Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, first, I declare an interest as a leaseholder. Secondly, these are issues that I have raised repeatedly in the House over many years, and I want to put on the record my thanks to Liam Spender, Katie Kendrick and all the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership for their great work on the campaigns here. These broader issues began to get real attention in the House, and in the country, following the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower on the 14 June 2017, which will be six years ago this June. From that, there was resultant attention on building safety. Then, we have had the building safety work done by Dame Judith Hackitt, and we of course wait for the results of the second phase of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.

After that, attention began to focus on the problems of leasehold as a tenure in itself. These problems have been rumbling away for many years. I first of all say that there are many good freeholders and managing agents—there is no question about that. But, as usual, it is the rogues that are the problem, and we have rogue freeholders and rogue managing agents. In some cases, they are connected, but that is the problem. They see leaseholders as an easy cash cow and that is what we want to address. I hope that we would all agree that this form of tenure has had its day, and that the sooner it is abolished and confined to the history books, the better.

I know that my constant raising of this issue in the House can be a bit irritating for the Government, but for me it is the only way of getting any action. Whatever else I do or do not do, I am quite good at being irritating when I need to be. We need to raise these issues to get some real action. Over many years, I have raised issues and have engaged with the noble Lords, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and Lord Greenhalgh, who is in his place, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. Generally, I have received loads of support. Everyone agrees with me: “We’ve got to sort the problem out. Absolutely right, Roy, it is on the Government’s priority list; we’re gonna deal with it”, but we do not actually get much action. We sit here time and time again.

With my Amendments 42 and 43, I hope that we can get some clarity from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and from the Government, on what we are going to do in the next Session of Parliament. I am also a bit confused; maybe it is me, but I am. We keep being told that this is going to come in the King’s Speech—“Don’t worry about it, Roy, it’s all coming”—but then we are not quite clear about what actually is coming down the track. The Government are not being clear. Is it a Bill to reform leasehold tenure of residential housing, or is it a Bill to abolish this feudal system of residential housing? I do not think that it can be both; it is either/or. We need some clarity.

I will give an example of why I think there is confusion. In a recent article in the Sunday Times, which covered the issues arising from Grenfell, Mr Michael Gove, the right honourable Member for Surrey Heath in the other place, said that he intended to abolish the feudal system for residential housing—wonderful news. On the same Sunday, he also appeared on Sophy Ridge’s programme on Sky News. He could not have been clearer. He made it crystal clear that he intended to abolish leasehold housing before the next general election. He said:

“In crude terms, if you buy a flat, that should be yours.”


He went on to say that leasehold is an unfair form of property ownership.

“You shouldn’t be on the hook for charges that managing agents and others can land you with which are gouging.”


I watched that again today in my office. I agree with all of it. I was really pleased to watch the programme, and it was great to read the article in the paper. But then there was his Statement in the House of Commons, in which he did not quite say that. He talked about reforming leasehold as a tenure in the next Parliament—not abolishing it. The Statement was great and there were some really good things in it, but it was not saying the same thing. I hope to get absolute clarity: is it abolition or reform? At the moment, people are saying different things to different audiences. That is not right. We need to know what the issue is. It is great that a lot has been said about reform, but we must get this right.

I apologise that I could not be in the House this week when my Question was asked. My noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage asked it for me. The Minister could not have been clearer that the intention was to abolish leasehold housing. She answered the Question in about 20 words. Again, this is not what is being heard elsewhere. We need to be absolutely clear as to the intention.

My amendments in this group are intended to help the Government. Amendment 42 sets out what the Government should do within 90 days of laying a statement of levelling-up missions. It focuses on all the issues around the reform that we want, such as tribunal judgments and insurance and forfeiture. There have been scandals about insurance payments. This amendment deals with those. I hope that the Government can accept it, or at least be in discussion with us about what can happen before the next stage of the Bill.

My Amendment 43 talks about abolition. We have two choices. Let us know what it is and let us get it sorted.

I hope that the Government can accept these amendments. If they are not prepared to do so, we have a series of Private Members’ Bills on the green sheets which refer to all these issues. There is the Leasehold Reform (Reasonableness of Service Charges) Bill, the Leasehold Reform (Disclosure and Insurance Commissions) Bill, the Leasehold Reform (Tribunal Judgments and Legal Costs) Bill and the Leasehold Reform (Forfeiture) Bill. The Government could easily adopt these Private Members’ Bills and agree their stated intention without problem. I am sure that they would have the full support of the House. My amendments seek clarity from the Government: is it reform or abolition? Which do they want to do? We do not want to trundle along into the next Session without being clear. Everyone will just become upset and confused. I am sure that the Minister will respond well to this debate. Can he be absolutely clear as to what is going to happen to this Bill in the next Session? We can all then work to make sure that it is delivered. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to the probing amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, which he has moved modestly from the Back Benches and which presses the Government on their approach to leasehold reform. This issue was raised on Monday, as the noble Lord has just said.

I will concentrate on proposed new subsection (4) in the amendment. This requires something which I have asked for on many occasions, namely, draft legislation in advance of a Bill. We now know that the next Session of Parliament will not start until the autumn, whereas I believe that the department had been planning to introduce the Bill shortly after the State Opening in May. This Bill was originally planned for the current Session, so gestation should by now be well advanced and a draft Bill should be oven ready.

There are two consequences that flow from the postponement of the next Session. First, the next—and last—Session of this Parliament may be shorter, with less capacity to pass Bills. Bills that might have got a provisional slot in the longer Session originally planned, may drop out if the Session is shorter. This is the equivalent of legislative musical chairs when the music stops. Secondly, there is now time to publish the Bill in draft, to iron out any wrinkles and so accelerate and simplify its passage. I am sure that my noble friend is in favour of this. This would also avoid the risk of getting caught in an early Dissolution next year. I must say that I did not follow the argument deployed on Monday that publishing in draft would “slow the process down”. I would argue that the contrary is the case.

My noble friend may not recently have read the Cabinet Office Guide to Making Legislation, updated last year, which says:

“The Government is committed to publishing more of its bills in draft before they are formally introduced to Parliament, and to submitting them to a parliamentary committee for parliamentary pre-legislative scrutiny where possible.”


It goes on to say:

“While publication in draft does not guarantee a place in the following year's programme, it is a factor that the PBL Committee”—


the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee—“will look on favourably”. The reasons are amplified:

“There are a number of reasons why publication in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny is desirable. It allows thorough consultation while the bill is in a more easily amendable form and makes it easier to ensure that both potential parliamentary objections and stakeholder views are elicited. This can assist the passage of the bill when it is introduced to parliament at a later stage and increases scrutiny of government legislation.”


Finally, on timing, the guidance says:

“Draft bills should be published in time to give the committee carrying out scrutiny at least three to four months (excluding parliamentary recess) to carry out its work and still report in time for the department to make any necessary changes before the bill is introduced.”


So we have plenty of time.

Against this recently stated government policy of publishing Bills in draft, the Government have under- performed. They have published one draft Bill for the current Session—the draft mental health Bill—compared with an average of 5.6 Bills per Session for the previous 17 Sessions. It published only two Bills in each of the preceding two years.

The House will excuse my lack of modesty when I say that, in 2012-13, when I was Leader of the House in another place, we published 13 Bills in draft. Here we have not just an opportunity to get this Bill right, but to improve on the less than impressive record on draft legislation. Indeed, not publishing the Bill in draft is contrary to government policy, as I have just explained.

I turn briefly to the substance of the proposed new clause. On 6 December 2022, my noble friend Lady Scott held a round-table meeting on leasehold reform, which was attended by officials and a number of noble Lords. I am very grateful to my noble friend for holding that meeting. We were asked what our expectations of future legislation were. I handed over a very long shopping list. It included existing commitments, such as on collective enfranchisement, but also many of the items in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, such as banning forfeiture and additional measures of consumer protection.

Can my noble friend confirm that the Bill will enact all the commitments that the Government have made in this area—both in their manifesto and subsequently? Can he confirm what the Secretary of State has said that it is the Government’s intention to abolish the outdated feudal leasehold system? In other words, after a given date, will it be illegal to sell a property on leasehold, so all sales will have to be on commonhold?

We need clarity soon, and a draft Bill would give that. Leaseholders thinking of extending their leases need to know whether to wait and take advantage of any new rules on costs of extension, or to play for safety, extend now and then possibly regret it. The same applies to collective enfranchisement. There is an element of blight on the market until such time as the Government can shed light on their proposals.

I hope that my noble friend will reconsider the decision not to publish a draft Bill and show as much ankle as he is able this evening on the Government’s proposals for this Bill.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 3rd December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

Actually, I have nothing to ask. The noble Baroness answered my point right at the end, after I had asked the clerk if I could speak, so I will leave it there.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to everyone who has taken part in this debate—not least the Minister, who has been on her feet answering debates for over six and a half hours and has done so with patience and courtesy. It is probably in breach of her human rights to be on duty for such a long time.

I am also grateful to all those who have taken part in this debate, the vast majority of whom have been in favour of Amendment 43—namely, there are no circumstances in which children should be used as CHIS. That is reflected in most of the amendments, with one or two, as it were, blurring the red line a little by specifying certain circumstances in which that might be possible.

Perhaps I may briefly pick up some of the points that were made during the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, made a good point about those over 18 who look younger than they are and whether, if it is inevitable that people who look young will be used, it should be them rather than people who actually are under 18. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made a good point about the rather narrow distinction between, on the one hand, grooming, which we are all against, and, on the other, persuading vulnerable children to act as covert human intelligence, which we are less enthusiastic about.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle asked us to think about the consequences for the child, and he wanted better safeguards. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, quite rightly, wanted the ban extended to victims of slavery and trafficking and those who are unable to give informed consent. She delved into the psychology of teenagers to query whether this worked and whether somebody of that age could make rational decisions. My noble friend Lady McIntosh wondered how the use of children could be compatible with the UNHCR. Then the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, joined others in pressing for a meeting with the Minister between now and Report, which she has readily agreed to.

We then came to what I thought was the most valuable contribution—from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. He was the floating voter in this debate. He said that he had been swung by the argument and was now in favour of Amendment 43. As a former Chief Whip, I was always rather worried when colleagues went into the Chamber to listen to the debate just in case they could be swayed the wrong way, but on this occasion I am delighted that we have had an impact on the floating voter.

The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said that vulnerable children need support, particularly if they are already victims. She made the valid point that we do not send children into battle, so should we send them into circumstances that might be equally dangerous? The noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Young of Hornsey, touched on the risk of blackmail: “Either work with us as covert human intelligence or you will be arrested”. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned evidence from police officers that this was the case.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that it is not just Greenies who are in favour of this. I was a member of Friends of the Earth for a very long time— until, as Secretary of State for Transport, I built the Newbury bypass, when, I am sad to say, it expelled me. She also made the valid point that if the police are traumatised when they act in these circumstances, what will be the position of children under 18?

The noble Baroness, Lady Young, made a point that was picked up by others: would we allow our children —or, in the case of many Peers, our grandchildren—to be used as human spies? Of course, under the terms of the draft code, parents would not necessarily know that this was happening; they do not have to be told.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell, summarised the concern in both Houses and said we need the evidence. I hope we get the evidence and I hope it is all of it: not just the evidence that may substantiate the case that the Minister wishes to persuade us of, but evidence of where things have not perhaps gone quite as they should. The noble Lord asked whether the process used for the Investigatory Powers Act might be used in this case. I am not familiar with it but that sounds like a very helpful suggestion.

Councils: Funding

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 4th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

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

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the Government recognise the vital work that councils do to support their communities. That is why the 2019-20 settlement confirmed that councils’ core spending power will increase by 2.8% in cash terms, including an additional £650 million for social care. This is a real-terms increase in resources to support critical services. The department is preparing actively for the spending review, which is the right place to take long-term funding decisions.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the research just published by the Conservative-led Local Government Association—referred to in my Question—shows that one-third of local authorities fear they are going to run out of funds by 2022-23, rising to two-thirds of councils by 2024-25. In the light of this disturbing and sombre news, does the Minister have any words of encouragement, hope—something—for hard-pressed local councils and their civic leaderships as they end their conference today in Bournemouth?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Local councillors and local government officials have done remarkably well to maintain, and in some cases improve, the quality of the services they provide despite, since 2010, a reduction in grant until recently, which was necessary to balance the national accounts. I recognise that they have done that without excessive rate increases. Looking forward, I have seen the report to which the noble Lord refers and welcome the Local Government Association’s attempt to quantify the pressure on resources. That information will be used by Ministers to feed into the spending review to make the case for a proper settlement for local government.

Affordable Housing

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 3rd July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and in doing so refer the House to my relevant registered interest.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, it is government policy to increase the number of homes being built, including affordable homes. As far as possible, any impediments to selling government land and accelerating new house-building have been—and are being—removed. Guidance issued by the Treasury indicates that decisions should take account of wider social costs and benefits in the public interest, and it may be appropriate to choose an option that does not generate the highest Exchequer receipt.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Lord for that response. Making publicly held land available for the provision of social housing, encouraging below-value sales, would go a long way towards delivering on the Government’s pledges to fix our broken housing market, and have many other benefits. Can he tell us the likelihood of that happening?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I agree. Until quite recently the policy on the disposal of government surplus land was that the best price should be secured—in the interests of the taxpayer, who is the ultimate owner. That money went into a central coffer and was then disposed of according to the Government’s priorities. There was a presumption against short-circuiting that process and disposing of land at less than best value. Two years ago that policy was amended, following a meeting of the housing implementation task force and, as I said in my reply, it is now possible to take the wider social costs and benefits and the public interest into account and to make the housing land available directly. A recent example of that was a site that was made available to the Government, initially to the homes agency—the Housing Corporation as was—and then passed on to Wolverhampton Council for £1. Now, 450 homes are being built on that land. That is a good example of what the noble Lord has asked for, and I hope that we see much more of it.

European Parliament Elections: Non-UK EU Citizens

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 5th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord in thanking returning officers and electoral staff for all that they do, and obviously I make my usual declaration as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Does the noble Lord accept that this is a very unsatisfactory situation where people were denied their right to vote? Is it not another example of why we urgently need to review, amend and update all the laws on elections, electoral registration, campaigning and, of course, the functions and purpose of the Electoral Commission?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response. I am sorry if anybody who had done the right thing was thereafter denied the right to vote. As he knows, the Electoral Commission will undertake its normal inquiry into this election, as with any other election, and of course we will reflect on the results.

On the noble Lord’s general point, I repeat what I have said on an earlier occasion—probably in response to a question from him—that we have an analogue system in a digital age. We are taking some steps: for example, imprints on digital communications; and the Electoral Commission is issuing statutory guidance to distinguish between candidate expenditure and national expenditure. But I repeat my acceptance of an offer that he made earlier to have an all-party meeting with the Minister for the Constitution to see whether we can find a consensual way forward to make sure that we have an electoral system fit for the digital age and fit for purpose.

Electoral Commission: Referendums and Elections Spending

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 23rd May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

On the last point that the noble Lord raised, there was a court case relevant to this. The Electoral Commission is now in the process of issuing guidance which will give clarity to what scores against the local candidate’s expenditure and what should score against the party’s national expenditure. I hope the noble Lord welcomes that. I was relieved to hear that my party now finds it so much easier to raise money than any other party; this will come as welcome news to the party treasurer. So far as donations to the party are concerned, my party tries to stick rigorously to the rules—as I am sure all parties do. If an impermissible donation is presented, we are obliged to return it within 30 days.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for offering yesterday to speak to the Minister for the Constitution to seek another meeting to discuss these important matters further. Could the noble Lord also consider the need for a thorough review of the powers, functions and purpose of the Electoral Commission? Maybe that could be part of our future discussions.

