Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

The noble Baroness makes some extremely good points. Constitutional structures matter, but I suggest that what matters equally is for British and Northern Irish citizens to have a sense of belonging to this country, not a sense of alienation, and a necessary underpinning of that is public engagement and a listening, responsive Government. A number of things are in train at the moment that are designed to achieve those ends, not least the UK prosperity fund, which is designed to reach out to deprivation and inequality wherever it exists and bind the country together in the process.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, it is clear from the replies that my noble friend has been able to give that work on the commission is still at its formative stage, so I repeat my request for an early debate in order for your Lordships to influence its development. Is it not the case that the biggest challenge facing the UK at the moment is the threat to the union? Should that not be an early priority for the commission?

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend’s request for a debate has been duly noted by the usual channels. With regard to the union, I could not agree with him more. In so much of what the Government plan to do, they are working to strengthen the union by ensuring that the institutions and the power of the UK are used in a way that benefits people in every part of our country. I am thinking here of not just the shared prosperity fund that I mentioned a moment ago but the review of intergovernmental relations in the UK and the Dunlop review into the union.

Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission: Civil Society

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

I will make sure that the noble Lord’s point is duly noted.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

As my noble friend is aware, this commission generated some excitement in your Lordships’ House when we debated it last Wednesday. If, as my noble friend said, this project is still in its formative stage, can we at least have a debate in your Lordships’ House before it is set up so that your Lordships might influence its constitution and remit, and, I hope, make sure that it is a great success?

Special Adviser Appointments

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the correct procedures were followed in the dismissal of Sonia Khan as a special adviser.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the Government do not comment on personnel matters regarding individuals. Special advisers are temporary civil servants appointed in accordance with Part 1 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. They are bound by the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers and the terms of the Model Contract for Special Advisers, which sets out how special advisers are appointed and leave their role.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

Noble Lords will recall that on 29 August Sonia Khan was summarily dismissed by Mr Cummings and shown to the front door of No. 10 by an armed officer. Paragraph 3.3 of the Ministerial Code, which was updated on 23 August this year, says:

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


The Chancellor knew nothing of this, so under what authority did Mr Cummings—a man who was summoned to give evidence to a Select Committee in another place, told the chairman to “get lost” and was then found to be in contempt of Parliament—dismiss Sonia Khan? Finally, on treatment of special advisers, was it appropriate for Mr Cummings to say to his fellow special advisers:

“If you don’t like how I run things, there’s the door”?


If he continues to act in this arrogant manner, should that invitation not be extended to Mr Cummings?

Use of Language to Create a Safe Environment

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 26th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

Yes, I fully agree with everything that the noble Baroness has said. Again, I think that we can cite a good example from our own House on this very set of issues. Earlier this year, the Government published their response to the report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life—so ably chaired at that time by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, and now by the noble Lord, Lord Evans—and have undertaken to take a number of steps arising from its recommendations. These include issuing a public consultation, Protecting the Debate: Intimidation, Influence, and Information; consulting on our Internet Safety Strategy Green Paper—we will publish a DCMS-Home Office White Paper shortly; writing to local authority chief executives to raise awareness about the sensitive interest provisions in the Localism Act 2011; and a lot more. It is important that those strands of work are kept to the fore, particularly if we are to face a general election in the next few weeks or months.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, as a recent refugee from the other place I was dismayed by the tone of last night’s exchanges. I will, however, make a slightly different point from that of my noble friend. The Prime Minister says that he wants a deal. I hope that he gets one, but to do so he will need to get legislation through both Houses and the support of all sides in both Houses. In addition to my noble friend’s arguments about respect, would it not be politic to tone down the invective in order to build the consensus that the Prime Minister will need to bring this Brexit saga to a satisfactory conclusion?

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend makes, as ever, a very powerful point. However, much of the debate of recent hours has conflated two issues which it is important to distinguish between: strongly felt political opinions on the one hand, and unacceptable, abhorrent acts of abuse, hatred, intimidation and violence on the other. We should keep those two things absolutely distinct in our minds.

