to be published shortly. The noble Baroness and I go back a long way and I have great respect for her, but I suggest she waits for that. I believe the noble Baroness still has interests in the lovely California, so she should understand, from her knowledge of the United States, that there are international issues at play.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that there will be real difficulty finding anything like the necessary savings by cutting public expenditure? There will have to be some increases in tax. Does he recall that, in the 1980s, my noble friend Lord Lawson aligned capital gains tax and income tax, and said there was no justification whatsoever in capital gains tax being less than income tax? Reintroducing that progressive Conservative policy would save some £14 billion. Will he commend that to the Chancellor?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am not going to be drawn on anything in relation to what may be in the medium-term fiscal plan, but I am sure that the Chancellor reads your Lordships’ Hansard closely.

Health and Care Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Lords Hansard _ Part 1 & Report stage
Wednesday 16th March 2022 Lords Chamber

We agree, but the funding must be found, and the best and most realistic option is for the polluter—that is, the tobacco companies—to be made to pay. I support these amendments.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lords Lord Crisp and Lord Faulkner in support of these amendments, which replicate the amendment I moved in Committee. They set out proposals for a statutory smoke-free 2030 fund, based on the polluter pays principles, to pay for measures to end smoking. We are grateful to both Ministers for the time that they spent with us on a Zoom call last week, when we sought to persuade them of the merits of these amendments, and time alone will tell whether those representations bore fruit.

In Committee, my noble friend Lord Naseby, whom I see in his place, suggested that these proposals had been consulted on in 2015, and that the Government had concluded they were not workable, a conclusion which he said had been reiterated by the Exchequer Secretary on 10 January 2022. While my noble friend was right to say that the Government consulted on the levy in 2015, they did not consult on the proposals before us today. What was consulted on then was an additional tax, and the decision was taken not to proceed because tobacco manufacturers and importers would pass the costs of a levy on to consumers; the Statement by the Treasury in January merely reiterated that conclusion. Back in 2015, the regulation of tobacco prices to prevent the costs of a levy being passed on to consumers was prohibited by the rules of the European Union. That is no longer the case, so the 2015 objection to the levy no longer holds true. The Government can now put the financial burden firmly where it belongs, on the polluter—the tobacco manufacturer— and not the polluted—the smoker.

Our scheme enables the Government to limit the ability of manufacturers to profit from smokers, while protecting government excise tax revenues, which is a win-win for the Government and for smokers. The scheme is modelled on the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme, the PPRS, which has been in operation for over 40 years and is overseen by the Department of Health and Social Care. It has teams of analysts who already have the skills to administer a scheme for cigarettes, a much simpler product to administer than pharmaceutical medicines.

Unlike corporate taxes, which are based on reported profits and can be—and indeed are—evaded, the levy would be based on sales volumes, as is the case in America, where a similar scheme already operates. Sales volumes are much easier for the Government to monitor and much harder for companies to misrepresent. Implementing a levy would not require a new quango to be set up, as the Department of Health and Social Care has all the expertise needed both to supervise the scheme and to allocate the funds raised. We would not be averse to the consultation mentioned in the amendment including other options, as long as it included careful consideration of our proposals.

The Government have said that they accept the polluter pays principle. My party has form in implementing that proposal through the landfill levy, the tax on sugar in soft drinks and requiring developers to pay for the costs of remediating building safety defects. Indeed, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, the Government promised to consider this approach to funding tobacco control nearly three years ago in the prevention Green Paper. Surely they should now welcome this opportunity to consider how it can be put into practice.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, I speak in support of these amendments, to which I have added my name, and which are in accordance with my party’s policy.

In Committee, there was almost universal support for dealing with health inequality issues, and there was widespread recognition that, as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said, half the difference in life expectancy between the richest and the poorest people in this country is caused by smoking. There are many ways in which we can further reduce the prevalence of smoking, and those of us who are members of the APPG on Smoking and Health set them out during the course of our debates.