Political Parties: Donation Rules

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the donation rules for political parties.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, on 5 May the Government announced a consultation on safeguarding UK elections. Recommendations for closing loopholes on foreign spending in elections and preventing shell companies sidestepping the current rules on political finance could be addressed in the consultation. The Government will take the views of interested groups such as the Parliamentary Parties Panel and the Electoral Commission to better understand the problems that we could seek to address in the consultation.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. He is highly respected in this House and, more importantly in this case, in his party. The Government often come out with consultations but we really have a problem in this country with our electoral law, with law governing political parties, with donations, loans and everything else in this area. Can he give an assurance to the House that, despite other problems, he will do everything in his power to make sure that we address this urgently?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful for the consensual approach adopted by the noble Lord. Quite recently he attended a meeting with me, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, my noble friend Lord Hayward, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, at which we sought to see whether there was a consensus on some of the challenges facing the electoral system. Subsequently, a meeting was held with the Electoral Commission. I would be more than happy to contact the Minister for the Constitution, who was also at that meeting, to see whether it would be helpful to have another round-table discussion to identify areas of consensus and to see whether we can make progress in developing a rigid and credible electoral system.

Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention and Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) and (Levy Account Basis of Distribution) Regulations 2019

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 18th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, as the Minister said, the regulations are technical and in that sense I am happy to support them as they stand. I concur with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and my noble friend Lord Beecham and I am sure the Minister will respond to the points raised.

The only issue I want to raise concerns Northamptonshire being in the list of council areas that are involved in this scheme. I know the county council is the precept authority, or the collecting authority, but equally it is a council in crisis. The local government reorganisation is happening because the county council has effectively almost gone broke. Is the Minister confident that we should be doing this in this area, in view of the problems that have been widely reported over the past year? That said, I am very happy to support the regulations.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions of all three noble Lords. As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, this is the first non-Brexit SI, although I noticed it emptied the House as I rose to my feet. He mentioned that the announcement of £180 million going back would be popular with local government. We are always seeking to court popularity with local government, although we do not always achieve it. I am grateful to hear that on this occasion, we have.

The noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Beecham, raised slightly broader issues about the pressures confronting local authorities, which I recognise. We have had to take difficult decisions on public expenditure over recent years, and they have impacted on local authorities and government departments. There will be an opportunity to discuss that.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned Northamptonshire. The change in Northamptonshire is relatively minor and switches responsibility for one service from A to B. I do not think it detracts from the more structural changes that are now having to take place in that county.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I, too, forgot to remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I was a vice-president of a preceding local government association, but I was expelled when I introduced rate capping.

Representation of the People (Election Expenses Exclusion) (Amendment) Order 2019

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 14th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I thank the Minister for explaining this order and I want to record that I agree with it. It is entirely appropriate that any disability-related expenses in elections should be exempt from spending limits, on principle. That is because it helps disabled candidates to stand for election on equal terms with others. I noted the Minister’s comments about some objections that may have been raised on some of the details—but none is more important than the overall principle of equality of opportunity.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I am very happy to give the order my full support. I was glad that the noble Lord mentioned the political parties panel, because I was going to ask him about it. There is no mention of political parties at all in the consultation referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum. I know that the noble Lord mentioned it in his contribution, because I was going to ask him about it. The bodies listed in the Explanatory Memorandum do not pay election expenses and do not fill out election returns. I am glad that he covered that point. It is important that we keep the political parties informed on all these matters. They can often inform the Government’s thinking in a positive and helpful way. Since the noble Lord answered my question, that is fine. I am very happy to support the order.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I have had a remarkably easy time—oh, I am sorry.

Election Expenditure

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 13th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I entirely agree with the principle that the noble Lord has just enunciated. I was looking at the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act 1883, which enshrined the principle to which he referred. The preamble states that,

“if its provisions are honestly carried out, the length of a man’s purse will not, as now, be such an important factor”.

I am afraid that a woman’s purse did not get a mention, it being 1883. The text continued,

“and the way will be opened for many men of talent, with small means, to take part in the government of the country, who have been hitherto deterred from seeking a seat in the House of Commons by the great expense which a contest entails”.

That principle is timeless, even if the language may not be.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that while guidance, codes and statutory instruments may deliver some of the change we need, it is only through primary legislation that we will get the electoral law fit for purpose?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

That is why, in my Answer, I said that in the first instance, the code of practice will provide greater clarity for those taking part in our democratic process. At the meeting attended by the noble Lord and six other noble Lords yesterday, the point was made that there may be some inconsistency in the primary legislation, which may need addressing. What I have said does not preclude a more radical look at primary legislation, as the noble Lord suggested.

Verify: Digital Identity System

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 26th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I would not describe the service in quite the terms that the noble Lord has just used. Progress is being made towards the target of 25 million users by 2020. It is not the case that HMRC is not using Verify. Noble Lords who want to can upload their self-assessment tax return using Verify, and if they so wish they can check their income tax account using Verify. More and more government services are now subscribing to Verify; the MoD recently added an additional service, and some 18 services are now available. It is not the case that we are abdicating the whole thing to the private sector. Verify, which is a government service, will continue to provide a digital identity service to the public sector, and it is talking to the NHS and to local government in order to continue to broaden the base.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House clearly what went wrong?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I challenge the premise on which the noble Lord based his question. Verify was launched in 2016 and, as I said in my initial reply, now has 3 million subscribers who have completed 8 million transactions. I signed up to Verify over the weekend and, if noble Lords have not, I suggest that they make themselves familiar with this new and innovative service.

Tenant Fees Bill

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 20th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, the Countess of Lytton is clearly even more formidable than the noble Earl.

I too have a lot of sympathy with these amendments, but I believe there are already sufficient existing protections—not in this Bill but in other legislation—which address the concerns raised by noble Lords. Landlords who resell energy to their tenants for domestic use are governed by maximum resale price provisions set by Ofgem under Section 44 of the Electricity Act 1989 and Section 37 of the Gas Act 1986. This prevents landlords from overcharging tenants; they cannot charge the tenant more than the landlord has paid. If the landlord does overcharge, the tenant is entitled to have the charge lowered and overpayments refunded. The tenant can also bring a claim against their landlord to the small claims court for the amount that has been overcharged plus interest. In addition, on other utilities, landlords are prohibited from overcharging tenants for the resale of water under the maximum resale price provisions set out in the Water Resale Order 2006. If the landlord does overcharge, the tenant can take legal action through the small claims court to recover any overpayment and the tenant is eligible to recover interest at a rate of twice the average base interest rate of the Bank of England for the period they have been overcharged.

Amendment 31 would specifically require landlords to review any contract held for the provision of utilities and to consider switching provider if this would be beneficial to the tenant. In the majority of cases, tenants will be responsible for paying their own energy bills; they will pay them direct to the supplier and not to the landlord. So in most cases, tenants will already have the right to choose their own supplier. The tenancy agreement will set out who is responsible for paying these charges. Where the landlord is responsible for paying the bills, they may seek to recover these costs through the rent or directly from the tenant but, as I have already explained, they are already prevented from overcharging for this for energy and water.

Through, for example, the How to Rent guide, we encourage tenants to speak to their landlord or agent if they think their utilities payments are too high or if they want to request a change of supplier. In many cases, it may be in the interest of the landlord to move to a more competitive supplier as that may help to market their property in the future.

In addition, the Government’s Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill received Royal Assent on 19 July. This requires Ofgem to implement a price cap on standard variable and default tariffs, which will guarantee protection for the 11 million households currently on the highest energy tariffs.

Against that background, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for his very helpful response. I will withdraw my amendment shortly, but I would like to check something. He helpfully set out the legislation which will prevent people from being overcharged by landlords, but I cannot recall off the top of my head whether this will be clearly laid out in the guidance so that people will be very much aware of their rights and obligations. That would go some way to allaying the fears that are behind these amendments.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Before the noble Lord sits down I would like to say that that is a very helpful suggestion. We will indeed look at the guidance to see whether that suggestion can be incorporated.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

In that case, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Tenant Fees Bill

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 5th November 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Young of Cookham]

As my noble friend the Minister said a few moments ago, the Bill covers assured shortholds and other lettings. It does not cover the sorts of lettings that concern my noble friend Lady Gardner and which are offered by Airbnb and other agencies. My noble friend has raised an issue that has been the subject of many exchanges in Questions. Our answer is that we believe that local authorities have enough powers to take action where a nuisance is caused by these activities. In many cases, it is up to the manging agents to enforce the terms of the lease.

As I have said on many occasions in the Chamber, many leases specifically preclude the letting of a property for periods of less than six months, and it is up to the managing agents of the block to ensure that the provisions of the lease are met. Again, I say to my noble friend that I have quoted from the action taken by one managing agent when they discovered that a flat in the block for which they were the managing agent was being advertised on Airbnb; that immediately stopped the letting of that flat and any other flats in that block. So the short answer—I fear it was a long one—is that we believe that powers are already available without giving local authorities the additional powers that my noble friend has asked for.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before I withdraw my amendment, can the Minister tell me something about the amount of money provided? On the face of it, £500,000 seems a lot of money but how many councils is that actually for? I do not know off the top of my head, but I think it is for at least a few hundred of them. What sum will each council get? Will it be £2,000 or £3,000 each? When it is broken down like that, it could be quite a small sum of money in terms of an overall council budget.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

About 152 trading standards offices could potentially be eligible for this. It would be wrong to assume that £500,000 would be divided among them so that they each get a small sum. There are other models for providing the initial help. For example, a team from the department could go out to help the trading standards agencies set up the necessary skills and training to take forward the measure after year one. At the moment, we are discussing with the LGA exactly how best to spend the £500,000. Although one option would be to divide it up, that is not the only option; others are being explored. Before the Bill becomes an Act, we hope to find a way forward on how the money should be spent.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the Minister for that answer. I accept that the money may not necessarily be divided up. I am just trying to understand the number of authorities and the amount of money available. Looking at things like that, it is not a huge sum of money at all.

The Government think that this will be funded by fines and other fees, so it will be self-financing in that sense. I am conscious that local government will say, “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?”. Local government often says that the Government do not provide enough funding for various things. How was this figure arrived at? Where did it come from? Did the Government use some formula or methodology, or was is just a case of, “Oh, we’ve got a spare half a million knocking around and we can make it available”? I do not know. I want to understand how that figure came about. Again, I am sure that local government will say that it is nowhere near enough, as it would say about other things. I am thinking particularly of the Homelessness Reduction Act, where there is the risk of a very good piece of legislation being affected by the amount of money provided by the Government.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I hope the noble Lord will accept that, unlike other occasions when new responsibilities have been imposed on local authorities, in this case we are actually offering to help them with some pump-priming finance before the revenue stream comes on board. I hope he will accept that this is a welcome step forward from other initiatives taken by Governments of all complexions, where local authorities have been asked to do things with no resources at all and no opportunity of self-funding downstream. I can only repeat what I read out a few moments ago: the Government estimate that local authorities will incur a new burden in respect of enforcement of £500,000. I will make detailed inquiries to see if we can shed more light on exactly where that sum came from and will write to the noble Lord, with copies to other Members who have shown an interest. I will do that before Report.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am happy to give the noble Lord the assurance that he seeks that the money will be reimbursed to the relevant section of the local authority that enforces this legislation and other related legislation dealing with rogue landlords.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the Minister for his response, and all other noble Lords who spoke in the debate. At this stage, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. The Bill proposes a number of enforcement measures that offer a strong deterrent to irresponsible agents and landlords. It also makes provisions to enable tenants and other relevant people to recover unlawfully charged fees, if other attempts have failed, by going to the First-tier Tribunal, which will order reimbursement to the tenant of money that should not have been paid. Of course, tenants should get back any unlawful payments in full, whether that is direct from the landlord or agent, via their enforcement authority or through an order of the First-tier Tribunal. However, in certain instances, we think it is also appropriate for the landlord or agent to be issued with a financial penalty, as well as ensuring that the tenant receives their money back. This is to deter future non-compliance.

Amendment 6 prevents an enforcement authority imposing a financial penalty under Section 12 if the tenant has got their money back. We think that giving a power to impose financial penalties for breaches of the legislation is an important tool for enforcement authorities. Therefore, we cannot accept Amendment 6. However, the enforcement guidance will stress that enforcement authorities should take account of the landlord’s and agent’s conduct and past behaviour when considering the level of financial penalty to charge, if any. This includes whether the landlord or agent has reimbursed the tenant quickly when asked to do so.

Turning to Amendments 7 and 8, while we think it is right that agents and landlords should be issued with a financial penalty, we do not think it is appropriate for the tenant to receive further compensation in addition to repayment of the money owed. To add compensation risks penalising agents and landlords multiple times for the same breach, which we do not believe is fair; for example, it would not be right to ask a landlord who has been fined up to £5,000 for an initial breach to also pay three times the amount of a prohibited payment to a tenant. This would in effect be two financial penalties for the same breach. The deterrent effect, mentioned by the noble Baroness in her opening remarks, would of course be secured by the fines under the Act.

It is also worth noting that Clause 17 already provides further protection to tenants by preventing landlords recovering their property via the Section 21 procedure in the Housing Act 1988 until they have repaid any unlawfully charged fees. This approach is in line with legislation that already applies; for example, where the How to Rent guide has not been provided or where a landlord has not secured the required licence for a house in multiple occupation. Further, Clause 4 ensures that any clause in the tenancy seeking to charge a prohibited fee is not binding on the tenant.

We do not consider that further provision is needed along the lines proposed by Amendment 8. For example, it is not fair if a landlord who appeals against the imposition of a financial penalty, and this appeal is upheld, is then restricted from using the no-fault eviction process for six months. Under the noble Lord’s amendment, this would be the case—although that may not be what he intended. We firmly believe that our existing approach restricting a landlord’s ability to serve a Section 21 notice strikes the right balance and offers a serious deterrent to non-compliance. I hope the noble Lord will not move his amendment.

I suspect the short answer to the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Deben is: the trading standards officer. I would like to write to my noble friend setting out in more detail what is being proposed, under both this and existing legislation, to prevent misleading information appearing on websites and tenants being misled.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I was a little surprised at the Minister’s response on the question of compensation. We would have a situation where a tenant is illegally charged a prohibited payment—it is against the law, and they have been wronged. The Minister says that, in those cases, compensation would not be appropriate. I do not understand that. Surely, as we have highlighted in other areas, it is totally reasonable that, if somebody has done someone a wrong—they have committed an offence, overcharged somebody—that person should be able to seek some sort of redress and have compensation paid to them. I do not see how the Minister can say that would not be fair.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord has a choice. He can have either a situation where the tenant gets the compensation and there are no financial penalties imposed under the Bill, or the situation we suggest where the tenant gets his money back, the fine is imposed and the money goes to the local authority. What the noble Lord wants is for the landlord, in effect, to be penalised twice: first by paying compensation up to three times, and secondly by paying a fine up to £5,000. The Government’s position is that you can have one or the other, but doing both is not fair.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I think the Minister will find that, in other areas, people can be fined and be required to pay compensation as well, so I do not see the logic. Clearly, if it is an issue of amounts, that can be looked at. We are not going to agree on this, clearly. The principle that you can be fined and be required to pay compensation clearly is the case elsewhere. It is very unfair that the tenant—the victim, the person who has been out of pocket, ripped off and treated badly—should be thankful just to get their money back. It does not seem to be a very good place. Clearly, we are not going to agree on that at this stage.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

On my Amendment 8, if somebody has gone to a tribunal and the landlord has won then fair enough, they should be protected, but I am trying to get to an example where someone has enforced their rights. This poor tenant cannot get compensation but they get their money back, then the next day a Section 21 notice is served on them. That is the issue I want to deal with. It is really unfair for the tenants in these situations—proved right in a court of law, then given a notice to leave the next day. Without this, that could still happen.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The defect in the noble Lord’s amendment is that, if the landlord won the appeal, he would still be banned. As I said, that may not have been the noble Lord’s intention, but it is what the amendment would do.