Business of the House

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 4th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, before we move on to the next amendment, I gently remind your Lordships of the guidance in the Companion that speakers are expected to keep to within 15 minutes.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

Pensions: Tax Relief

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goddard of Stockport]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what current plans they are considering with regard to pensions tax relief; and whether they are planning to introduce a pensions ISA.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the Government held a consultation on pensions tax relief last year. Responses to the consultation showed that there was no clear consensus for reform. That lack of consensus, combined with the ongoing rollout of automatic enrolment, led the Government to conclude that it was not the right time for fundamental reform. As with all aspects of the tax system, tax relief for pensions is kept under review.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer, but does he agree with me that pensions are very complicated? One way to resolve that problem could be with flat-rate tax relief for all, the two-for-one model. Some 80% of employers think it could encourage employees to save and invest more. It would work across defined pension contributions and would also be sustainable, giving both short-term and long-term benefits to the Treasury, compared with the costs that fluctuate now.

I have to say that pensions are a bit like the House of Lords: when you are young you do not understand them and do not want to get involved, and when you do get involved they are very complicated, but roll on 40 years and you are glad you have a pension, you are glad you invested it and you hope it will look after you through your remaining years—a bit like my noble friends in this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

On which we had a very good debate yesterday. At the beginning of the noble Lord’s question, he suggested an alternative form of tax relief and incentives for pensions. That was part of the consultation that we engaged in last year. As I explained, there was no clear consensus in favour of the scheme that the noble Lord has proposed, which is why we decided for the time being to stay with the current quite popular system, where you get tax relief up-front and there is a tax-free lump sum at the end. I agree that pensions can be complex. That is why in 2019 we are going to introduce the pensions dashboard, which will enable people to see in one place all the pensions that they may have accumulated throughout their life, and they can take informed decisions about what they need to do for the future.

[Lord Flight (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the ISA as it stands is an attractive vehicle for people to save for their old age anyway? A mixture of a pension, where tax relief is up-front but you pay tax on income, with an ISA, where there is no tax relief up-front but you get tax-free income when you retire, is a perfectly reasonable proposition. Why do we want to clutter it up with some other form of ISA?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The ISA is indeed an acceptable vehicle for savings. It does not have the advantage of the pensions regime, whereby your own contribution is topped up by that of your employer; to that extent, pensions may be a better vehicle for some people than the ISA. Also with pensions, as my noble friend has just said, you get the tax relief up-front, which you do not get with the ISA. The important thing is that there should be a variety of savings vehicles with different advantages and different flexibilities, and people should make an informed decision about which is the right one for them.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, surely the overwhelming case for a flat-rate approach is a distributional one. Pension tax relief disproportionately benefits the better-off in our society. At a time when the Government are cutting financial support for poorer people and saying, “We have no other choice because we have to save money”, surely they should be looking at this again.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The Government have consistently reduced the cost of tax relief on pensions by introducing the lifetime allowance, which has now been reduced to £1 million, and the annual allowance, which has been reduced to £40,000. This year we made further savings of up to £4 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament by saying that for those who earn over £150,000 the £40,000 relief is tapered. So we have made substantial savings in the cost of pensions tax relief.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the whole point of pensions investment is that it should be stable and not subject to sudden changes? Have the Government not interfered enough with the pensions regime? Do we not need a period of stability?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to my noble friend for endorsing the decision I announced at the beginning of this exchange that, in view of the absence of a consensus for an alternative, we wanted to stay with the regime that we have at the moment, which as my noble friend has said, has many advantages.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

My Lords, the current system benefits the wealthiest in our society. However, if tax relief were changed to match funding with thresholds aimed at lower savers and, for example, the first £500 was matched by the Government pound for pound, thereafter gradually tapering down, this would demonstrate the benefits of savings as it supports those on lower incomes getting the most. Does the Minister agree that reform to match funding, rather than tax relief, would give a greater incentive to save?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I give the noble Baroness the same response that I gave to her noble friend at the beginning of this exchange. We looked at alternatives to the current regime a year ago and because there was no consensus we decided to stay where we are. In view of the complexities of rolling out auto-enrolment, we decided that this was not the right time for fundamental reform.