However, we are concentrating today on just one key principle which is necessary if the Government’s target of reducing the prevalence of smoking to 5% or below is to be achieved by 2030. That principle is finding the funds to support smoking cessation and tobacco control measures through a levy on the tobacco companies. This would help to ameliorate the terrible damage done by their products, which includes shortening the lives of half the people who use them.

The funding for local authorities to pursue tobacco control policies such as smoking cessation services and enforcement and for national mass media campaigns has been cut significantly. Without the proposed levy, the NHS will face greater costs in future in dealing with the many issues, such as lung cancer and heart disease, which arise in part because of smoking tobacco.

Last month, together with other officers of the APPG on Smoking and Health, I had the pleasure of meeting Javed Khan, chair of the Government’s independent review into smoking. He listened carefully to all our proposals, particularly on the levy, and certainly understood the necessity of funding being found. The Government have asked him to say what the most impactful interventions that could be taken forward in the new tobacco control plan would be. He told us that if nothing different is done, the Government’s smoke-free target will not be met. He promised that his recommendations would be “bold and brave”, as I hope they will.

I expect that we will soon get some soothing words from the Minister. But before he replies to this debate, I ask him to consider how, in “Hamlet”, King Claudius has to admit that

“words without thoughts never to heaven go”.

I hope the Minister will give us not just warm words about tobacco control but confirm that the Government have thought about the tobacco levy and will undertake a formal consultation on it.

Health and Care Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 4th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chair of the Professional Standards Authority. I was happy to go down memory lane with my noble friend on the Front Bench.

When thinking about professional regulation, we always have to bear in mind—I hope the Minister will be able to convince the House that this is what the Government bear in mind—the protection of the public. It is never about the glorification or protection of a profession; it is always about the protection of patients and the public.

The Professional Standards Authority developed the concept of right-touch regulation, whereby you identify the problem before the solution, quantify and qualify the risks, get as close to the problem as possible, focus on the outcome and use regulation only where necessary. I draw the House’s attention to the very successful project of accredited registers, which the Professional Standards Authority has developed in order to have, as it were, regulation at a lesser level than the very tight regulation that is necessary for some professions. You should keep it simple; the system is far too complex at present. You should check—as we always must with legislation, but it seems to me that we do it far too seldom—for unintended consequences. You should also review and respond to change, and the Government are doing just that with the proposals.

However, I must echo the caution of my noble friend on the Front Bench regarding the new powers for the Secretary of State to deregulate as well as regulate professions. We know that the risk profile for different occupations changes over time and a more agile method of responding is sometimes necessary. I hope that is what the Government have in mind. However, I emphasise, and I hope the Minister will reassure me on this, that a commitment to keeping patients safe must guide any decisions made to deregulate professions. There must be a robust and independent process to ensure that decisions are made after a clear assessment of risk—and I emphasise “independent”.

If the Secretary of State has the power to abolish regulators by secondary legislation, will there not be a threat to the independence of the regulators? If they know that the Secretary of State can abolish them at a stroke, as it were, might they become too focused on pleasing—or, rather, on not antagonising— whichever Government are in power, instead of, as I have stressed, working always and solely in the public interest? I hope the Minister will assure the House that that is the Government’s intention.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, Clause 142, which comes under the heading “Professional regulation”, deals with the regulation of healthcare and associated professions. One of the objectives of the Bill is to integrate health and social care, and I very much hope that under the heading “associated professions” it will be possible to look at the registration and regulation of social care as well as those who work for healthcare.

Noble Lords may remember a brief exchange three weeks ago at Question Time when I asked the Government what plans they had to regulate and register social care. I was grateful for the reply, which outlined the welcome support being extended to the social care workforce. It also mentioned a skills passport, but the Minister was silent on the issue of a register.