I say in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, that I detect in the Committee enthusiasm for the two-track approach to penalties, for both the tenant and the local authorities recouping fines. That message has come through. Without giving any commitment, I will have another look at this, in view of the strength of feeling on the matter. I am happy to accept the noble Baroness’s offer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 11 seeks to put a new clause into the Bill. If agreed, it would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament within 12 months, then every four years after that. The report would provide valuable information on the number of breaches, financial penalties levied and criminal prosecutions in each 12-month period. It must also consider the points as listed in proposed new subsection (2), which are important when looking at the impact of the Act on the sector. I suspect that the amendment will not be greeted with great enthusiasm from the Minister, but can he tell the Committee whether any of the information referred to in the amendment would be collected by the department anyway? I may have a few more questions for the Minister after listening to his response. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his amendment. I assure him that we plan to monitor the implementation of the Bill through continual engagement with key stakeholder groups, represented landlords, agents, tenants and those in housing need, as well as through wider intelligence from agencies such as the lead enforcement authority and trading standards, which will enforce the requirements of the Bill.

I have no difficulty with the objectives of the noble Lord’s proposed new clause. However, bits of it are impractical. We will not be able to identify all the breaches of Clauses 1 and 2 as set out in proposed new paragraph (a) because we will be encouraging tenants to challenge their landlords and agency with a view to rectifying breaches if they have been charged prohibited fees. The enforcement authorities would not be involved if the breach were resolved between the tenant and the landlord, so it would not be possible to record every time that this happens.

However, owing to the reporting requirements set out in the Bill under Clause 14, information on the number of financial penalties and criminal convictions under the ban will be captured by the lead enforcement authority. In the light of what the noble Lord suggested, we will consider how best to share this information with Parliament. Both agents and landlords that are banned from operating will be captured on the rogue landlord database; the Prime Minister made it clear that we plan to make this information public. Local housing authorities also have powers to include persons convicted of a breach of the fees ban on that database, as well as including persons who received two or more financial penalties in a year for any banning order offence committed at a time when the person was a residential landlord or a property agent.

Further, Clause 23 places a duty on the lead enforcement authority to keep under review social and commercial development relating to the letting sector and the operation of relevant letting agency legislation, as well as to advise the Secretary of State about it from time to time. I hope this reassures the noble Lord that we will track and review the effectiveness and enforcement of the ban and its impact on the private rented sector. I hope that will we achieve what his amendment wants but we do not think it necessary to prescribe further reporting requirements in the Bill. As I said, we will consider how best to make this information available in the light of the debate.

We will also, as the noble Lord may know, review the legislation within five years in line with normal practice and submit that review to the appropriate Select Committee in the other place. We do not intend to review the Bill in isolation. Recently a number of legislative changes have been made to the lettings industry with more planned related to the regulation of letting agents. These changes, along with the Bill, support and deliver on our commitment to rebalance the relationship between tenants and landlords and to make renting fairer. We will keep all of these issues under review. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Lord for that response and I am pleased with some of the commitments that he has made. At this point I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to noble Lords for taking part in the debate. They have made their impatience over the date of commencement absolutely clear. We agree that we want this legislation to come into force as soon as possible, not least to protect the tenants referred to by noble Lords.

However, we need to strike a fair balance between protecting tenants and allowing landlords and letting agents time to become compliant with the legislation. The ban is not about unfairly penalising landlords and letting agents or driving them out of business. We have said that implementation will not be before April 2019; we intend it to be as soon as possible after that. Of course, at the moment we do not know when it might get Royal Assent. I understand that but we believe that there needs to be a reasonable gap between it reaching the statute book and it being implemented.

Turning to Amendment 13, the transitional provisions in Clause 28 provide that for the period of a year, the ban will not apply to tenancies whose terms were agreed prior to commencement. Similar transitional provisions are made for agents’ agreements with tenants. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, seeks to reduce the period in which a landlord or agent could accept a payment prohibited by Clause 1 from one year to six months. We have already sought to give tenants greater clarity and protection with respect to the commencement date. Crucially, we have revised our position from that in the draft Bill, where there was no end date by which fees could be charged in pre-commencement tenancies. There has been a considerable shift towards protecting those who have already signed their contracts.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, recognised that a transition period is necessary—his amendment proposes a slightly shorter one—because although most fees are charged at the outset of a tenancy, some landlords and agents will have agreed that tenants should pay other fees, such as a check-out inventory fee, at a later stage. Tenants will have signed contracts accordingly; we need to allow time for landlords and agents to renegotiate them to ensure that the legislation does not have a significant retrospective effect.

Our view is that 12 months is fair for the transition period. Data from the English Housing Survey shows that 45% of tenants had an initial tenancy of 12 months and 36% had one of six months. Reducing the period in which a landlord or agent could accept a payment prohibited by Clause 1 would mean that more landlords and agents with pre-commencement tenancies would be at risk of not being able to renegotiate their contracts and would not receive fees that the tenant had previously agreed to pay. Again, we do not believe that this would be fair.

We recognise the importance of having a clear point where the fees ban applies to all tenancies. As drafted, the transitional provisions mean that all tenants will receive the benefits of the fees ban one year after it comes into force; as I said earlier, initially there was no such arrangement. Unlike the proposed amendment, the provisions ensure that agents and landlords will not be significantly impacted on financially and will have the opportunity to review their contracts during the transitional year. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment against the background of that explanation.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Lord for responding to the debate. I suppose that we will not agree, which is disappointing. It is a shame that although there is a lot of good stuff in this legislation that we can support, things take such a long time, as I said in my introduction. That is a recurring theme with the noble Lord’s department, which I have raised many times in other consultations and discussions on this. It often seems like we are pulling teeth to get things moving along. So we are frustrated at the length of time these things take, and that is why we have taken a stand on this.

I also tabled Amendment 14, which seeks to bring the Act into force on the day on which it is passed. My frustration here is the fact that, even when it is passed, we then have to wait for an SI to be tabled to bring it into force. I have no certainty as to whether it will ever come into force; potentially, it could be left there and might never happen. I am sure that will not be the case, but the Committee will see that there is no certainty as to an agreed date. That is very frustrating, and I may come back to this point on Report. At this stage, however, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Elections: Personation

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, the House is grateful for my noble friend’s report, Securing the Ballot, which included some 50 recommendations, nearly all of which are being pursued by the Government, including some that go directly to the issue that he raises: namely, the probity of local government. My noble friend will know better than anyone else that, if the level of corruption in a local authority reaches an unsustainable, unacceptable level, the Government can put in commissioners—which is exactly what my noble friend did with Tower Hamlets.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, why does the Minister think that so few cases have been investigated and so few prosecutions brought? Is there some failure on the part of the authorities, or is it the case that, while we must always remain vigilant and a greater police presence at polling stations is one way to do that, this crime is committed on very few occasions?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord is quite correct to say that there are relatively few convictions. According to the Electoral Commission report for the past year there were 200 allegations of personation in the past four years. He asks the good question: why is it difficult to prosecute? If you think about it, if you go to a polling station and try to vote and you find that somebody else has already voted in your name and you are disfranchised, it is quite difficult to find out who voted in your place. That may be one reason why there are relatively few prosecutions in the case of personation. The introduction of voter ID would of course reduce the risk to a minimum.

Electoral Commission

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, on 28 June and on previous occasions in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, agreed with me that our legislation on elections and referendums was not fit for purpose. But today the Minister has repeated the Answer given in the other place by the Minister for the Constitution. In the fourth paragraph, he said:

“That electoral rules have been breached is rightly a cause for concern, but that does not mean that the rules themselves were flawed”.


Are the Minister and I correct—and I think we are—or is his honourable friend the Member for Norwich North in the other place correct? We cannot both be.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

On several occasions, I have repeated a statement that my party made just over a year ago:

“There is a broad consensus that election law is fragmented, confused and unclear, with two different sets of legislation and poor guidance from the Electoral Commission”.—[Official Report, 7/6/18; col. 1403.]


As the noble Lord knows, a number of inquiries are under way that I do think we need to wait for before we decide how best to legislate. I am aware of the strong views of the Electoral Commission that the current level of sanctions is too low.

There are the DCMS inquiry into fake news, which we need to wait for, and the Intelligence and Security Committee’s inquiry into the activity of the Russians in the referendum and recent elections. There are ongoing investigations by the Electoral Commission into the referendum, and a court case is still pending. We have just had a very interesting report on referendums from UCL. I am not in favour of delay, but it makes sense to have the reports of the various inquiries that I have just referred to before we decide how best to proceed. I make it clear that the Government take extremely seriously what has been reported in the investigation out today.

New Towns Act 1981 (Local Authority Oversight) Regulations 2018

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 9th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am happy to support the regulations before the House and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, on securing this change to the legislation when the Bill was going through the House. I am very happy that we will provide local authorities with the option of being able to lead on new town developments. That is a good thing and, as other noble Lords said, will allow a level of independence so that they can go forward. Given that, I am happy to support the regulations as they are.

I was pleased that the Government listened to the responses to the consultation on the financial limits; that is very good news. However, the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee talks about the length of the consultation. I have mentioned a number of times the question of consultations from the department. This appears to be truncated down to four weeks, whereas ideally it should be six weeks and perhaps even longer. There is also a general point to be made about the consultation itself, in that, whether it produces negative or positive responses, the level of those responses is actually very low. The Government should look at ways of trying to get more people to engage with what they are doing.

I agree strongly with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, about the construction of new towns and bringing the process up to date. Indeed, it is a good intention on the part of the Government to deliver on this. A number of noble Lords observed that new homes must be of sufficient quality, which is extremely important. They must be properly energy efficient, built using the best techniques and set within the right infrastructure. In that way we will have homes in new towns and elsewhere that will be there for many years. If we do not get this right, we will simply create housing problems for future generations. I am conscious that in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, while Governments of all persuasions built a lot of housing, in the end a good deal of it turned out to be of very poor quality. For all the promises, those houses failed the families who had to live in them. Of course, some of the properties are still here today. So it is important that, whatever is built, be it in new towns or elsewhere, quality should underpin it. Hopefully, having a local element in new towns, with local people being fully involved, will help with that. Again, I am happy to support the regulations.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, for his continuing support and for putting these proposals into an historical context. As the Minister responsible for new towns in the 1980s, I found it rather nostalgic to be taken through the history of the new towns. As he and other noble Lords said, the climate has changed since then. There is more of an appetite for local engagement, and indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, we now have the proven competence of local authorities to undertake major developments.

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said that the introduction of the regulations was a necessary and important step in helping to increase the country’s housing supply. Indeed, I think that there is general agreement on all sides of the House that localising new town development corporation powers will provide local authorities with a new and powerful vehicle for driving forward high-quality new communities at scale. I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy said about quality. That is why we have written that into the regulations. The Government want the initiative to be a success and we recognise that the change that we have made, with the slightly lighter touch of the Treasury, makes it a more appetising proposition for local authorities.

I shall pick up some of the points that were made. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked about the relationship between the oversight authority and the new town development corporation. Prior to agreeing to the establishment of a locally led development corporation, we would expect to see a proposal for governance arrangements that provided appropriate oversight of and independence for the new town development corporation.

On the membership of the development corporation, we want it to have operational independence to get on with the job, but we have required that the board should have a majority of independent members. In response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, the appointment of the chair, the deputy chair and the independent board members should be through an open, transparent and publicly advertised process in line with the broader principles for local authority appointments. There has already been some indication of an appetite for these new regulations. The four local authorities that lead the North Essex Garden Communities project have expressed an interest in setting up a locally led new town development corporation.

The regulations provide a vital lever for delivering the transformational housing growth that we need while ensuring that surrounding existing communities will also benefit from well-planned infrastructure and community amenities. I beg to move.

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (Business Rate Supplements Functions) Order 2018

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 9th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I also draw the attention of the House to the fact that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am generally happy to support the orders before the House, but there is a point to be made about business rates. I accept that this is a supplement and in that sense it could be subject to a referendum, a plan and stuff, but there is the point about business rates in general and what business has to pay in an area. We have many questions here about the cost to business of further taxation. In the West Midlands, for example, if a further £35 million is raised, what does that do to the economy? Is that the best use of that money?

That then comes back to the whole issue of combined authorities. Where they are established, the funding provided by government is relatively small. I am sure the noble Lord will not agree, but I have made the point before to his noble friend Lord Bourne that we have this rather confusing patchwork of local government emerging in England. We need a clear structure that we will get to. I am all in favour of devolution, but I would like to understand what the plan is. Certain places will potentially have four, five or maybe six authorities, whereas in another place there will be just one. That does not seem to be very good government at all. I am all in favour of devolution, but I am not convinced that the combined authority model is the best way forward.

I am happy to support the orders, as I said. I welcome the fact that the supplementary rates will have to be subject to a ballot. That is good news, but generally there is the whole issue of business rates and the effect on businesses, particularly on the high street.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their support for the measures before the House. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that the average increase, if we go ahead with 2p in the pound, is 4% on the business rate bill, but I would like to write to the noble Lord—a generous suggestion that he made—setting out what the highest amount might be in the highest rateable-value property in a particular area.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his broad support. I know that he finds these differing structures untidy and has complained about them before, but the Government are responding to what local people want, which varies in different parts of the country so different patterns emerge. I am not sure that I can take the debate any further today. Doubtless, when we have future debates on combined authorities, I will make the same point. In the meantime, I commend the orders.

European Union Referendum

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 4th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Noble Lords had an opportunity to debate and vote on that in the recent EU withdrawal Bill. The notion of a second referendum was not one that found favour in either House. On the rest of the noble Baroness’s question, since the referendum, Parliament has voted to trigger Article 50 and we have passed the EU withdrawal Bill. That gives us a democratic mandate.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I know the noble Lord agrees that our laws on elections and referendums are not fit for purpose. Will he give an assurance to the House that the Government will act when all these inquiries and investigations are over?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Yes. On one of the many occasions that we have debated this, I think I quoted a comment made by my party before the last election about the fitness for purpose of the current legislation. It makes sense to await the outcome of the court case, the EC inquiries into the referendum and the elections, and other inquiries. Then we can stand back and look at how the electoral law can best be brought up to date so that we have a digital framework for a digital age.

Elections: Electoral Commission Recommendations

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 28th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My noble friend will know that the Electoral Commission has made requests for legislation, particularly to increase the sanctions that are available to it. He referred to some commission inquiries. Last month, the commission published an inquiry into the activities of Vote Leave during the referendum campaign. He is quite right that there are two outstanding inquiries: one into Better for the Country Ltd and Arron Banks, and one into Vote Leave, Darren Grimes and Veterans for Britain, which commenced in November last year and, as I understand it, will be completed later this year. The Electoral Commission is an independent body so I need to be careful with what I say, but I am sure that Sir John Holmes will read my noble friend’s comments.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that our legislation on elections and referendums has not kept pace with technological advances, risks interference from abroad and is generally not fit for purpose?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Yes; and I refer to the reply that I gave the noble Lord when he asked me the same question a few weeks ago. We have an analogue legislative process in a digital age and we do need to bring it up to date. I think it makes sense to wait for the outstanding court cases that are currently before the courts, the outcome of the DCMS inquiry into the impact of fake news on modern democracy and the reports to which my noble friend just referred into the referendum campaign. Once we have those, we can step back and look at the legislative framework and see how it will best be brought up to date.

Online Material: Identification of Promoters

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 7th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord is quite right that this was a recommendation by the Electoral Commission some time ago. During the Scottish referendum these requirements were introduced and the commission said that the rules,

“caused some confusion amongst campaigners and the public”.

The commission recommended further consideration on how to make the imprint requirement on online material proportionate and relevant. That is exactly what we are doing with our proposed consultation. In Scotland there was some debate as to whether Facebook and Twitter exchanges needed the imprint if they related to the referendum.