[Lord Brookman]

As someone who worked in manufacturing in the steel industry, and would have had a pension, had I not left to become a full-time official of the union—I got a better one—I remember gatecrashing the pensions management committee, on which we had representatives. I shall come to my question in a second. This is a true story. The character running the pension scheme asked, “What are you doing here? You have representatives”. I said that I wanted to know what was going on. He said, “Everything is going on. Your members are paying in; we match it. They retire at 65, or 60 if they have enough years’ service, and they die seven years later”. Does anybody agree with that?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I very much hope that whatever the noble Lord’s history of employment, he is in receipt of a generous pension.

Disabled Children: Tax Credit

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Low of Dalston]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to compensate families looking after disabled children who lost the opportunity to claim the higher rate of tax credit between 2011 and 2014 due to an administrative error.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, claimants were able to claim the higher rate of tax credits and many did so at the time. Although it is the claimant’s responsibility to inform HMRC of their eligibility, HMRC’s back-up practice was to take information from DWP to update awards automatically. Last week, we announced that HMRC would issue lump-sum payments to families affected by a breakdown in this back-up to cover what they would have received from 6 April 2016 and ensure that they get their entitlement in future.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but I am sure he would agree that we are dealing here with a major injustice: some 28,000 low-income families with disabled children have lost up to £4,400 a year for five years, all because, between 2011 and 2014, the DWP omitted the box from the relevant form for people to indicate whether or not they received tax credits. As the law currently stands, as the Minister has said, the onus is on the claimant to claim what they are entitled to. However, the system of tax credits is extremely complicated for anyone to understand. Does the Minister agree that the law should be changed to place the onus on the Revenue to pay claimants what they are entitled to, so long as they provide the right information about their circumstances? Will he give serious consideration to this?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that suggestion. HMRC will be contacting the 28,000 families directly, automatically adjusting their award and by the end of January making a lump-sum payment backdated to April 2016. I am sure his suggestion of a future change to the law will be looked at sympathetically in order to try to streamline the system and to avoid the problems that he has identified in his Question.

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government acknowledge the administrative error in the failure to pay the full entitlement for five years. I want to know, as I am sure does the House, on what principle the decision was taken by the Government, knowing that the families have no recourse to law, that the Treasury should shoulder something less than 10% of the total cost and the families should bear 90%.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

That is a question that I asked myself earlier this morning. The answer is that HMRC cannot by law backdate beyond the present tax year except in exceptional circumstances, and the circumstances where someone has failed to claim do not qualify. So there would be a risk of legal challenge were HMRC to compensate people in the way that the noble Lord has suggested.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, when people have been denied five years of benefit and the Government are willing to backdate that for only six months, who would make that challenge, should HMRC do what is right?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I understand the problems of these 28,000 families, by definition with a disabled child and on low incomes, who have failed to get up to £5,000 a year. All I can say is that, if I were still in another place and one of those 28,000 families came to see me at my advice bureau, and I knew there was a legal problem, my advice to them would be to refer the matter to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this is precisely the type of case for which the ombudsman was set up? I hope those who, like the Minister and myself, have served in the other place as Back-Bench MPs—although my noble friend has come to high office once again—will take note. This is just the type of case that any Back-Bench MP could present to the ombudsman, and I hope the Treasury—my noble friend has certainly shown himself to be a man of honour—will abide by the ruling of the ombudsman in such a case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I have probably gone way beyond my negotiating remit already, but if it were to be referred to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, I suspect it would be resisted by the Treasury or DWP on the grounds that they were complying with the law but, were the Parliamentary Commissioner to uphold the complaint then, following precedent, I imagine that the government department would then honour the compensation proposed.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Low, correct to say that a box was omitted from the form? If a box was omitted that should have been there, it seems to me that the department was at fault and therefore a question of law preventing compensation would not arise.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Baroness knows much more about the law than I do. It was indeed the case that, when a parent applied for DLA for a disabled child, they could tick a box indicating whether they were claiming tax credit. If they ticked the box, HMRC was automatically told and the benefit was automatically uprated. That is described as a back-up cover, and the law is quite clear that none the less, notwithstanding the box, it is still the responsibility of the claimant to notify HMRC of the change in circumstances. When you apply for tax credit, it says on the form that if your circumstances change you should advise HMRC. I have looked at this extensively this morning. I have given the reply that I have about the Government’s ability to make compensation for earlier years and the advice that they cannot under the legislation; and I have suggested in good faith a way through that might meet the injustice that many noble Lords feel has occurred.