I pressed the Minister and pointed out that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland already have a registration scheme for their social care workforce, and that if we are truly to integrate health and social care, as the Bill seeks to do, we need to have parity of esteem between health staff and social healthcare staff with improved pay, working conditions and career opportunities—much of which was mentioned in the debate we have just had. A registration scheme could facilitate the professionalisation of the social care workforce.

We then had an interesting exchange, in which the Minister mentioned a voluntary register and the need to assess the skills of the existing workforce, 56% of which has no qualifications. He said that he was consulting on whether registration should be mandatory and was concerned that mandatory registration might cause people to leave the sector. However, I do not believe that that has been the experience in other parts of the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I support all these amendments but will speak to Amendments 276 and 277, to which my name is attached, requiring health warnings on cigarettes and inserts in cigarette packs containing quitting advice.

My father used to smoke, as very many people did in the war. At the age of 52, he died of coronary thrombosis; I always felt that smoking caused his death. In addition, one of my best friends who smoked died early. At this very time, my housekeeper is in St James’s University Hospital in Leeds receiving treatment for cancer. The other day, she scolded herself for having smoked. Smoking causes serious disability as well as premature death; far too many people have died because of smoking.

I strongly support the Government’s Smokefree 2030 ambition. The measures in the amendments will help put us on track; they are well-evidenced, cheap to implement and easy to enforce. Health warnings on cigarette packs have progressively increased in size over time and, most recently, their impact has been enhanced by the removal of colourful banding. Warnings on cigarettes is the logical next step, and it will have particular impact in preventing children and young people starting to smoke. Hundreds of children start smoking every day in the UK. Children are much more likely to have access to individual cigarettes than full packs, meaning that warnings on cigarettes are likely to be particularly effective in preventing youth uptake. This measure has strong public support. Adding health warnings to cigarettes and cigarette papers is a simple measure with minimal cost which would help deliver the Government’s Smokefree 2030 ambition.

Amendment 277 would give the Government powers to require that health information messages be inserted in cigarette packs. This is not a novel idea; it has been a legal requirement in Canada since 2000. They are proven to work, and there is already good evidence from Canada on which messages are most effective. If the Government could give an assurance today regarding the increased use of health warning inserts—they already have the power to do this—these amendments might not be necessary and we could save time on Report. If not, Amendments 276 and 277, which are by no means the only measures needed to address this terrible addiction, would be a small and significant step in the right direction. I commend them to the Committee.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who spoke in favour of Amendment 276, which replicates a Private Member’s Bill I am endeavouring to pilot through Parliament; we will see which of us has the fastest track towards the statute book. It is also a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, who has campaigned against the damage done by tobacco for as long as I have known him, and I agree with every word he said.

I will speak to Amendments 272 to 275, which are in my name but supported by all parties. They apply the polluter pays principle to tobacco manufacturers. In view of the lateness of the hour, I will curtail my remarks as much as I can. The principle that the polluter should pay has been accepted by Conservative Governments for over 30 years, starting with the landfill levy to promote recycling, running through the sugar tax on soft drinks to tackle obesity, and referred to only on Wednesday this week by my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh in the debate on building safety, advocating a levy on the construction industry to finance remediation.

Coronavirus Grants: Fraud

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

It is a slightly complicated picture, but the Government continue to work actively with the British Business Bank, lenders and fraud authorities to identify and address fraud risks and recover loans obtained fraudulently. On the noble Baroness’s question, the £4.3 billion figure is not recognised by HMRC; it is an inference made in the report by the Times, which I am sure the noble Baroness has read. The figure that was taken out of that was £5.8 billion, which was in the report and accounts of HMRC. Some £500 million, which was returned, should be deducted from that, so we think that there is £800 million to £1 billion to recover.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Was not the object of the loan scheme to enable existing companies to continue trading through the pandemic? If, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Agnew yesterday, banks paid out money to companies incorporated post Covid, and did so negligently, are we not entitled to revoke the 100% taxpayer guarantee?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

Again, we should remember that, in lockdown 1—roughly from March to April 2020—there was a clear need for urgent action to encourage a greater take-up of different support measures. That is why we intervened to change the design of the bounce-back scheme to make it 100% backed, which led to £46 billion being sent to 1.5 million businesses. To take up my noble friend’s point, I am sure that lessons can be learned, but, at the time, it was imperative that the Government acted quickly.