On the noble Lord’s second point, if we did go ahead it would not require primary legislation; it could be done by statutory instrument. On his third point, I am looking forward to the Committee stage of his Bill, which contains an ambitious programme of electoral reform, not all of which may reach the statute book.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, raises a very important issue. Does the Minister agree that the Question highlights that our laws around elections are woefully out of date and unable to provide the necessary framework, and that we urgently need to review, amend and update the legislation to meet the challenges of the digital world?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Yes, I do agree. The Electoral Commission is currently conducting some inquiries into campaigning irregularities, and the results of those inquiries will be published in the next few months. When we have disposed of current cases before the courts, we will then be in a position to address the important issues raised by the noble Lord.

Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole (Structural Changes) Order 2018

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

The order and regulations before the House bring into effect proposals to create two new unitary authorities covering Dorset, Bournemouth and Poole. Generally, I am in favour of the establishment of unitary local government in England. I think that the local government structures in Scotland and Wales are generally more fit for purpose than the patchwork that we have developed in England. In those countries the two-tier approach was abolished at the end of the John Major Government, with 32 unitary authorities in Scotland and 22 unitary authorities in Wales.

On numerous occasions I have raised in this House the issue of how local government reform is evolving in England. Generally, it is confused, with little clarity on the objective, the purpose and how it is right to have four tiers of local government in one area while in a neighbouring county the view is that a unitary authority is best. This lack of clarity does not strike me as very strategic, nor mindful of the council tax payer or the delivery of efficient services.

There is also the issue of consent. Clearly, Christchurch Borough Council has not consented. It has gone further and held a referendum on the issue, where 84% of the borough’s residents—on a 54% turnout—rejected what is being proposed here today. The matter went before the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which highlighted that Ministers will apply the criteria in the round rather than considering whether the criteria should be met in relation to each individual council area. This is all very strange. Perhaps the Minister can clarify what happened during Third Reading of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill in the other place. Did the Secretary of State provide assurance that the council would not be abolished without its consent? I do not know the answer, so perhaps he can tell me.

On 9 May, in Grand Committee in the Moses Room, we discussed local government changes in Suffolk. Having at first been quite complimentary about me, the Minister’s noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth went on to suggest that I was a Stalinist when all I asked for was clarity, certainty and value for money for the council tax payer. He said:

“We have a broad policy of saying these things have got to be locally led … local democracy is the key point”.


I then moved on to Oxfordshire. I was well aware that certain councils there are pushing for a unitary Oxfordshire, which Oxford City Council is opposed to—as I believe are the majority of the citizens who live in that area. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Bourne:

“Do I take it from what the Minister said that if councils do not want things to happen, they will not happen?”


His response was:

“That is essentially true. These have to be locally led. If they have not got local support, they will not happen … That does not mean that there has to be 100% support”.


He then clarified further:

“Well, for district mergers, there has to be 100% support from the councils. What I am saying is that there does not necessarily have to be 100% support from the local MPs, for example, and that has not been the case”.—[Official Report, 9/5/18; cols. GC 22-23.]


I think that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and his department are in some difficulty on this one. His noble friend Lord Bourne made it clear in Grand Committee on 9 May that there has to be 100% support from district councils for mergers to go ahead. Christchurch Borough Council does not agree. Furthermore, it held a referendum and, as I told the House, 84% of the residents of the borough, on a very respectable 54% turnout, did not agree either.

Then we have the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House advising us that Ministers decide these things “in the round”, which it is at complete odds with what the Minister’s noble friend Lord Bourne told us on 9 May. As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, is well aware and has told the House, the Conservative leader of Christchurch Borough Council, Councillor David Flagg, has begun a judicial review of the actions of the Secretary of State and his department. I think that there are fairly good questions that have to be answered before a judge, because this seems to be a little confused. I respectfully suggest that this is a mess, and the wisest option for the noble Lord’s department would be to withdraw these two statutory instruments, sort it out and get the lines clear in the department to avoid a possible court battle and a waste of public money.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I commend the persistence of my former colleague Sir Christopher Chope in garnering support from unlikely quarters to continue his campaign against this merger. I recognise the locus in the area of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. Indeed, I remember taking part in the campaign to ensure that she was not elected in the by-election—a campaign in which I and others failed.

Perhaps I may deal with the important issues which the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, raised. She mentioned that Christchurch was debt free—which it is, as are a number of the other local authorities. However, that is only part of the story, because many services provided to Christchurch are provided by the county council, which does have debt. So the people of Christchurch pay council tax on local authority debt, which is at the level of more than £500 per head.

I have just had news from the front. There was a deferred Division in the other place on these statutory instruments. Had the votes gone the other way, I am not sure that there would have been a lot of purpose in continuing our discussions, but I am happy to say that the ayes were 293 against 19 and 294 against 19 on the other instrument, so we can proceed, the other place having done its duty.

On council tax levels, I think that I am right in saying that Christchurch benefits from harmonisation, as its average level of council tax is higher. Therefore, with harmonisation that level will come down.

I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that there is a difference between the rules for mergers and those for unitarisation. He is quite right that, where we are talking about a merger, there has to be agreement from the councils being merged. But this is not a merger; it is unitarisation, and the rules for unitarisation are different. I read them out. Proposals have to be judged in the round as commanding a good deal of local support in the area. I quoted from what my noble friend Lady Williams said when the relevant legislation was being debated, which made it clear that there was not a right of veto of any one particular council within the proposed unitary; we had to look at the issues in the round.

The noble Baroness mentioned the poll conducted in Christchurch. There have been some criticisms of the conduct of that poll. Dorset County Council referred in its representations to,

“misleading and inaccurate information being circulated, not validated by the County Council or indeed Christchurch Borough Council. This was both before and while the poll was open and must introduce the question of bias in the process and undermine the validity of the findings”.

Poole Borough Council in its representation stated that the advisory poll in Christchurch,

“was supported by privately promoted information which was factually inaccurate and misleading”.

The borough council asserted that in its view the poll was “wholly unreliable” and asked the Secretary of State to “disregard” it.

None the less, we did have careful regard to the poll and its circumstances—but it did involve only 6% of the population of the whole area and we do not see this poll, for all these reasons, as casting doubt on the evidence that, in the round, across the whole area, the proposition has support. This proposal was locally led, developed and consulted on, and submitted jointly by the Dorset councils. The evidence is that nearly 80% of councillors across the whole area are in favour of the proposal, businesses and key public sector partners overwhelmingly support it, and the representative household survey showed that 65% of the public support it. Seven local Members of Parliament also support the proposal.

I have listened to the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. I hope that I have addressed them and also dealt with some of the points raised by the noble Baroness.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

That was a very helpful explanation and I thank the Minister, but will he explain a bit further why it is that if you merge two or three district councils, one council can object and veto it, whereas when you have a bigger reorganisation involving the unitarisation of a county, no one has a veto? Potentially, that involves many more services, a bigger area and bigger budgets, yet apparently no one has to be involved in that. Will he explain further, please?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

We made it quite clear that where an area wants to move from where it is now two-tier to unitary, we want to look at the proposal as a whole, and we do not believe it is right for any one component to have a veto. That is different from where two local authorities, as we are about to debate in a moment, want to get together and merge. We think that where they are going to merge—in other words, there is not going to be a wholesale reorganisation—it would be wrong to compel people to merge if they do not want to.

So, locally led proposals for district council mergers are to be assessed against criteria which we announced to Parliament on 7 November 2017, which include both the criterion that to be implemented a proposal should command a good deal of local support in the area and the criterion that the merger is proposed by all the councils to be merged. Locally led proposals for unitarisation are to be assessed against different criteria, announced to the Commons on 28 February 2017, which include the criterion that to be implemented a proposal for an area should, when judged in the round, be assessed as commanding a good deal of local support in the area.

Unlike in the case of mergers, unitarising an area does not need to be proposed by all the councils involved, since that area necessarily includes two tiers of councils, so that even if some councils in the area do not support the proposal, the area of those that do may cover the whole area. I may not have convinced the noble Lord—in fact, I can see that I have not convinced him—but he asked me what the criteria were and I have explained them.

Somerset West and Taunton (Local Government Changes) Order 2018

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

That would be an average, dividing the number of electors by the number of councillors. I have not drilled it down to an individual ward basis.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the Minister for his contribution. I mentioned Scotland and Wales in the previous debate. I think the Minister was in the Cabinet when the Major Government introduced unitary government to both Scotland and Wales in 1996, producing 32 councils in Scotland and 22 in Wales. That has largely stood the test of time. It seems strange, if that was the right thing to do then—it seemed to work well then and carries on to this day—that in England, it is very confused. I accept that the noble Lord has said that is what the policy is, but when we have a unitary council in one place and a district council in another, it all just appears to be a muddle. I recall a discussion with, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who described that he had five councils potentially levying council tax and other demands in Cambridgeshire, but in Cornwall there was only one. It certainly seems to me to be very confused.

Legislative Reform (Regulator of Social Housing) (England) Order 2018

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The order before the House is one I support. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for reminding us of the history of this and of the bonfire of the quangos—I remember the debates we had in the House about that. Clearly, the phoenix has now risen from the fire and we are back where we started. I am very happy with that and with the explanation that the noble Lord has given us. I am happy to support the order.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I will respond very briefly. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his nostalgic journey through the history of social housing, its regulation and funding. I pay tribute to the key role he has played in a variety of ways in the development of social housing and the role that he still plays today. If I may say so, he made the case for what is before the House even better than I did. I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken in this debate for their support.

Local Elections: Voter ID

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

Ensuring our elections are safe and secure is an important duty, and one which I fully support. Will the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, say a bit more about the evaluation process? I hope that he can confirm that a speedy decision will be taken by the Government after the pilots have been evaluated, as we need simple but effective measures to ensure the integrity of the electoral process and to ensure that we do not get in the way of enabling people to cast their vote, which is the other side of the same coin and an important part of their playing their role as citizens of the UK.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. There will be an independent statutory evaluation of the pilots conducted by the Electoral Commission. That will be published by the end of July, and it will inform the ensuing debate.

Hate Crime

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, these disgusting letters have, quite righty, caused revulsion in our communities and been condemned. I pay tribute to community and faith leaders, charities and others for what they have done. They and others will not let us be divided. Domestic extremism needs to be dealt with. Can the noble Lord reassure us that the Anderson review recommendations to the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre will start to produce the threat assessments for domestic extremism? Can he reassure the House that the police have the resources they need? He will of course be aware that the police got less than half of what they asked for to deal with terrorism.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

On the first question, of course we want to take those recommendations forward, and perhaps I could write in more detail to the noble Lord on that. On the question of police resources, I am aware of the exchanges that took place in the other place yesterday. After speaking to all forces in England and Wales, the Government have provided a comprehensive funding settlement that will increase total investment in the police system by around £450 million in 2018-19. Overall public investment in policing will grow from £11.9 billion in 2015-16 to around £13 billion in 2018-19. We believe that the settlement enables police and crime commissioners to increase their direct funding by up to £270 million. It is then up to chief constables to decide how best to deploy officers in their force to effectively serve and engage their communities and to build trust and confidence. The Government have made it absolutely clear that this is one of the priorities that police forces must engage in as they deploy those resources.

Cannabis

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 12th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am very happy to respond to the noble Lord’s opening question, namely to pass his request on. We are guided in this country by the MHRA, the authority that advises government on whether medicines should have a licence.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we have a vast number of drugs that are strictly controlled and regulated here in the UK. I have no wish to change the law in respect of the general use of cannabis but I think the noble Lord has heard from around the House that the Government should surely move on it with a bit more speed and look at whether there is a genuine case for the medical use of this drug. I have no idea what the answer is; I will listen to the medical professionals on that matter.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I agree with the noble Lord’s last sentence, that he will listen to the medical evidence. I say to noble Lords that I have listened to the exchanges over the last seven minutes and there is a clear view that we should try to make progress, not on legalising cannabis but on making it easier to prescribe cannabis in certain circumstances where it may have some therapeutic or beneficial value. I am very happy to take that message back to the Home Office and I hope that, next time, somebody more qualified than myself will be able to answer these questions.

Housing Associations

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 8th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord makes a valid point. We are concerned at the way in which certain housebuilders use the viability test to reduce the percentage of homes on their sites for social housing. We are reviewing the viability test with a view to increasing the original intention on these sites to have a fixed percentage of social housing units.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my relevant interests in the register. Does the Minister agree that the loss of more homes for social rent, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is making a difficult situation even worse, and that as people move into more expensive rental properties the taxpayer ends up paying more for the increased housing benefit bill for those tenants who claim that benefit at the higher cost?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

No, I do not agree, for the reason that I gave a few moments ago. Houses built on affordable rents are available at roughly 20% below market price, and of course housing benefit is available to help those on low incomes to pay the rent. As I said a moment ago, you have a choice to make: you can get either more houses at slightly higher rents or fewer houses at slightly lower rents. We went for the option to build more houses. On the noble Lord’s final point, he keeps reminding us of his connection with Lewisham as an elected councillor of that borough. He might like to know what Sir Steve Bullock, the Mayor of Lewisham, said about our housing policies:

“This specific cash injection for affordable homes will allow the Mayor of London, boroughs and other partners to carry out and extend ambitious plans to properly tackle the capital’s housing crisis”.


I hope the noble Lord agrees with his colleague.

Grenfell Tower

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 14th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to ensure that survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire do not spend Christmas and New Year in temporary accommodation.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are supporting the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in rehousing survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire as quickly as possible. Rehousing must proceed at a pace that respects the needs, wants and situations of survivors, but bureaucratic inertia must not add to delay. In line with the recent task force report, I expect the council to do whatever is necessary to ensure that households can move into settled homes as swiftly as possible.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, today is six months since the tragedy at Grenfell Tower, and we remember the victims and survivors of that terrible night. I pay tribute to the emergency service workers, the public sector staff, the voluntary sector and the faith communities for working up to this very moment to get the community back on its feet. Six months is a very long time in these circumstances, and to be living in hotel accommodation, vulnerable, unsettled and traumatised, is no way to spend Christmas. Can the Minister tell the House what specific action the Government are taking to get these families into accommodation in the new year? On the anniversary of this terrible tragedy, we want to be talking about going forward, not still talking about housing families in permanent accommodation. Despite what the noble Lord has said, the situation today for the majority of these families is just unacceptable.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I endorse what the noble Lord said about the response of the fire service—it was on the scene within six minutes—and about the community response. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury paid tribute to and spoke very movingly about that response on the “Today” programme.

To bring the House up to date: 151 homes were lost in the fire; some of those homes were overcrowded and others had multi-generational households which now wish to divide, so 210 households that formerly lived in Grenfell Tower and Grenfell Walk need to be rehoused. One hundred and forty-four households have accepted an offer of either temporary or permanent accommodation; 99 have moved in—54 into temporary housing and 45 into permanent housing—and 111 are in emergency accommodation, of whom 66 are yet to accept an offer of either permanent or temporary accommodation.

The noble Lord asks, quite rightly, what action is being taken. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea plans, by Christmas, to have acquired 300 homes, set against the 210 that are needed. It is acquiring two homes a day. I quite agree that Christmas is no time to spend in emergency accommodation; the Government are acutely aware of that. In the four hotels where most of the families are, specific arrangements have been made for the families to have space of their own to meet each other and to entertain their wider families, if they want to. A lot of services are being put on by voluntary or faith groups over the Christmas period to help and support those families.

We very much hope that by June next year everyone will have moved into permanent accommodation, but families need to move in their own time. Some who are in emergency accommodation do not want to move into temporary accommodation because they might have to move twice. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea is doing intensive work alongside the families, finding out what accommodation they need and where they need it, and seeking to match that with the 300 houses that it is acquiring. I very much hope that by June everybody will have been offered and accepted permanent accommodation.

Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2017

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 6th December 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I will make only a few brief remarks on the order and the regulations. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I refer the House to my interests as a councillor—in the London Borough of Lewisham—and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

In general I am supportive of the order and the regulations—I have no problem with them as such. However, there are some issues. As we have heard, one of the themes in the review is fraud. Issues of fraud have been reported far and wide over a number of years in the media and there have been a number of court cases in which people have, quite rightly, been prosecuted and some sent to prison, deservedly so. I think we all agree that we want to make sure that fraud is driven out of our electoral system, and if these go some way towards helping to do that, that is well and good and I support it.

We have had a number of pilots in this area of policy over a number of years—I certainly remember that the Labour Government, and particularly Jack Straw, loved pilots. I just hope that if we have these pilots, we will make a decision on them and move them along a little. I am all for pilots but I want a conclusion as well. If they are seen to improve the electoral system, we should go ahead with them.

On the nomination papers, obviously that is fine. I am surprised that we need to do that, but I am happy that we agree those nomination papers.

I may have heard the Minister say that we consult the people we normally consult, which is the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators—two fine bodies. I have certainly made the point—if not to the Minister then to other Ministers sitting in that position on behalf of the Government—that the one group that is always missed out is the political parties. We have some experts in these areas. I was a member of the Parliamentary Parties Panel, which is the statutory body that the commission consults, and I then became an electoral commissioner, so I sat on the Electoral Commission. I can tell your Lordships that at no point did these bodies consult on these issues with the political parties. They do not. They might say that they do, but they do not, and it is a shame. They might say that we do not need to on this one, because these are purely technical matters. There are people from all parties—we all know some of them very well— who are expert in these areas and can give valuable information, insight and experience. It is a shame; the Government should as a matter of course add in the political parties and formally consult them as well. It would not be a great problem for the Government to do that. We should certainly not rely on the Electoral Commission. As I said, it is a good body and great people—and great commissioners—work there, but I do not want it to consult, because it will not. It does not; it will talk to the administrators, and as this is a technical issue and not a campaign it will not involve the parties. Maybe we should think about that.

My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours makes a valid point about ID cards and fraud. That certainly would have dealt with the issue. The issue is of course that some people do not have ID or what is acceptable ID when you go along to the polling station—what would be acceptable? Everyone has a passport or a driving licence, so what will not be acceptable? That is an issue to deal with. Also, Northern Ireland has a little electoral card, which is very popular, especially among young people, because they say, “It gets us into pubs and clubs because it proves we’re 18”. It is not an ID card but an electoral card provided by the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland.

My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours mentioned the supplementary vote. All these systems are interesting and useful. I prefer the alternative vote, because it spreads the vote around more evenly than the supplementary vote, but other systems are definitely worth looking at.

Having said that, I support these measures as far as they go. I look forward to the noble Lord’s response.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate, all of whom have indicated their broad support for the measures before the Committee but have raised a number of other issues. A number of those who have spoken are vice-presidents of the Local Government Association. I am not, but I was a vice-president of a predecessor body called the AMA. I was expelled either for rate-capping or for abolishing the GLC, which may well be spent convictions.

I will deal with some of the issues raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is quite right that there are a range of recommendations in the Pickles report. We are dealing with some of them, such as those on harvesting votes by political parties and behaviour at polling stations. They are being dealt with on a separate track.

Tower Hamlets is piloting postal vote ID, to pick up the point the noble Baroness made, so we will have more information on what the options are for dealing with the issue of potential fraud with postal votes, which she raised. In principle, postal votes are a good thing because they help drive up participation in the democratic process. They are a very convenient way of voting, so I would not want to move away from the system we have of postal votes on demand, but we will discover more from Tower Hamlets about how one can drive up the integrity of the system.

Turning to some of the other points made, I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, made about trying to target the pilot schemes on particular areas where there are known to be problems. The approach we have adopted at this stage is to invite local authorities to take part in the pilot schemes, rather than be prescriptive, which is the approach he was in favour of. Tower Hamlets, which is an area where there has been some difficulty, is taking part in one of the pilot schemes on postal votes.

So far as declarations of interest are concerned, my experience is that the interests of candidates are widely advertised during the process of the campaign— quite often by their opponents. Putting them on the ballot paper would make the ballot paper very cumbersome. I think the noble Lord’s suggestion was that they might go on the nomination paper. We will look at that in conjunction with the Electoral Commission.

On the supplementary vote, there is a Private Member’s Bill coming up in the name of my noble friend Lord Balfe looking at alternative methods of electing local councillors. He is in favour of some form of PR for local government, so if the noble Lord is free on a Friday, there will be an opportunity for him further to develop his views. The supplementary vote is of course used at the moment, as the noble Lord said, for local mayors, combined authority mayors, the London mayor and the PCCs, so it is already embedded in part of the process. I do not think we have any plans to use it more widely.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Individual voter registration was introduced, I think with the support of the Opposition, by the last coalition Government. It is now there and it is an improvement—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I think the Minister will find that it was initially introduced by the Labour Government, then of course the coalition Government changed the rules when they brought the Act in at the start of that Government.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

But I think there was broad all-party support for individual voter registration, which was the point I was making. So we have a lone voice, which I respect, but it is an improvement on the previous system, where it was up to the householder to put people on the voters’ list. Where we are now is a much better system.

On the issue I was talking about a moment ago, we will have a look at declarations of interest but, as I said, putting it all on the ballot paper would make it more difficult for electors to understand. It could lead to errors and confusion in completing the ballot paper. I also mentioned registration. Changing the registration system has ensured that false names cannot be put on the register to allow ghost voters to cast fraudulent ballots, which had been a significant issue in the past.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised postal vote fraud. I am advised that there is no evidence of organised postal vote fraud since personal identifiers were introduced in 2007. Tower Hamlets will pilot changes to postal voting. On the Watford pilot, if a poll card is missing, the elector can cancel it and be issued with a new poll card to enable them to vote. Poll cards are one of the types of photo and non-photo IDs being tested in the 2018 pilots and, as she said, not all of them will involve having photo ID. We are addressing 48 of the recommendations in the Pickles review and will consider measures to improve the integrity of the postal vote process. The 2018 Tower Hamlets pilot will shed some light on how to take this further.

On advising the parliamentary parties—so in response to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy—I used to be on a parliamentary panel set up by the Electoral Commission. We had regular meetings with the Electoral Commission and all three parties were represented on that panel. Of course, the political parties are represented on the Electoral Commission itself, so when we consult it I would hope that it might touch base with the political representatives on the commission. If not, they will have read this exchange and I am sure they will change their procedures to take on board that criticism. The noble Lord is right that the political parties should be consulted—of course, they are consulted right at the end, as we are doing at the moment in dealing with these statutory instruments.

The ID card system in Northern Ireland is voluntary. You can either get an ID card or use your passport, or some other system. It is very much a voluntary process.

If I have not dealt with all the questions raised, I will certainly write to noble Lords but I welcome their contributions and I commend these instruments to the Committee.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I have just a couple of points. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours talked about specific areas. When I was a commissioner, people at the commission would always talk about hotspots but it was never very clear about what was meant and where they are. That is part of the problem; they always went on about hotspots and I remember discussing them, but I could not get much progress at all.

On these instruments, yes, the commission does a good job and consults the political parties through the Parliamentary Parties Panel, which I was a member of as an official for many years. I was one of the first four political commissioners on the commission and when we had our board meeting, we would look at broad-brush things such as policy. We were not sitting and looking in detail at such regulations. Something is missing here. It is not intentional but it is missing and it would be useful to get that on the record and at some point to have it looked at. That is not a criticism but something that has fallen through the cracks.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 15th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the noble Baroness’s clarification of these probing amendments is very helpful. As we have heard, a competent authority in this context of the Bill means a person as specified in Schedule 7, to the extent that the person has functions for law enforcement purposes.

Amendments 124Q and 124R would add useful clarifications that the persons listed in Schedule 7 come under the same classification as “any other person” referred to in Clause 28(1)(b) and the persons listed in Clause 28(3)(b). That would be a useful clarification in the Bill.

I do not support Amendment 124S in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but support the three government amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde. As I say, I do not support Amendment 124S, which makes the case for Amendments 124Q and 124R even more important.

I support the amendment that would add police and crime commissioners to the schedule, and the other amendments in the group which would widen the definitions, as that would be very useful. I look forward to the noble Baroness’s response to the points that have been raised.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

The co-pilot is in charge of this leg of the legislative journey, so there may be some turbulence.

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation of these amendments. I particularly welcome what she said at the beginning of her remarks—namely, that these were probing amendments designed to improve the style. We are all in favour of improving style. Having read previous Hansards, I know that there has been broad cross-party support for the Bill’s provisions, particularly this part of it. I know that the Liberal Democrat Benches are particular enthusiasts for enshrining in UK law the provisions of the EU law enforcement directive.

As the noble Baroness has indicated, this group of amendments relates to the definition of various terms used in Part 3, including that of a competent authority and the meaning of “profiling”. I also welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in support of some of the amendments.

The scope of the law enforcement processing regime is provided for in Part 3 of the Bill. Unlike Part 4, which applies to all processing of personal data by the intelligence services, the scheme in Part 3 is purpose-driven. The Part 3 scheme applies to processing by competent authorities, as defined in Clause 28, for any of the law enforcement purposes, as defined in Clause 29. This approach is clear from a reading of Part 3 as a whole. For example, each of the data protection principles in Clauses 33 to 38 refers to processing for any of the law enforcement purposes.

The definition of a competent authority needs to be viewed in that context. Competent authorities will process personal data under the scheme in Part 3 only where such processing is for one of the law enforcement purposes. If they process data for another purpose, as the noble Baroness indicated—for example, for HR management purposes—the processing would be undertaken under either the GDPR or applied GDPR scheme, as the case may be. That would be the default regime. I am not sure there is a case for yet another regime on top of the two we already have. As paragraph 167 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill makes clear, a government department will be a competent authority for the purposes of Part 3 only to the extent that it processes personal data for a law enforcement purpose. For example, where DWP processes data in the course of investigating criminal offences linked to benefit fraud, it will do so as a competent authority.

The approach we have taken in Schedule 7 is to list all the principal law enforcement agencies, including police forces, prosecutors and those responsible for offender management, but also to list other office holders and organisations that have law enforcement functions supplementary to their primary function. For example, the list in Schedule 7 includes some significant regulators. We should remember that the definition of “law enforcement purposes” includes the “execution of criminal penalties”, as set out in Clause 29. That being the case, it is entirely appropriate to list contractors providing offender management services. I hope this explanation deals with Amendment 129A. As I explained a moment ago, where such contractors process data for a non-law enforcement purpose—again, an example given by the noble Baroness—they will do so under the GDPR or applied GDPR scheme.

Schedule 7 is not, and is not intended to be, a wholly exhaustive list, and other organisations with incidental law enforcement functions will come within the scope of the definition of a competent authority by virtue of Clause 28(1)(b). Police and crime commissioners, to which Amendment 127A relates, may be a case in point, but if they process personal data for a law enforcement purpose, they will do so as a competent authority by virtue of Clause 28(1)(b). The government amendments in this group should be viewed against that backdrop.

Since the Bill was introduced, we have identified a number of other organisations that it would be appropriate to add to the list in Schedule 7, and Amendments 125, 126, 128 and 129 are directed to that end. Government Amendment 127 modifies the existing entry in respect of the independent office for police conduct in recognition of the fact that under the reforms we are making to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the director-general will be the data controller of the reformed organisation.

The amendments to Clause 31 all seek to amend the definition of profiling. First, Amendment 129C seeks to include “attributes” in the definition of profiling, which currently refers to “aspects”. The existing wording reflects the terminology used in the LED, which is clear. In any event, the two words do not differ much in substance, so little is gained by the proposed addition.

In Amendment 129B and Amendments 129D to 129F the noble Baroness seeks to widen the definition of profiling so that it is not restricted to “certain” areas of profiling or to the aspects listed. However, the personal aspects itemised in the definition are not intended to act as an exhaustive list, and the inclusion of the words “certain” and “in particular” do not have this effect. The list refers to those aspects considered of most importance to profiling. Again, for these reasons, these amendments are not necessary. I think the noble Baroness conceded that we were simply replicating the existing terminology.

I hope I have been able to reassure her on these points and that she will be content to withdraw her Amendment 124Q and support the government amendments.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My noble friend uses language which I would not dream of using at the Dispatch Box, but it is indeed the case that the coalition agreement, which was ratified by Liberal Democrat MPs and the membership of the Liberal Democrat party, committed them to reducing the number of MPs by 50, and that that legislation was taken through the other place by the Deputy Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberal Democrats. I cannot understand why the Liberal Democrats now seek to distance themselves from a measure which their former leader piloted through Parliament.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, we have four parliamentary Boundary Commissions, one for each of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. Can the Minister confirm that at the conclusion of the reviews, there will be brought before this House and the other place one Motion to approve all four reports, so there is no risk of, say, three reports being approved and one not, and it will be all or nothing, with no risk of cherry-picking the reports we like, as opposed to those we are not so keen on?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am happy to confirm that the position is exactly as the noble Lord said. The legislation requires the Minister to produce a single order to introduce the reports of all four Boundary Commissions, so there can be no cherry-picking—which would never have occurred to our side, but might conceivably have occurred to others.

Electoral Spending Limits: Wales

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 6th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

We hope that between now and then there will be a suitable legislative vehicle to take this reform forward.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, there is a desperate need for the law in its entirety around elections to be reviewed, reformed and consolidated. With the advances in technology, among other things, the law has not kept pace with change. Does the noble Lord agree with that point and, if so, will he impress on others in government that, despite other pressures, this really is something for which the Government should find parliamentary time?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

There is indeed a broad view that our election law is fragmented, at times unclear and, as the noble Lord said, does not always reflect modern changes in communication. We are working with the Law Commission and other interested bodies, such as the Electoral Commission, to see whether we can streamline and clarify our electoral system, but we need to find the legislative time to take these reforms forward.

Boundary Reviews 2018

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 26th June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to introduce legislation amending the provisions relating to the 2018 Boundary Reviews.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, following laws already passed by Parliament, the independent Boundary Commissions are consulting on their proposals to deliver boundary changes. They will submit their final proposals to Parliament in autumn 2018, ensuring fair and equal representation for the voting public across the UK. We have no plans to change this process.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, millions of people have registered to vote who are not taken into account in the present parliamentary boundary review. Will the noble Lord commit the Government to including these people? Would he comment on the general opinion that the present boundary review is dead in the water because the DUP does not want it and that any review approved by Parliament will be on the basis of there being 650 seats in the House of Commons? If that is the Government’s real intention, they should say so quickly and stop wasting any more public money on a review that will not be approved.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, the country has already fought two general elections on out-of-date boundaries for reasons that are familiar to the noble Lord. If we followed the noble Lord’s suggestion and started again with a new register, there is a risk of a third general election on boundaries which were set in place in 2000. That would be an affront to democracy.

General Election: Voting Rights

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 25th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests. Can the noble Lord tell the House what additional resources the Government are providing to enable local government to register more citizens to vote? What representations are they making to the Residential Landlords Association and the Association of Residential Letting Agents to encourage them to bring it to the attention of their tenants that they could be eligible to vote—because tenants in the private sector are one of the most underrepresented groups at elections?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord is quite right that a number of groups are unregistered in the current regime. Over recent years, the Government have devoted resources to trying to increase registration of those groups, particularly students. We have also made it much easier for people to register to vote: you can vote online in about three minutes. A number of initiatives are also being taken by the Electoral Commission, focused on some of the groups that the noble Lord rightly mentioned, to encourage them to vote. Over forthcoming weeks, the Electoral Commission will of course have an additional campaign as part of its responsibility of informing people how and where to register to vote.

Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme (England) (Amendment) Order 2017

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 30th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I make my usual declaration that I am a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The four statutory instruments we are debating today are ones that I accept, as far as they go. I broadly welcome the process outlined by the Minister. Certainly, the entitlement to vote and the accuracy and completeness of the register are the most important things we are debating here. That underpins all this. I have some wider comments and one or two questions for the Minister but generally I welcome the orders and regulations and I am very happy that we are exploring new methods of getting people registered to vote.

On matters concerning elections and electoral registration, it is always desirable to get agreement among the interested parties on the way forward. I accept that that is not always possible but it is a desirable aim nevertheless. Changes should be implemented carefully, should be thought about, should seek to improve voters’ engagement in the electoral process and should command wide confidence. In that sense, pilots are a useful tool to see how certain measures will play out in practice, followed by proper evaluation and informed policy decisions. Can the Minister tell the House why the decision was made to extend these pilots for another year? I cannot believe that the Government have made this decision in isolation. But it is not clear from the papers why they have done so.

There is no mention of the political parties being consulted on the regulations. Will the Minister confirm that neither the Electoral Commission nor the Cabinet Office team that meets the political parties on a regular basis have brought these regulations anywhere near them? Of course, the Parliamentary Parties Panel is a statutory panel set up under PPERA. If that is the case, does the Minister agree that that is regrettable and should be rectified quickly? The political parties use the electoral register for their campaigning, they understand the registration process, and they have a legitimate voice that needs to be heard in any discussions on these matters.

I refer the Minister to page 3 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme (England and Wales) Order 2017; he mentioned it in his introduction. Referring to the annual canvass, paragraph 7.1 in the section headed “Policy background” says:

“In its current form under IER, it is proving to be an unsustainable cost burden for local authorities to administer”.


I thought that was an interesting comment. I must say, it is not the biggest issue that comes up when we discuss finance and budgets and unacceptable cost burdens at Lewisham Council. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, may have let the cat out of the bag by telling us that these issues were discussed in the coalition Government in 2013. Of course, members of that coalition wanted to bring forward these proposals then.

I had a look at what the Local Government Association was saying and I could not find any mention at all of the unacceptable cost burdens of the annual canvass—not a thing—in its campaigns, press releases or anything else. I then had a look at London Councils and again there was no mention in any of its campaigns or media releases about these unacceptable cost burdens and the problems being caused for local authorities. Both organisations are well known to Members of this House. They are expert at getting their views across to us when they have issues they want to raise with us. But I have had absolutely nothing—not a letter, not an email, not a text message, not a phone call—from these bodies that represent local government.

Of course, there are many issues that these two bodies are interested in: the housing crisis, the social care crisis, education funding, public health budgets, business rates, pavement parking, homelessness and the lack of funding for that, bus funding, and many other issues—the list goes on and on. Many of these issues are putting local authorities in a difficult situation and putting pressure on budgets, but the Government are not the slightest bit interested in dealing with them. I also had a look at SOLACE and the AEA. Again, they are silent on these issues and do not appear to be campaigning on them at the moment.

It really is a bit rich for the Government to hide behind the suggestion that there are all these concerns from elsewhere in local government. The Government do not have a good record here. They sped up IER, against the advice of the Electoral Commission. They reduced the transition period for IER by one year. They threw out the consensus on that point. They moved ahead with reducing the number of seats in the House of Commons by 50. They removed voters from the electoral roll, against the advice of the commission, and of course that helped them in their redistribution of parliamentary seats and limited the scope of electors to get involved in local inquiries. At the same time, we all know that they made a record number of appointments to your Lordships’ House. Their claims about cutting costs just do not hold water.

Democracy costs money. We should cherish it and pay for it. We need an efficient, well-run, properly resourced electoral registration service in every part of the United Kingdom. In comparison with other services, the costs involved are not huge and the Government should be seeing how they can use every avenue of the state to get and keep people registered to vote. They should be learning from other parts of the United Kingdom. How does the Electoral Management Board in Scotland work in getting people registered to vote, compared with what happens here in England and Wales?

Pilots are good to see how we can efficiently and expertly register people to vote. There is nothing presently in force that stops EROs making any innovation, and many EROs do an excellent job of innovating to get people registered to vote. We should be looking at the incentives to get people on the rolls. What are schools, colleges and universities doing? What can we learn from the schools issue in Northern Ireland? Many noble Lords from all sides of the House have raised that and so far the Government have not been interested at all in bringing it into play in England. We should look also at what we can learn from other parts of the world.

I worry that the real agenda is just to cut the need to send out a prepaid envelope and a form and to avoid knocking on the door, with very little else under that. I am happy that we have new procedures and new ideas. We have to be absolutely sure that we are not making it any harder to get people registered to vote. I am not confident that so far the Government have done that.

My noble friend Lord Blunkett raised some very important points. The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, spoke about the two local authorities. I do not know that case but if that is the situation, it is regrettable. All the councils that have been invited to be part of the pilot should be part of it when it takes place next year. He made a very important point about savings. I am happy to make savings but, again, the important point in all this is the accuracy and completeness of the register. That must be paramount for all of us. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, made some important points about automatic registration. Again, young people and students are a very important group and we must make sure that we get them registered. I know that many councils and EROs have worked closely with universities and colleges. We need to ensure that that happens as well.

I am happy to agree the orders and regulations before us today, although I worry about the Government’s real intention behind these matters.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and for their broad welcome for the initiatives that are in the orders before the House.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I am grateful for his welcome for what we are doing, but there were some uncharacteristically partisan comments in his speech. On the size of the House of Lords, I just say, as somebody who was Leader of the House of Commons at the time, that if his great party had supported the programme Motion on the House of Lords Reform Bill, the House of Lords would be a lot smaller than it is now. His party bears some responsibility for the failure to get the numbers down to a more manageable level. I will put that on one side because I know the noble Lord did not mean to stimulate an aggressive partisan debate on these non-controversial orders.

I will try to respond to the issues that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, raised the issue of privacy. Of course I confirm that the protection of personal data is important. As I think I said, the Cabinet Office carried out a privacy impact assessment which took into account privacy impact assessments commissioned from all the participating local authorities. The provisions before us do not have any significant further impact on an individual’s privacy than the current legislative requirements concerning registration. They simply support the EROs in carrying out their legal duty to take all the necessary steps to maintain registers of electors in their area. As I said, we have consulted the Information Commissioner’s Office on this order and it does not consider that the proposed measures raise any new or significant data protection or privacy issues. The noble Lord also raised some issues about the Digital Economy Bill and I would like to accept his generous offer to pursue those in writing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

No, I am sorry. I meant the political parties panel in PPERA which is drawn from officials.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I will make inquiries and deal with the important questions that the noble Lord has raised about the level of consultation, and of course he is entitled to a reply on that.

I think I have dealt with nearly all the issues that have been raised. If I have not, I will write. We have had direct advice from a range of those in local government—the chief executive of Trafford, the electoral registration officer for Grampian and others—about this initiative. I again thank noble Lords for the time they have spent scrutinising these instruments, which will enable EROs in England, Wales and Scotland to pilot innovative approaches to conducting the annual canvass and also allow EROs in Scotland to make use of email invitations to register and single occupancy provisions. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before the noble Lord sits down, the point I was trying to get across is that I am very happy that we have pilots. There is no issue about that. However, when we make changes—and stopping the annual canvass, stopping people knocking on doors and stopping letters going out are very big changes—we cannot assume that everybody is e-enabled. Each change has to be carried out very carefully; otherwise we make mistakes, things go wrong and people lose their right to vote. That cannot be the case. The heart of this is that the Government must take a long period and absolute care when they pilot changes. The decision to reduce the time for confirmation was a mistake. If we had taken a longer time, we might not have needed these measures now. That is the point I am trying to make.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. As I said, we are not stopping the annual canvass. The annual canvass remains. I will just end on this. The initiative for this has come not so much from the Government as from the EROs. They take their responsibilities very seriously and want to have the maximum number of people registered. They still retain all the powers they have at the moment, as well as the powers they have in the pilots, to continue to knock on doors and send all the forms. I personally have confidence that the EROs will use the powers they have, and which we are giving them today, not just to maintain the current accuracy of the register: I think we will end up with a better register if we go ahead with these pilots and extend the lessons that we have learned.

Elections and Referendums: Spending Rules

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to my noble friend. He is right to say that there are a number of reports—the report from Sir Eric Pickles on fraud in local elections, the report from my noble friend Lord Hodgson on third-party campaigning, and the interim report of the Law Commission—which have an impact on the legislation on elections. As I said a few moments ago, it makes sense to stand back, look at all the recommendations and, in consultation with the Electoral Commission and all the political parties, see how best to take this forward in order to restore public confidence in the democratic system.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

Recently, during the consideration of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, the Minister told the House about the willingness of the Government to look at areas where agreement can be reached and incremental changes agreed. Can the Minister update us further in this regard, and will he look at involving those Members of the House who can bring valuable experience to those discussions?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Again, I am grateful to the noble Lord, who took part in that debate on 10 March on the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. At the end of that debate, I indicated that the Government were anxious to see if there was a consensus on some of the measures that might be brought forward. I indicated that the Minister for the Constitution, Chris Skidmore, was anxious to meet noble Lords who took part in that debate to see whether we can take incremental reforms forward on a cross-party basis.

Electoral Fraud

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. On her final point, there is already guidance stating that postal votes should not be harvested by campaigners or activists. We are considering whether we should introduce a ban on handling of postal votes by specified people or groups, which would tackle the inappropriate conduct that she referred to.

The Pickles review considered postal voting and came up with a number of recommendations, one of which is that the offence prescribed for when people vote in person—namely, that it should be in secret and there should be no undue influence—should also be applied to people who vote by post, which it does not at the moment. We are considering how that might best be done. There were other recommendations about postal voting, one of which was that it should not last for ever: it should be renewed every three years. We understand the concern and a number of measures are in train to address it.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, what discussions have taken place between the parties, the Electoral Commission and the police in the 18 areas identified by the review carried out by Sir Eric Pickles with regard to the measures that should be in place for the local elections where those specified areas have local elections this May, prior to the ID pilot scheme coming into force in May 2018?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that question. The Electoral Commission is concentrating resources on those local authorities where there is seen to be an undue risk of fraud. It is in touch with the single point of contact, which is a police contact in that area, to ensure that it has all the necessary information and, where appropriate, it holds additional training courses. Resources are being applied to the 18 areas identified as at risk by the Electoral Commission to minimise the risk of fraud.

Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority (Election of Mayor) (Amendment) Order 2017

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 16th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I first draw the attention of the House to my entry in the register of Members’ interests and declare that I am an elected councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

This is one of a number of statutory instruments that we have been considering over the past few weeks in your Lordships’ House. I should first say that I welcome further devolution, although I have concerns with all these deals about the level of funding provided. This order puts the election for the mayor back by one year. There is also an issue about the patchwork nature of the deals and, as many other noble Lords have said today, about the lack of any coherent framework for devolution in England. That is something that we should all be concerned about. In some areas, the devolution deal seems to have progressed well and important powers and functions have been devolved to the combined authority. In other areas, this has not been the case. In county areas in particular, a directly elected mayor perhaps does not feel right. My noble friend Lady Hollis referred to this as a particular concern. There is certainly a question over how these mayors fit in to the vision of future devolution in England. The Government have still been unable to explain their obsession with directly elected mayors—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, will do so now.

I lived and worked in the east Midlands for many years, I know Lincolnshire very well and I entirely agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. It is a rural county and I just do not see how a mayor would work there at all. The Government should recognise that each area is different.

We need a coherent framework for devolution. The Government should set out what they mean by it so that there can be a proper debate and discussion in England about what it will be. Years ago we used to have things called Green Papers, which would come along and set out the Government’s thinking on where they would like to go and invite that sort of dialogue to get local government and people engaged. That is certainly something that the Government should do. I am also aware that there have been a few changes in the department in recent days. I do not know whether that will have any effect on what will happen, but certainly the Government need to think long and hard about the whole question of mayors and why we have to have mayors in an area if that area does not want one.

As I said, huge changes have taken place in recent years. We have police and crime commissioners, which were referred to, who can now take over the fire service. We have the combined authority models, with or without directly elected mayors. This is not very joined up or coherent. In my view, it is not the best way to move forward.

There is a problem here. A contradiction arises with the drawing of quite artificial boundaries in the spirit of trying to put together a combined authority when they do not necessarily mirror community identities. There has of course been the legal action from Derbyshire referred to by a number of noble Lords. Councillor Anne Western is someone I know very well. I regard her as a friend. She is a very competent leader of the county council. I have known her and worked with her for many years. There is no question that she is pro devolution and believes in the devolution of powers from Westminster to communities. Equally, I agree that the consultation was not organised very well. I agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Blunkett. I do not particularly agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven; I think that some of them were designed for the front page of the Sheffield Star. We need to look carefully at where we are going with these devolution deals.

We need a proper framework. The Government need to come forward with one now. This is not the only place where we have problems. Other parts of the country have problems with these deals. The Government need to set out what they see for the future and how they are going to get there. That would certainly help the situation we have here today.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who taken part in this debate—some of which went slightly broader than the date of the election of the mayor. I was at this Dispatch Box yesterday having a rather uncomfortable time in connection with a manifesto commitment. Now my noble friend Lord Cormack invites me to break another one. The manifesto commitment is that we will devolve a wide range of powers and budgets to major cities that choose to have an elected mayor. That is the link. I am invited by a number of noble Lords to break that link. I hope that they understand that I am unable so to do. It is entirely a matter for the local area to decide whether it wants to go down this road. This is a choice that it did not have before. It can have a devolution deal and if it wants to it can put a proposal to the Government and then we can make progress. The Government have been absolutely clear that there must be an elected mayor to ensure that there is sufficient accountability, which we believe only an elected mayor can deliver.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but I think that is a little unfair. At one point he said that it is up to people in a local area to decide, but then that if they want one thing they have to have another. It is not the case that they can decide. Look at bus powers, for example. The Government are not just leaving it to the local people or a council to decide at all; they are setting conditions.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

With great respect, I disagree with the noble Lord. They have a choice, which they did not have before. They can either stay put, which is what used to happen, or they can have a devolution deal as offered by the Government, but with an elected mayor. That is a real choice. If they do not want to have an elected mayor, for all the reasons that we have heard, they can stay where they are—but at least they have a choice, which they did not have before.

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2017

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 16th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, turning first to the Liverpool order, I certainly support the arrangements before the House today. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I obviously wish the Liverpool and the Tees Valley combined authorities every success in the future. But I want to put on record that this is no giveaway for Merseyside local authorities from the Government—nothing could be further from the truth. As we have seen, local councils have suffered huge public sector spending cuts in recent years and Merseyside has not escaped that. Cuts to police and fire services, primary and secondary schools, Sure Start and so on far overshadow the comparatively small investment that the Government are making today. That investment will not deliver the Government’s vision for the northern powerhouse, although we seem to hear that phrase less and less from the Government. The foundations for devolution are being cut away by the Government every year, which is not helpful. It just makes the challenges faced by local government that bit harder. Having said that, I welcome the arrangements before us for devolution.

As I said in a previous debate, however, I am concerned about the whole question of patchwork. I accept that there can be difference, but I still think the Government should set out a framework. We have a messy patchwork, which does not bring the best things forward. We should set out what we want from devolution for England and how we see the country going forward. I certainly recall that in a debate last week on Cambridgeshire, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, referred to four tiers of local government in that part of the country. It is all a bit of a mess. We are not clear where the Government are coming from. I think the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned that in the debate as well. This is all a mess and we need some clarity from the Government about where they want to go in terms of devolution.