Infrastructure Improvements: Funding

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

In referring to my interests on the register, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the private sector plays a vital role in the financing and delivery of our infrastructure. The private sector will deliver around half of the projects due to complete in the next five years. The Government will continue to create the right environment to encourage private investment.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

Given the 2% increase in the insurance premium tax and the major housebuilding programme announced today, will my noble friend commit not to build any houses in inappropriate places, such as flood plains, but to undertake a major sustainable drainage building programme and invite more money from the private sector to fund flood defences, in particular the insurance sector and pension funds?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My noble friend has asked three questions. On building on flood plains, whether planning consent is given for a particular development is a matter for local planning authorities, but my noble friend will be aware of the National Planning Policy Framework, which—I paraphrase—basically discourages development in inappropriate areas and encourages development away from areas at high risk of flooding. On drainage schemes, the Government have committed £2.5 billion of investment between now and 2021, and I believe that the Chancellor announced a further increase in the Autumn Statement a few moments ago. Finally, on private finance, the Environment Agency and local authorities can bid for private finance for schemes that are outwith the public sector scheme and, subject to value for money, they have a good chance of succeeding. There is a new partnering scheme whereby local communities and landowners can bid for funds alongside Defra and make progress with schemes which would not be able to go ahead if they were solely dependent on public finance.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, why should local authorities be held be responsible, as the Minister said, for planning matters in areas that flood, when it is the taxpayer that picks up part of the bill at the end of the day?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord may be referring to the introduction of Flood Re, which enables those who previously had difficulty in getting insurance now to get some. I very much hope the noble Lord welcomes that initiative.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that to deliver the infrastructure programme which the Government wish to achieve will require the contribution not just of large contractors and manufacturers but of small and medium-sized businesses, especially in the building industry—that is the way to get the agility and flexibility needed. What progress are the Government making on engaging with those two communities of constructors—the small and medium-sized enterprises—to deliver on the housing targets which we all agree need to be met?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord was, of course, a Minister in the relevant department. He may be aware that, a few months ago, Ministers in CLG announced an initiative to bring back into the market the small builders who have disappeared from it in recent years. The initiative was aimed at making sites available in slightly smaller packages so that the smaller builder would have a chance of developing them, rather than relying on sites that are so big that only major developers can accommodate them.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, does not the Minister agree that private finance initiatives have a very bad record of leaving a legacy of years, or even decades, of inflated debt on projects that are no longer required, such as schools which have been built in the wrong place and accordingly have no pupils, and, as such, need to be evaluated very carefully before being undertaken?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I think the noble Lord is somewhat harsh in his verdict on the PFI. For example, the NAO says of the PFI:

“Most private finance projects are built close to the agreed time, price and specification”.

It further states that PFI contracts provide,

“two key advantages over conventional procurement … transparency of pricing in that the public sector knows in advance how much it will be paying”,

and a,

“consistent approach to maintenance as the SPV”—

the special purchase vehicle—

“is under an obligation to maintain the asset in good condition”.