Early Years Interventions

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)]

As the noble Lord said, it is very important that no one is left behind. The SEND review is looking at ways to improve the outcomes for children and young people with SEND. There has been a consultation and proposals will be published in the first three months of next year, when I hope we will know more.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

Has my noble friend had time to read your Lordships’ Public Services Committee’s report on vulnerable children, published a fortnight ago, finding that many fall through the gaps—going into care, being excluded, joining county lines and ending up in custody—and cost far more than if there had been early intervention? Can she ensure a positive response from the Government to the committee’s recommendation that the Government should publish and fund a co-ordinated national strategy to give a better life chance to these vulnerable children?

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)]

I have to say to my noble friend that I have not read the report, but I certainly will—it is going to be my weekend reading. We welcome the report from the Lords Public Services Committee. We are reviewing its recommendations and will respond in due course. Our work and investment towards introducing family hubs that work with children and families from birth to adulthood is so important in the field of vulnerable children and young people.

Tributes: Sir David Amess MP

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will pay a very brief tribute to David, based on 32 years of shared friendship in the other place. As my noble friend Lord Howard said, he was basically loyal to his party. Speaking as a former Chief Whip, of the 876 votes in the 2010 Parliament, David supported the Government 97.6% of the time. No one could complain about that. However, he was a man of strong principle, impervious to the bait of ministerial office, as my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke said.

When he voted against the Government, he did so on a matter of principle. Your Lordships might be interested to hear that he voted against the Government on the House of Lords Reform Bill in 2011. He also voted against military action against Syria, when the Government were defeated, and he opposed the badger cull, animal welfare being one of his special subjects. More recently, he actually voted against the Government on leaseholder compensation post the Grenfell tragedy, on which many of us may share his views.

His sunny optimism, revealed by that broad smile, his basic decency, his generosity and his modesty made him a great colleague. We would see him walking briskly from engagement to engagement with a sheaf of papers under his arm, his timetable fractured both here and in Southend by his willingness to stop and talk to colleagues. The shadow Leader mentioned his insistence that the House of Commons should not adjourn for the Christmas Recess until it had answered 18 issues of great importance to the burghers of Southend. Just pity the Leader of the House replying to that debate.

I mention one other factor about David. He was generous with his time and happy to visit and speak in the constituencies of Conservative MPs—an obligation often overlooked by his more self-important colleagues. He was also capable of mischief. He once came to North West Hampshire, and the convention is that the visiting speaker pays a glowing tribute to the industry and energy of the incumbent, however well founded in truth that may be. But there was none of that from David. “Great to be here in George’s patch,” he began, “but I don’t want to waste time talking about him. I want to tell you about myself.”

Reading and listening to the tributes paid to David over the weekend, I asked myself whether people would join the dots and link the tributes we are paying to David today with those we paid last week to James Brokenshire and those we paid earlier to Jo Cox. I realised that those public servants, whom fate has cruelly taken from us too early, were between them more representative of this country’s often-abused public servants than the bad apples who get us unfavourable publicity. David’s family has expressed the hope that some good should come from this tragedy. David was essentially a generous man, and he would not mind sharing some of the tributes to him more broadly if it helped to change the perception of the profession to which he has selflessly given his life.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I was also elected in 1983, but I first discovered Sir David’s fundamental decency, integrity and courtesy when I was a junior Whip. Later, I was David’s Chief Whip for four years. I held him in the highest regard because he was the sort of MP we Chief Whips liked and rated—not because he sycophantically voted for us 96% or 97% of the time, but because he always told us well in advance on the 3% of occasions when he could not because his conscience and constituency priorities prevailed. Chief Whips can live with MPs who have that level of courtesy and decency.