There has been a distinct lack of public engagement in the order for the combined authority for Tees Valley. It is important to engage the public in devolution discussions particularly where we propose to have mayoral elections. We want to get the agreement of the public because we will ask them to go out and vote for these people at some point in the future. It would be nice if the public engaged with that and agreed that they wanted this form of government. I think about 2,000 people responded to the local authority’s consultation but only 11 members of the public responded to the Government’s consultation, which from a population of 670,000 seems a derisory figure—0.001%, which is poor by any stretch of the imagination. Of those 11, seven had a negative view of the Government’s proposals. The Government should take account of consultation but also ensure that the consultation is done in a way that engages people and enables them to give their views to us.

As I said, it is necessary for the Government to set out clearly where they are going in England with devolution, and they are just not doing that. That is why we have these problems in understanding what is going on with devolution. However, I certainly wish Liverpool and Tees Valley every success in the future.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this debate and I shall try to respond to the issues that have been raised. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, we will keep this issue under review. Under the devolution deals, the Government of course stay in touch, and an evaluation of progress is made every five years. As this is a relatively new innovation, we will be particularly interested in seeing how it pans out. The noble Lord reminded me of my time as a junior Minister with Michael Heseltine in the 1980s after the White Paper into the riots, and he is right to point to the transformation that was undertaken in partnership with the local council and local MPs. As a result, substantial investment was made in the city. I am grateful for what he said about that.

My noble friend Lord Deben made a thoughtful comment in which he suggested, I think, that central government should seek to mirror centrally the sort of structure that is being developed locally. I have some sympathy with that. Against that, however, one of the signals we have been getting in central government is a plea for stability and certainty rather than further reform. One has to try to balance a move towards the sort of approach my noble friend has advocated with the plea for stability against a background of several planning Bills which have gone through the House. I say to my noble friend that the White Paper on housing is quite clear that neighbouring authorities should work together constructively. We are also going to look at the NPPF so that authorities must prepare a statement of common ground to work together. I will certainly feed in what he has said as we do that work on the NPPF.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and to some extent the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I should point out that there is some tension between the reported views of local residents, which both noble Lords referred to, and the views of the locally elected councillors. Of course, that reaches us only if the locally elected councillors have decided that this is the way they want to go. The Government’s view is that it is legitimate to look to the locally elected representatives to come to a strategic view of where the authority wants to go rather than to a whole series of local opinion polls. I do not know whether the noble Baroness is a vice-president of the LGA—most people who speak in these debates seem to be. A long time ago, back in the 1980s, I was a vice-president of the AMA, but I think I was expelled when I abolished the Greater London Council. However, I think that the view of the LGA would be that it is perfectly legitimate to look to locally elected councils to reflect views.

I turn to the issue of having lots of mayors in one place. In London we have a Lord Mayor of London and a mayor, Sadiq Khan, and some boroughs have locally elected mayors. I think that people understand what is going on and while we could try to find a new name for mayors—the chain gang, or whatever you call them—if this is the way local authorities want to go, it would be a very brave central government that forbade them to do so, even though in some areas this does result in parish, district, county and combined authorities.

These draft orders confer further new functions on to the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority and the Tees Valley Combined Authority, some of which are to be exercised by their respective mayors. The first ones are to be elected in May this year. I commend this order to the House.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this is the last amendment on Report. We had a short debate in Grand Committee on 8 February. The amendments I tabled then and have tabled now are to help the discussion taking place between the department, the Government, Transport for London and the Greater London Authority in respect of the powers that those authorities think they need to dispose of land and help build more housing.

I am hoping the Minister will be able to respond to this and update us on where we have got to in discussions so far. I do not believe any agreement has been reached, as yet. I hope we are going to get somewhere and that we will not reach the end of this process with nothing having been agreed. That would be most disappointing. I got a fairly positive response from the Minister in Grand Committee. I will leave it there. I hope the Minister can respond positively and tell us that, although nothing has yet been agreed, the discussions are ongoing. We all hope that we will get some resolution before we reach the end of this process. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for the bridge-building way in which he moved the amendment. Amendments 65 and 66 seek to make new provision in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 which would amend the powers of Transport for London and the Greater London Authority to dispose of land.

Amendment 65 seeks to give Transport for London the flexibility to dispose of land for housing, even if a higher value use was available, provided the best consideration reasonably obtainable for housing use had been achieved. To achieve this, Amendment 65 would disapply the requirement for TfL to,

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

Amendment 66 would remove the requirement for the GLA to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State to the disposal of land for housing, even if a higher value use was available, provided the best consideration reasonably obtainable for housing use had been achieved.

In Grand Committee, I promised to facilitate a meeting between the Government, the GLA and TfL before Report to discuss how we should respond to the concerns the noble Lord had raised. I confirm that that meeting has taken place.

We have been working with TfL to assess the impact of making the proposed amendment, but unfortunately we remain concerned about the potential impact of Amendment 65 on TfL’s overall receipts targets and consequently on public finances more generally. Given these ongoing concerns, I cannot accept the noble Lord’s amendment, but I can assure him that the Government will continue to work with TfL to address those concerns and ensure that TfL is able to meet both its housing and its receipts targets.

On Amendment 66, the noble Lord will be aware that the Government made a commitment in the housing White Paper to consult on extending the ability of local authorities to dispose of land at less than best consideration without seeking consent to do so from the Secretary of State.

Land disposals by local authorities are governed by a separate regime from those undertaken by the GLA. I do not believe it would be right in this Bill to reduce the protections established by the current requirement for consent of the Secretary of State for disposals by the GLA at less than best consideration. The White Paper did not specifically reference this GLA consent requirement, but I reassure the noble Lord that the scope of the consultation announced in the White Paper will extend to the GLA consent regime.

With the reassurance that we will continue to work with TfL and the GLA to find appropriate solutions to the very real concerns the noble Lord has raised, I hope he will be prepared to withdraw the amendment so that we can end Report on a consensual note.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I am happy not to press my amendments at this stage, but will just say that I do not know whether these discussions are ongoing. Is the noble Lord suggesting that there may be some light and that this may come back at Third Reading or is he suggesting that it is more likely that this will be addressed in a White Paper? Or could it be either? Some clarification on that would be useful. Important points have been raised. The Mayor of London has specific targets for building homes in London, and we all want to see that happen—but if you want to get it done, these things need to be addressed. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Thursday 23rd February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 11 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, deletes the proposed new powers for the Secretary of State to set conditions on the granting of planning permission. This matter was discussed at some length in Grand Committee, and I did not feel then and still do not feel that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, has made a convincing case for why the powers should be granted. We have had little evidence to date that they are necessary. If there was a major problem, I suspect we would have heard a lot more about it outside the Chamber. I see little evidence and, if I was wrong, I would expect to have had emails, letters and requests for meetings from builders, trade bodies and others trying to convince me and tell me why I was wrong and why they needed the changes. I do not recall one organisation getting in touch about the problems and why the powers need to be taken by the Government.

Planning conditions and pre-commencement planning conditions imposed by a local authority must always be reasonable, necessary and help to deliver sustainable development; there is no point delivering development that is unsustainable. We would just be creating a problem down the line for others to deal with because we did not have the foresight or ability to face up to the challenges before us.

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord True, who is not in his place, who said in Committee in the Moses Room that he feared the department was bringing out a dreadnought to deal with problems on the local public pond. I agree, and I have heard nothing so far from the Minister—perhaps I will in a moment—to convince me otherwise.

Far too much planning legislation from this Government has been about centralising power, agreeing what can or cannot be done by regulations and with the power to impose conditions. I remind the House that this is the sixth piece of planning legislation in six years. It is just not the case that local authorities are against development; there is no evidence to support that. There is ample evidence to suggest that local authorities are best placed to make decisions about sustainable development, consulting local people within the framework. The framework is quite properly set out by the Government, but it must be a framework, not a straitjacket that prevents local authorities playing their full role. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the co-pilot is in charge of this part of the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for revisiting an issue that we spent some time on in Committee. Amendments 11 to 14, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, either remove subsection (1) from new Section 100ZA, and corresponding subsections (2) and (3), or apply exemptions to how the power is to be exercised. I will deal with Amendments 12 and 14 separately, but Amendments 11 and 13 together, as they deal with leaving out the whole of the wider power.

Amendments 11 and 13 would remove a key measure from the Bill, which is designed to put on the statute book what is already best practice in the appropriate use of planning conditions. The power under subsection (1) would allow the Secretary of State to ensure that certain conditions were not imposed, in certain circumstances, where this is appropriate to ensure that conditions meet the policy tests for conditions as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Conditions which fail to meet the tests in the framework can cause unjustifiable delays and costs to the delivery of new development. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked for further evidence of the misuse, or potential misuse, of preconditions. This issue has arisen frequently during our debates. It is not a recent issue, and the claims date back several years. The Home Builders Federation has seen instances where unnecessary or unreasonable pre-commencement conditions have been imposed on development—for example, full details of a play area which, while commendable as a condition in general, could easily be discharged at a later stage. This is not just an issue with larger housebuilders. Small builders have also expressed dissatisfaction with the use of conditions. Research by the National House Building Council in 2014 found that 33% of small and medium-enterprise builders identified the planning process and conditions as the largest constraint to delivery. As well as issues with the time to discharge, 29% of respondents thought that the extent of conditions was an issue. If we are serious about increasing housing supply, we need to do all we can to support the builders.

Government planning guidance provides examples of specific circumstances where conditions should not be used, such as conditions which place disproportionate and unjustifiable financial burdens on an applicant. Removing subsection (2), as proposed by Amendment 13, would remove an important constraint on the regulation-making power in subsection (1). Subsection (2) ensures that the Secretary of State may make provision in regulations only if such provision is in pursuit of the policy tests. In effect, it places each of the policy tests in paragraph 206 of the framework on a statutory footing.

As with subsection (2), leaving out subsection (3), as proposed by Amendment 19, would also remove an important constraint and safeguard on the power in subsection (1). Subsection (3) requires that before making regulations under subsection (1), we must carry out a public consultation. This would afford the opportunity for local views to be put forward as part of the process for determining how the power will be exercised.

The Government published draft regulations in December to illustrate the proposed use of the regulation-making powers in Clause 13. The draft regulations have informed our debate by clarifying how the power might be used.

In Committee concerns were raised about the potential for Clause 13 somehow to act as an anti-localist measure. I should clarify that we intend to use the powers in Clause 13 to restrict local authorities’ ability to impose those conditions in regulations, already identified in planning practice guidance, which fail to meet the well-established policy tests in the NPPF. A reasonable local authority would not seek to impose such conditions.

We recognise that an opportunity for users of the planning system to comment on the proposed regulations would be beneficial. Therefore, subject to the Bill receiving Royal Assent, we will consult on the draft regulations.

I can also confirm that, following the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and in the light of concerns raised by noble Lords, about the intended use of the power in the Bill, we have tabled a government amendment that would apply the affirmative procedure to the exercise of the power in new Section 100ZA(1). This will ensure the necessary parliamentary scrutiny of how the power is exercised.

The effect of Amendments 11 and 13 would be to miss this opportunity to elevate best practice on the use of planning conditions. I hope that I have justified why the regulation-making power is integral to ensuring a robust and sustainable planning system. Therefore, with the reassurances I have provided on further safeguards on the exercise of this power, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

On Amendment 12, I reiterate what my noble friend said in Committee. There are good intentions behind the amendment, which is intended to ensure a local voice in judging local circumstances and the impact of planning decisions. That is absolutely the Government’s aim. The Government intend to use the power in new Section 100ZA to prevent the use of unreasonable and unnecessary conditions which are already well established in the Government’s planning practice guidance as not meeting the tests set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

In response to the Committee debate held on 6 February, my noble friend wrote to noble Lords, providing further information on the policy objectives for the power to make regulations under subsection (1) of the new Section 100ZA. It will not restrict the ability of local authorities and neighbourhood groups to prepare local plans and neighbourhood plans and it will not restrict their ability to determine applications for development in accordance with those plans.

Subsection (1) of the clause will ensure that the well-established policy tests for conditions are adhered to. These tests are reflected in the wording of subsections (2)(a) to (d) of the new Section 100ZA and constrain the use of this proposed regulation-making power and ensure that conditions imposed on a grant of planning permission make the development acceptable in planning terms; are relevant to the development and to planning considerations generally; are sufficiently precise to make it capable of being complied with and enforced; and are reasonable in all other respects. In other words, the Secretary of State may make provision in regulations only if such provisions are in pursuit of these policy tests.

While I am confident that the constraints referred to above are sufficient, I do understand the concerns expressed about the use of this power, and that it may somehow prevent local authorities being able to use their discretion in carrying out their planning duties. However, we believe that it would be detrimental to the planning process for regulations made under the new Section 100ZA(1) to provide for local authorities to make exceptions to the prohibition of the use of certain conditions. I cannot foresee a situation where a local authority would want to make a local exception to regulations under subsection (1), especially if this would have the effect of allowing the imposition of the types of conditions that are already well established in government guidance as being contrary to the national policy tests. In fact, during our consultation on this measure, local authorities agreed overwhelmingly that conditions should be imposed only if they passed each of the national policy tests.

As a further assurance for local authorities and other interested parties, subsection (3) of new Section 100ZA includes a requirement to carry out a public consultation before making regulations under subsection (1), so this will provide an opportunity for local views to be put forward and given full consideration in advance of making regulations. In addition, the Government have tabled an amendment that would require any regulations under subsection (1) to be approved by each House of Parliament. I hope that, for the reasons I have set out, noble Lords will not press that amendment.

The Government’s position on Amendment 14 remains as it was in Committee on the Bill, and in another place, where it was tabled. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, particularly pressed Amendment 14. If the House will permit, I might skip the relevant pages because they are broadly similar to an argument deployed by my noble friend in Committee.

I emphasise finally that if subsection (2) was left out of the clause, it would remove a vital constraint on the power in subsection (1) so that it can only be used to ensure that any conditions imposed meet the well-established policy tests for conditions in the National Planning Policy Framework. In effect, subsection (2) places each of the policy tests in paragraph 206 on a statutory footing. As noble Lords are aware, further safeguards on the use of this power are provided. Before making regulations under subsection (1) we are required to carry out a public consultation, as set out in subsection (3), and the Government have now brought forward an amendment which would require the approval of both Houses of Parliament. I hope that, for the reasons I have set out, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

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

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

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

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I will be brief. In this group, I have Amendments 116, 117, 118 and 119. The first three seek to leave out “highway” on page 24, lines 14, 16 and 17, and insert “transport project”. We thought that would make the issue clearer. New Sections 6D(3), 6D(4)(a) and 6D(4)(b) in Clause 27 use “transport project” and I therefore did not understand why later in the same clause it was referred to as a highway scheme. Can the Minister explain why that is the case and if my amendments are not necessary? If they are, I hope he will accept them as it is odd to move from the wider and encompassing definition of transport project to the narrower definition of “highway”.

Amendment 119 seeks to provide further clarity by removing “announced”. In these sorts of schemes you get into arguments about when things were announced so we thought it would be much clearer to put,

“first proposed in consultation with the public”.

There will be an actual date on which a consultation is started and when papers and a clear plan are sent out. We thought this would be much better as we do not want disputes later because everyone is arguing about when the scheme was formally announced. That is the purpose behind the amendment and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, we have moved on to the no-scheme principle. The problem with this principle is that since it was first established it has been interpreted in a number of complex and often contradictory ways. Clause 27 is intended to clarify the position. It creates a statutory no-scheme principle and sets out a series of clear rules to establish the methodology of valuation in the no-scheme world. It also extends the definition of the scheme to include a relevant transport project in circumstances where land acquired in the vicinity for a regeneration or redevelopment scheme is facilitated or made possible by that project. We are extending the scheme because we want to ensure that an acquiring authority should not pay more for the land it is acquiring by reason of its own or someone else’s public investment.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for explaining the need for Amendment 107. The Committee will have observed that it is similar to government Amendment 108, so I am pleased to say that I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord. It is entirely correct that increases, as well as decreases, in the value of the land caused by the prospect of the scheme should be disregarded.