Of course, some projects have not gone correctly, but this country is a world leader in the development of private finance and we should be proud of what we have achieved.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, while congratulating the Chancellor on his excellent Statement committing to building more housing, can I ask my noble friend what is to be done about the decision by the European Banking Authority to increase the capital weighting required for loans to small housebuilders from 100% to 150%, which is greater than is required for unsecured credit card debt and will result in less availability of money for builders to build and also require banks to make provision for their existing loans? I declare my interest which is on the register.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

There is only one answer for my noble friend: I will write to him.

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, on the related issue of research and development, of course we welcome what the Chancellor said earlier today on the proposed increase of £2 billion up to the year 2020. However, does the Minister accept that even with this commitment, if it is realised, the United Kingdom will still be below the OECD average expenditure in this area and below the 3% of GDP that the OECD recommends to all developed countries?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Again, the noble Lord is somewhat harsh in his judgment. I very much hope he will welcome the extra money that has been found at a time of great difficulty for investment in research and development.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the last Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that infrastructure for the northern powerhouse could be paid for mainly by the Chinese. As many Ministers now talk about the importance of British independence, should the Government be quite so dependent on China for infrastructure?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I very much hope that this country will remain open for business and that we will continue to attract private inward investment to help modernise infrastructure. We have a world-class regulatory system and strong financial and capital markets. I see no reason at all why we should do anything to discourage inward investment in our infrastructure from overseas investors.

Housing and Planning Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I apologise if that is the case. If almshouses are exempted that is helpful; nevertheless, the issues which the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, raised about houses specifically adapted for particular purposes remains true and very much part of the case.

The question of permanent endowment of property, which also relates to housing associations, many of which are charitable, remains at stake. There are issues here about the potential move from voluntary to a little less than voluntary, which is implied in the suggestion that the noble Lord talked about, when providing guidance. The lawyers with whom I have discussed this tell me that so long as it remains entirely voluntary, we will remain on the right side of the law. But if the guidance issued by the Government after passing the Act moved towards the border between voluntary and non-voluntary, we would indeed be risking some of the underlying principles of charitable law. My simple request to the Minister is that, in order to provide reassurance to this extremely important sector—I am sure that all Conservatives are committed to the future flourishing of the charitable third sector—she be willing to ensure that the relevant officials and Ministers meet with representatives of the expert associations so that such reassurances can be given.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly on these two amendments. I have some sympathy with Amendment 52. As a former Member for a rural constituency, I know how important housing association properties for rent are in small villages. They contribute to the balanced communities that we want to retain, so I understand the concerns here. However, the amendment is entirely unnecessary because under the voluntary agreement there is absolutely no obligation on rural housing associations to sell their properties. Indeed, they are closer to the problem than almost anyone else, so it is most unlikely that, given the nature of the voluntary agreement, they would want to sell these properties.

The voluntary agreement specifically refers to properties in rural areas as examples of circumstances where housing associations may exercise discretion over sales, so in a sense the amendment is redundant. Also, if a housing association actually wanted to sell a property in these areas, the amendment would not prevent it doing so. All the amendment would do is stop the Secretary of State giving the housing association a grant to replace the property. I shall go back to the first point I made: certainly, the housing associations that were active in my former constituency would not, given the nature of the voluntary agreement, dispose of a property for rent in a rural area because they are more aware than almost anyone else of how valuable these properties are.