As has been said, he was deeply religious. That clearly influenced his views on political issues, but he was always capable of seeing the other point of view. He always disagreed with the viewpoint, not the person making it; that is a sign of greatness and generosity of spirit. He followed the great commandment of Jesus to love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind, and love your neighbour as yourself. Well, David loved 70,000 neighbours —all his constituents in Southend West—and people further afield in the UK and even further afield around the world, as has been said. In fact, those suffering in the world were David’s neighbours—and not just people; as the great hymn by Cecil Alexander says:

“All things bright and beautiful,


All creatures great and small,

All things wise and wonderful,

The Lord God made them all.”

If the Lord God made them, David Amess defended them.

I say this carefully: I think that David died a Christian martyr. I mean “martyr” in the proper Greek derivation of the term meaning a witness and nothing else. He died a witness to his belief in the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity and to their practical realisation, including in working for others until the very end. He did his duty to his God, his family, his constituency and his country. What truer passport is there to eternal life? I am reminded of the opening to the anthem “In Paradisum”, which was sung at the funeral of Lady Thatcher. It begins:

“May the angels lead you into paradise”—


but there will be no resting in peace for David Amess in paradise, for even now he will be campaigning among the angels and archangels for heaven to be granted city status.

I pass on my sincere condolences to Lady Amess, David’s children and all those others who may have been traumatised by his awful murder. It was a privilege to know him and I really liked serving with him.

Business and Planning Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

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

I strongly commend Amendment 15, which I may vote on. It was drawn up not by me but by that outstanding campaigning organisation, ASH, working with local government, and it is the right thing to do. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.

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

My Lords, I begin with a brief word about Labour’s Amendment 11, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. I am disappointed that the party which—with a bit of prodding when in government—introduced the ban on smoking in pubs has in opposition retreated from that bold approach to public health issues, and cannot support Amendment 15. This disappointment is shared by many of Labour’s noble Members. Its own amendment has been trumped by the Government’s amendment, which goes further, and which I will turn to in a moment, but I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, that more action is needed to combat smoking.

The Government have adopted the “hard cop, soft cop” approach on this issue. Last week, my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh was cast as the hard cop and was obliged to read out an uncompromising speech asserting that our amendment would lead to pub closures and job losses. Why pubs that have survived all the problems that have confronted industries so far should decide to close when given the opportunity to extend their non-smoking premises to include the pavements outside was never explained. He also said that imposing a condition to prohibit outdoor smoking would not be proportionate. Yet outdoor smoking is already banned in open-air stadiums and at open-air railway stations, because they are places where people congregate and therefore there is the health risk and the annoyance of passive smoking. It would be the same with pavement smoking.

However, it would be churlish to complain too much, because in the meantime the hard cop was replaced by the soft cop, my noble friend Lord Howe, emollient and with an impeccable public health record. He has tabled an amendment which goes a long way towards what we were arguing for, and wrote a helpful letter to noble Lords today. I pay tribute to his role in listening to last week’s debate and moving government policy forward on this issue. I know that my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, who made a personal commitment to the anti-smoking campaign in the debate last week, has also played a role.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, the government amendment does not go as far as I would like, but before turning to that, I will make one point about the guidance referred to in the noble Earl’s amendment. Given that many pubs have already made provision for smokers on their own premises—usually canopies with patio heaters—I hope the guidance will say that where this is the case, any extension to the pavement should be smoke-free, since there is already somewhere for the smokers to go.