Amendment 109 was also proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. He argues that the words “in particular” should be omitted from the introduction to the rules defining the no-scheme world as they imply that some other rules might also be in play. He argues that the rules set out in new Section 6A should be an exclusive list. The Government’s expectation is that in the vast majority of cases the application of the rules as set out will be sufficient to establish the no-scheme world. There may, however, be rare cases in unforeseen circumstances where the Upper Tribunal considers that the application of the rules alone would not give a fair result. Retaining the phrase “in particular” gives the tribunal sufficient flexibility in these rare cases to fall back on the underlying no-scheme principle set out in new Section 6A(2) and its own common sense to arrive at a fair outcome. While I appreciate the noble Lord’s point about the need for clarity, the Government’s view is that the Upper Tribunal should retain this flexibility in order to reach a fair outcome in such unforeseen circumstances.

With Amendment 111, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and government Amendment 112 we now move to consideration of the rules themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, argues that Rule 4 is unnecessary and should be omitted. The Government’s view is that it remains necessary in order to complement Rule 3. Rule 3 assumes that there is no prospect of the same scheme or any other project to meet the same or substantially the same need as the scheme underlying the compulsory purchase. Rule 4 assumes that there is no prospect of any other scheme taking place on the land concerned. As currently drafted, this is too wide, so Amendment 112 restricts Rule 4 to disregarding only those schemes that could be undertaken only by the exercise of statutory functions or compulsory purchase powers. This means that the prospect of schemes brought forward by the private sector would still be considered as part of the no-scheme world. This is a fine point of valuation practice. In the light of what the noble Lord said, I think that the Government should further consider this issue very carefully with the expert practitioners who may conceivably have been briefing the noble Lord to find a solution.

Amendments 116, 117 and 118 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. New Section 6D(6) specifies that when the scheme to be disregarded under Rule 3 is a highway scheme, the reference to “any other project” includes another highway scheme to meet the same need as the actual scheme. This provision reflects the planning assumption in Section 14(5)(d) of the Land Compensation Act 1961. It is important that the assumptions for the no-scheme world and the planning assumptions that should be applied in that no-scheme world should be consistent. The current Section 14 was substituted by the Localism Act 2011. A similar provision was added to the original version of Section 14 by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. The noble Lord put forward a powerful case that this clarification could apply equally to other transport projects. If it did, Section 14 would also need to be amended to keep the two sets of assumptions in step. I think that this is another issue which the Government should reflect on with expert practitioners.

Turning to the definition of the scheme that must be disregarded before compensation may be assessed, government Amendments 113, 114 and 115 make some small adjustments in the context of the extension of the scheme to relevant transport projects. These have arisen from discussions between the Government and the Greater London Authority and Transport for London, which have only recently been concluded. I am very happy to give details if noble Lords would like them, but as they are relatively small adjustments, I propose to skip that part of the text.

I now return to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. Amendment 119 seeks to clarify new Section 6E(3) which disapplies Section 6E for land bought after a relevant transport project was announced but before this Bill was published. If such land were to be included in a redevelopment or regeneration project in the vicinity of that relevant transport project, it would be valued as if the relevant transport project was not part of the scheme to be disregarded.

The noble Lord’s amendment is much more specific than the Bill as currently drafted. The Government’s view is that such precision may not be necessary. The provision refers to an event that has already happened, and it is quite possible that a project may have been announced in some other way than that specified by the announcement. If so, it would be unfair to restrict this provision because the announcement did not fit within the somewhat narrow definition proposed.

However, having said that, it might be possible to clarify, perhaps in guidance, exactly what is meant by an announcement. That is certainly something that I would like to reflect on. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, to withdraw Amendment 107.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

“on behalf of the other”.

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

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

[Lord True (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

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

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

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

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

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

when disposing of land for housing.

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

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 6th February 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Andrews. She ably outlined why the Government should give a sympathetic response to it. I was pleased to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, talk about 549 Lordship Lane. I know the property, referred to as the Concrete House. The council has won an award for its work there: it bought it, did a good restoration and now uses it for shared ownership. I support the amendment. I am conscious of the time and I hope that the Minister will also want to respond quickly.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, at this stage of our flight, the co-pilot takes over. After a very smooth passage with my noble friend at the controls, there may well be some turbulence. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for moving this amendment. She chaired English Heritage for four years, so she has a proud record in the conservation world. I applaud the way she is carrying forward that commitment by tabling the amendment to insert a new clause. She is well qualified and well informed on this issue. As she said, listed buildings are an important part of our environment: they create a sense of identity in a locality and support local economies by attracting visitors. As my noble friend Lord Trenchard said, this offers the opportunity to provide housing in some restoration projects. I also commend the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the work done by him in his particular field.

We all support the objectives of the amendment, but there may be alternative routes to the common destination. The noble Baroness has been a CLG Minister herself, so she may feel some empathy for someone who, having listened to a popular and powerful case for a well-argued amendment, picks up the departmental brief which has at the top, “Resist”. I have two points of my own to make. Listening to the debate, I wondered if there had ever been a case where a charitable trust had done exactly what the noble Baroness had suggested—raised all the funds and then presented the local authority with an indemnity—and the local authority had refused to go ahead with a CPO. If there was such an example it would be relevant to the case that is being made.

My other thought was that, having sat patiently through the debate on this Bill, I have noticed a recurrent criticism that we are fettering the discretion of local authorities. We are accused of not trusting them, of passing primary legislation which makes them do things. The amendment does have the words “a planning authority must”. What is the view of the LGA, which is very well represented in the Committee? Does it welcome the discretion of its members being fettered in the way that the amendment seeks to do? Having said that, the noble Baroness was quite right to remind us that local authorities have the ability to compulsorily purchase listed buildings that are in need of repair. It is an important weapon in their armoury to protect our built heritage.

If one looks at the guidance provided by the Government, paragraph 16 of the compulsory purchase guidance notes states that it specifically provides for local authorities to consider requests from community groups—which could include heritage trusts—to use their compulsory purchase powers to acquire community assets that are in danger and, under the guidance, local authorities are required to consider such requests and to provide a formal and reasoned response.

In a sense, the onus is already on the local authorities to explain why—were they presented with the sort of offer that we have just heard—they feel they cannot accept it. It is also the case, as the noble Baroness said, that heritage trusts have access to grant funds and other sources of income to enable them to carry out the preservation of listed buildings and bring them back into use. What this amendment seeks to do is, in effect, to lock in a statutory embrace the heritage trusts on the one hand with the resources and the local authorities with the CPO powers on the other. I am slightly worried that this might undermine the collaborative approach which I think works quite well at the moment. As has already been said, the CPO power exists, but I am not convinced that the relationship between the local authority and the trust would be assisted if the local authority knew that the trust had this sanction behind it to compel it to do something.

On the point made by my noble friend Lord Trenchard, Historic England is working with local authorities and giving them advice and financial and technical support in many cases where listed buildings are falling into disrepair, enabling a satisfactory solution to be arrived at. That collaborative approach is the way forward. A good example, which if it were not 7.56 pm I would share with the Committee, is Hastings Pier which was restored in exactly the way that has been outlined.

The noble Baroness has commented that absentee owners are difficult to deal with or if the owners or reputed owners do not engage with the compulsory purchase process it can proceed without them, and the acquiring authority only has to make a reasonable attempt to find them. That attempt includes information in CPO notices simply displayed on site, as well as being sent to the last known address of the owners—then they can proceed.

So far as the trust is concerned, the cost of compulsory purchase is not always easy to assess. There could be court challenges and it could end up in the High Court. The defence of a legal challenge would fall to the trust and any failure of a trust to meet its responsibility to indemnify the local authority would put the trust’s future in jeopardy and the local authority would be liable for those costs.

In a nutshell, the Government are not convinced that the noble Baroness’s amendment to compel a local authority to proceed with a compulsory purchase would have a significant effect on the use of the CPO legislation. The current process provides a balanced approach, allowing local authorities and heritage trusts to enter into mutually acceptable arrangements. It encourages collaboration between local authorities and heritage trusts, and as I have said, that approach could be jeopardised if an element of compulsion were to be introduced.

I am happy to reflect on the dilemma which the noble Lord, Lord Beith, outlined about local authorities’ reluctance to take things forward. In the meantime, with the greatest respect, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Electoral Fraud

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 26th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Sir Eric Pickles made some recommendations on postal votes, although he did not make the recommendations to which the noble Lord referred. Postal voting is an enormous help to those who want to increase participation in democracy and it would be wrong to exclude it. Sir Eric said that postal votes should be renewed every three years. In other words, they should not automatically run on for ever and after three years people in receipt of a postal vote should have to reapply. The Government are consulting on those recommendations.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, there is a need to review the process in respect of electoral fraud and deal with some of the unintended anomalies in the procedures at present. Will the Minister and some of his officials meet me to discuss these matters?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am sure the Minister for the Constitution, who has responsibility for electoral matters, will be more than happy to meet the noble Lord to discuss this issue. Our profession is not held in high regard at the moment, and it assists us on all sides of the House if we can restore confidence in the electoral process and increase the integrity of the voting system.

Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 26th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the discussion of these orders. I remind the House of my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association. I seek clarification on two points in one of the orders, because, broadly speaking, most of what is proposed is not contentious for us.

I have a question about the combination of polls, and my query lies with paragraphs 8.7 and 8.10 of the Explanatory Memorandum. The memorandum says, rightly, that when you combine polls, that produces cost savings. Given that this is a new election, can the mayoral elections be held on the same day as a general election? In other words, might we end up with three elections on one day? I note the following words in paragraph 8.10:

“Government is confident that electoral administrators will be able to effectively administer combined authority mayoral elections and other polls that they may be combined with”.


That says that the Government are confident, but what evidence were they given by electoral administrators? Running three elections at once is clearly more complicated than running two.

My second question relates to the election booklet that the Minister referred to. Is it the intention to distribute that election booklet alongside poll cards? Clearly, if it is a single process, that will reduce costs at a time when local authorities are having great difficulty in balancing their budgets. Having to pay for two separate distributions will be more expensive and unwieldy than if both are delivered together.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my declaration of interests—specifically, that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

As we have been told, the orders before us today, if approved, will provide the framework and rules for the conduct of elections for directly elected mayors of combined authorities, specifically for the elections taking place in May this year. The second order, as we have heard, deals with the process of addressing vacancies in the office of mayor and sets out how those will be dealt with. I am happy to support both orders before the House this afternoon.

I note that the first order contains matters such as the spending limits and the formula to calculate those limits, the number of voters needed to sign a nomination paper to make it a valid nomination, and other administrative matters which are quite normal for elections.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has raised a couple of points and I shall be interested to hear the reply from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. However, he may be pleased to learn that in fact I have no questions for him in respect of either order and am content to approve both.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

It is very good that the noble Lord has no questions for me; it gives me more time in which to answer the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. I welcome the general approval of the orders that have been laid before us.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is right to say that you can have more than one election on one day. Indeed, when I fought three general elections, they were held on the same days as the county council elections in Hampshire. In England, it is common for more than one poll to be held on the same day. As the noble Lord said, this helps to enhance voter turnout and produces cost savings.

However, there could be an issue in 2020, given the number of polls scheduled to take place. We will have a UK parliamentary general election, police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales, Greater London Authority elections, local government elections in England, local authority mayoral elections in England and elections for mayors of combined authorities. I think that the number of polls scheduled to take place in 2020 raises issues for electoral administrators and administrative processes. We will consult the Electoral Commission, local authorities and administrators to make sure that there are no difficulties when we reach that date, and of course we have some time in which to plan.

The suggestion of combining the poll cards with the election addresses in one delivery seems to me to be common sense, if it can be done; I do not know whether the dates coincide. We have just had some in-flight refuelling—I have been handed a note to say that the precise timing of the distribution of booklets will be for the returning officer, the CARO. However, I take the point, and will pass it on, that there may be some economy if the poll cards and election addresses could be combined in the same delivery.

Voter Registration

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 25th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley, and at her request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper. I refer the House to my registered interests.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

That is a request the noble Lord was not in a position to refuse. The Government allocated £7.5 million to promote registration prior to the EU referendum, and a record 46.5 million people are now registered to vote. Online registration has made it easier and faster to make an application to register, with 75% of the 23 million applications made since the introduction of individual electoral registration using this method. The Government aim to further streamline the annual registration canvass and to work closely with the electoral community and civil society organisations to remove barriers that deter underregistered groups from joining the register.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, significant local elections are taking place this May, and millions of people are still not registered to vote. What are the Government going to do about this? Their response to date has been feeble, ineffective and lacking in any policy perspective other than to do as little as possible.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

With respect, I would reject the accusations that we have done very little. As I said, we allocated £7.5 million last May, ahead of the EU referendum, for a whole range of voter registration activities, and we now have a number of targeted initiatives for those who are underregistered—black and ethnic-minority groups, social tenants, tenants in the private rented sector, young people and students. We are developing those initiatives in order to drive up the numbers registered, which, as I said a moment ago, now stand at a record level.

Short-term Holiday Lets

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 8th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I understand the concern that the right reverend Prelate has raised; may I write to him when I have further details about that? I hope to be able to give him the assurance that he has just sought.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

First, I declare an interest as a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I welcome the announcement from Airbnb that it will ban people renting out properties on its site for more than 90 days from next year. Notwithstanding the answer the Minister gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, can he confirm that if anything comes to light whereby this company—or any other company or organisation involved in this process—is not fulfilling its obligation to ensure that landlords live up to theirs, and that they are offering proper assured shorthold tenancies for more than 90 days, the Government will work with the Mayor of London, London Councils, the Residential Landlords Association and others to see what can be done to strengthen the law and ensure that tenants get the protections they deserve?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The Mayor of London has written on this specific subject, saying:

“I support the right of Londoners to be able to benefit from renting out their homes for short periods, to meet new people, earn a little extra money, and add to the residential offer for visitors. I want to encourage as many people as possible from around the world to visit London, and I welcome the fact that Airbnb and similar sites help make it cheaper and easier for people to do so”.

So that is where the Mayor is coming from. I take on board the point that the noble Lord has just made about enforcement. You are in breach of the law if you let for more than 90 days in a calendar year, and local authorities have the relevant enforcement powers to deal with any breach.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments contains some important provisions that would be welcome in the Bill and should not be left hanging in the air to be covered by regulations at some point in the future. Amendment 37B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, would add the words “via a mortgage”. It is extremely important that we are clear about this, because if the property was purchased in any other way, such as by a cash buyer, that would signal that the person or persons had no need to take advantage of a product with a generous discount that could be realised in a relatively short space of time.

Equally, Amendment 41B, which is also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, makes clear that the person who buys the property should buy it to be their home. Again, I am fully supportive of that.

On government Amendment 42A, I will be interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, explain the reasoning behind the proposed change to the words in Clause 2(3)(c).

Amendment 43, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham, would add the criteria of “lives or works locally” to the Bill. That is aimed specifically at helping local people to take priority in getting a home in their local area rather than being forced to go somewhere else, and would help in building stable communities. I will be interested to hear the Government’s reasoning for their Amendments 44A and 44B in turn, which seem to turn on its head the requirement that individuals should be under 40. Is this because the Government have realised that in the present climate it will be very difficult for people under 40 to get a deposit together? Does the Minister envisage that this will apply to all areas of England or maybe just London in particular, where there is a problem with the affordability of housing?

Amendment 45, in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lord Beecham, would place a duty on the Secretary of State to consult the relevant local authorities and/or the Mayor of London when seeking to vary the price cap for starter homes. The requirement to consult relevant bodies when considering making this price cap change is good practice and will aid the Secretary of State in understanding the specific local circumstances that he or she should probably take into account when making such a change.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I may make a brief intervention following specifically Amendment 43, which the noble Lord just mentioned. I note with some alarm that, as we approach the third day of this stage of the Bill, we have now reached line 11 of page 1 of a 100-page Bill.