Amendment 51 is much more serious. It invites the Government to break the voluntary agreement they have entered into with the housing associations. It states:

“The Secretary of State must set as a condition under subsection (2) that money equivalent”,

must be spent in a particular way. Chapter 2 of the voluntary agreement makes it absolutely clear that the Government want housing associations to have flexibility:

“Housing associations would have flexibility to use receipts so they can respond to market pressures and local housing need. In order to facilitate this, the definition of a replacement home would be broad and include the development of Starter Homes, shared ownership homes and other part buy and part rent models”,

excluded by the amendment. The agreement goes on to say that,

“in some limited circumstances, it may not be appropriate or desirable for a housing association to build a new home to replace the one sold”,

since it may be easier to buy another one or bring an empty home back into use to replace the home that has been sold. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister is not going to break the voluntary agreement, endorsed by the Prime Minister, that the Government have entered into by lending any support to Amendment 51.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 52, which is in my name and has the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his comments. I also want to note my support for Amendment 51, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, which would serve to better protect areas of high value, such as St Albans city and district in my own diocese, from a potential loss of social housing to other parts of the country.

The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that any home sold by housing associations under right to buy in rural areas is replaced in the same or an adjoining parish. This would shift the terms of the current right-to-buy deal from one in which housing associations have discretion over the sale of assets under right to buy in rural areas to one in which they are unable to take advantage of right-to-buy funding in rural areas unless they guarantee replacement housing in the same or an adjoining rural area. Such an amendment is widely supported by coalitions of rural landowners such as the CLA, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and rural housing associations such as Hastoe Housing Association.

I recognise that many Peers have a legitimate concern about preserving the status of housing associations as independent providers of social housing, and that this would lead them to support increased individual choice for housing associations wherever possible. However, I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, who pointed out in Committee that,

“the circumstances of rural communities and villages are exceptional”.—[Official Report, 8/3/16; col. 1209.]

As has been repeatedly stated in this House, just one in 10 homes in rural areas is classed as affordable housing, compared with one in five in urban areas, despite the fact that in 90% of rural authorities, the average home costs eight times the average salary. That leaves a large proportion of rural communities struggling to make ends meet in the private rental market, desperately waiting for affordable rents to become available, or forced to leave their communities altogether. The Government’s facilitating the sale of what little affordable housing exists in rural communities seems to me to be a failure of policy, particularly given the immense difficulties associated with securing new or replacement rural affordable housing. In many rural communities it is virtually impossible to build more social housing.

Along with other noble Lords, I have raised this issue several times in the House already, and every time it has been pointed out that under the terms of the voluntary agreement, housing associations are exempt from the requirement to sell in rural areas. I am well aware of that. My concern is what happens when housing associations do choose to sell rural properties, given that there is currently no requirement for them to build replacements in the same area.

In Committee, several Peers indicated that we need simply to take it on trust that housing associations, because they are close to the actual situation on the ground, will not sell rural homes in areas where they cannot or will not be able to replace them. That seems highly questionable to me. Most housing associations, unless they have a specific rural focus in the very nature of what they have set out to do, have a duty to the vulnerable that transcends rural and urban boundaries. It would not be for me to criticise a housing association which, in selling off one rural affordable home—it will probably be an extremely valuable property, or certainly a more costly property—was able to provide affordable housing for two families in an urban area.

That sounds an eminently sensible thing to do for the overall good of everybody. However, for the individual housing association, it could make perfect financial and charitable sense to consolidate the housing stock in, say, quite a limited urban area—a town or a city—where the costs of development tend to be cheaper and where it can support more families. But for the rural communities in question, that would be devastating: not just for the individual families who are unable to live in the local village and perhaps where many generations of their family have lived in the past, but for the sustainability and the future of the wider community. Without people of all incomes living and working in the local area, no rural community can sustain flourishing schools, shops, pubs and churches. Rural communities need hope for a sustainable and secure future. This is particularly true when it comes to the development of rural exception sites, which are a crucial route to securing affordable housing for rural communities.

Speaking personally on my own area of interest, many dioceses in the Church of England, including my own, are committed to using glebe land to provide for rural exception sites where possible, but the extension of right to buy will make the provision of such sites much more difficult for us as a charitable body, given that charitable assets might be transferred to individual ownership, where they could be used for profit. I know that the CLA has spoken to many landowning members who have similar reservations about providing land for rural exceptions sites without strong guarantees that the resultant affordable housing will remain available to the local community in perpetuity. I welcome the concession the Government have already made on rural exception sites regarding starter homes, and can only hope that today might find the Minister in a similarly understanding mood—I smile at her hopefully.