The Government’s amendment does not go as far as I would like, and I will not repeat the arguments in favour of Amendment 15 so ably put by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and other noble Lords, last week. While none of the arguments against it have convinced me that they would be the right way forward, I recognise that given the position of the Labour Party, the cross-party alliance so skilfully constructed by the noble Baroness has gone as far as it can, and therefore I am prepared to settle for and support the government amendment. I hope that others who share my view will feel able to do the same.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, yesterday’s press release from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government stated:

“People using pubs, restaurants and cafés will soon have greater freedom to choose non-smoking outdoor areas”,


a laudable objective that is consistent with the cross-party Amendment 15, which I have signed, along with the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and which is identical to the one we debated in Committee last week. Some of your Lordships may take the view that had we not raised the issue of smoking in areas covered by pavement licences, the other amendments in this group might never have seen the light of day today. Indeed, if it had not been for the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, raising the subject at Second Reading, that would probably be the case.

As I indicated in Committee last week, our amendment enjoys strong cross-party support from the Local Government Association, which represents local councils in England and has asked the Government to make pavements smoke-free. Birmingham Labour councillor Paulette Hamilton, vice-chair of the LGA’s community well-being board, is urging your Lordships to give councils the power to extend smoke-free areas to include pavements, so that

“this alfresco summer can be enjoyed by everyone.”

She added:

“Councils have worked hard to help hospitality businesses reopen, including relaxing requirements and making changes to roads and pavements to enable pubs, cafés and bars to operate outside safely with more outdoor seating. Pavement licensing should not be a catalyst to increase smoking in public places, putting people at greater risk of ingesting second-hand smoke when they are enjoying a drink or a meal.”


This view is shared by the Conservative leader of Oxfordshire County Council, Ian Hudspeth, whom I quoted in the debate last Monday, and who has set the laudable target of a smoke-free Oxfordshire by 2025.

On 15 July, the Welsh Government committed to bringing in new laws to ban smoking in hospital grounds and schools under the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017, to

“protect the public from second-hand smoke and de-normalise smoking in the eyes of young people.”

They are on course to bring in a smoking ban for the outdoor seating areas of restaurants and cafés, which is supported by nearly two-thirds of adults in Wales, according to a survey by ASH Wales.

My final point arises from my supplementary question to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, earlier this afternoon. Noble Lords may recall that I asked him whether today’s proposed guidance for smoke-free areas outside pubs and restaurants would be agreed with the DHSC, published before the House rises and subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Rather to my surprise, he did not answer any of these rather important questions, and later in the session, when the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked them again in the same form, she did not get a reply either. What is going on? Have the Government not yet made up their mind, or does the MHCLG refuse to acknowledge that this is a public health issue, let alone that it has anything to do with the Government’s aim to make England smoke-free by 2030? I still think that our amendment is the best of the three on offer, and I will be disappointed if the House does not agree to it this afternoon.

Business and Planning Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 6th July 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, others have raised the concerns of inner-city residents about the implications of Clause 11, which will encourage drinking in the streets into the early hours, and I hope my noble friend will consider whether the safeguards mentioned in the opening speech are in fact an adequate response.

Nearly all the measures in the Bill are temporary but I want to speak about one measure which is permanent —namely, Clause 20—as did my noble friend Lord Kirkhope. I speak as a former Minister for Planning who put the Planning and Compensation Act into law in 1991. This was meant to update the 1947 Act and provide a long- lasting framework for a modern planning system. I have lost count of the number of planning Acts since then with the same objective, and my successors seem to have fared no better, so we all hope that the proposed planning Bill trailed by my noble friend will finally take the trick.

Clause 20 implements one of the recommendations of the independent review of planning appeal inquiries, the Rosewell report. Of the 22 recommendations made last year, 16 had been implemented by March this year. It would be helpful to hear, perhaps in Committee, of the progress with the remaining six. The appeals system is one of the main blockages in the planning system and I welcome measures to speed it up and provide more homes. The main cause of appeals is the absence of adopted local plans decades after the system was introduced, and perhaps my noble friend can explain what action is being taken to get these up and running so fewer appeals are needed to fill the vacuum.

I have some specific questions for my noble friend on Clause 20. One category of decision is appeals in relation to an application to modify or discharge affordable housing requirements under Section 106BC of the 1990 Act. Affordable housing and planning appeals are a sensitive subject at the moment, so can my noble friend confirm that this proposed reform will not make it easier for developers to duck their responsibility for providing affordable homes through the “viability test”, as has been happening, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Kirkhope? Indeed, we should be making it tougher. In passing, I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Best, said about planning and implementing Sir Oliver Letwin’s recommendations.

The Minister said that the clause would allow the Planning Inspectorate to use more than one type of procedure as part of the same appeal—part local inquiry, part written recommendations. I understand that this hybrid system, which on the face of it sounds more complicated, was tested last year, and my noble friend outlined some of the results, but can he say whether there have been any cost implications for any of the parties involved, particularly local authorities, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson?

Finally, is the Secretary of State going to give guidance to the inspectorate about how the flexibility in the clause is to be used, or will the position remain as it is; namely, entirely down to the discretion of the inspectorate? Can he say when the measures in the Bill will come into effect? In the meantime, is progress being made with more virtual enquiries to avoid a pandemic backlog?

Perhaps in Committee we can have more detail of what is proposed, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, but in the meantime, on the basis that the intention of the clause is to speed up the provision of more homes and to “build, build, build”, I welcome it.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 13th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my former boss my noble friend Lord Taylor, who in previous Parliaments generously allowed extra time for discussion on such a Bill. I believe I am the only noble Lord, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who has sat through every single minute of previous discussions of his Bills in the past four and a half years. This was not a voluntary decision; I did so in my capacity as government spokesman on the Bill, a job discharged today by my noble friend Lord Howe, clutching a folder that bears my fingerprints. But I am now liberated to express my own view, rather than the Government’s—and when I did that, I confess to stretching to its limits collective ministerial responsibility by toning down some of the passages hostile to the Bill in my brief.

First, to those who criticise the Government for not being more supportive of the Bill, I refer to Hansard of 30 November 2007. The House was then considering a Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, which, among other measures, was to abolish the hereditary by-elections. The then Government set out their objections to that proposal and, referring to the pledge given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, that the hereditary Peers should remain until the second stage of reform the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said:

“I do not believe it can be argued that the Bill could be considered to meet the terms of that pledge.”—[Official Report, 30/11/07; col. 1479.]


It would be tactless for me to say that the Government Chief Whip at that time, who would have had a decisive say on the Government’s attitude to the Bill, was none other than the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. Having just wound him up, I support his Bill but the decision is a balanced one. It is unsurprising that Conservative Peers attach more weight to the pledge given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, than Labour Peers. It was a commitment sought by our former leader, Viscount Cranborne, and reluctantly conceded via the Weatherill amendment by the then Labour Government. It actually means more to us than it did to them and we have more to lose.

Secondly, by-elections in my party are unlike by-elections in the other parties, particularly the Lib Dems, which the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, likes to use to reinforce his case. The recent Lib Dem by-election was indeed something straight from “Iolanthe” but in my party’s case the by-elections are serious, with many strong candidates. Those who win tend to do more heavy lifting in your Lordships’ House than the life Peers—a point made by my noble friend Lord Taylor. As with the original 92, these are noble Lords who want to be here to work and they have to convince an electorate that they will do so.

However, I find the reasons the other way more compelling. The Irvine pledge was meant to be a short-term fix before the second stage of Lords reform. I remember being reassured, when I was shadow leader in the other place, that the first round of elections for a reformed second Chamber would take place by 2001. What was meant to be a short-term fix has become a long-term anomaly. The position is also clearly discriminatory against women and has no place in a modern legislature. Finally, I believe the House does itself no favours by using ingenious methods to obstruct the clear will of the majority. I was frankly embarrassed at having to listen to some of the arguments adduced by my noble friends and, in fairness to them, I suspect that they were embarrassed as well. We should have no more delaying tactics this time; the Bill has been examined ad nauseam. This is an incremental reform, like other Private Members’ Bills, which does not preclude other reforms should the time come for them. I support the Bill, and we should get on with it.