The sale of vital and scarce affordable housing should not receive government subsidies in rural areas unless local replacement is guaranteed. This cannot be left to the discretion of housing associations, which will face immense pressure on their resources in the coming years. Securing the sustainability of rural communities is the duty of government, and I hope the Government will make the necessary amendments to the Bill.

Strathclyde Review

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, as the last Back-Bench speaker in this debate—I wonder whether there is some alphabetical bias in the selection of the order of speakers—I join others in commending my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for his report and for his speech introducing the debate. His report is a “best buy” in terms of value for money. Indeed, such good value is his report that the Command Paper publishing it does not even have a price on the back.

Picking up a point made by my noble friend Lord Forsyth, I wonder whether there are some broader lessons to be learned from this type of inquiry, as the law of diminishing returns sets in quite quickly as the size and length of inquiries develop. With the Chilcots, the Levesons and the Scotts at one end, and the Strathclydes at the other, should we not have fewer of the former and more of the latter? Without being dogmatic, we need more sprints round the greyhound track with a small field, and fewer London marathons, where some entrants find it difficult to finish.

Turning to the report itself, I believe it offers the basis for a settlement. I have been encouraged by the number of noble Lords who have spoken in this debate who have been quite careful not to close the door on further discussions building on what is proposed. There are real advantages for both Houses. I am a recent refugee from the other place after 41 years there and, in my capacity as a former Leader of the Commons, I see real advantages for it, in that the will of the Commons will prevail in secondary legislation as it now does in primary. Indeed, it seems somewhat perverse—a point made by my noble friend Lord Jopling—that the will of the elected House can prevail with Bills but not with the statutory instruments that derive from them.

I would make a number of clarifications. For example, if we were to reject an SI, it must be debated in the other place and not simply approved on a deferred Division without substantive discussion; it should be treated like a Lords amendment. As far as this House is concerned, I think that we get a new weapon that is more appropriate to our role as a revising Chamber. In his report, my noble friend Lord Wakeham said:

“At the cost of weakening the formal power of the second chamber … we believe it would actually strengthen its influence and its ability to cause the Government and the House of Commons to take its concerns seriously”.

It is worth reflecting on what might have happened in October had option 3 been available. This House could, of course, have rejected the SI. I suspect that it would have done so by an even bigger majority, because many noble Peers felt inhibited against voting it down for constitutional reasons, and those would have been dealt with under option 3. It would have gone back to the House of Commons with a bigger majority and the House of Commons would have then had to consider what to do with it. We will never know the answer, but my guess is that it would have done exactly what it did in November. The key difference would have been that the House of Commons would have had the last word on the SI and not this House. That is why I think there are real merits in the proposal.

We read on page 18 of the report that the preferred option requires legislation. My noble friend must have come to that decision on the basis of the professional advice that he got from his team. There may be some in my party who will want to legislate straightaway, using the Parliament Act if necessary, but I hope we do not proceed too hastily, precipitating a wholly unnecessary constitutional crisis. There should now be discussions between the parties, and it may be that issues not addressed by the Strathclyde report—for example, the SI procedure in the other place—need to be put on the table, together with other issues such as the time lag between rejection by this House and consideration by the other.

The Government could set the tone for constructive discussions by indicating that they are sympathetic to the recommendation referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane: that about not using SIs where primary legislation is more appropriate. This is not a pain-free decision for the Government, in that it inevitably squeezes out other legislation from their programme if what would have been an SI now becomes primary legislation. However, if the Government were to indicate that they are sympathetic to that proposition, I hope that that would encourage other parties to come to the table to see whether we could then reach all-party agreement on the way forward. If it is then indeed necessary to legislate to introduce option 3, that can be done on the basis of mature consideration and not the hasty, shooting from the hip exercise that may be advocated by some.