Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Fire and Rescue Functions) Order 2017

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I have overcome my senior moment. I wanted to ask whether any consideration had been given to ambulance trusts, which are fairly unaccountable bodies but are, of course, part of the emergency services. Has there been any discussion with either trusts or local authorities about a different relationship—keeping that phrase fairly neutral—as regards the future of that service?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I too must declare an interest as a former councillor and resident of Greater Manchester. I pay tribute to Tony Lloyd who has held the fort very well over the last couple of years in his role as interim mayor, and in all the roles he has held previously in government and local government. We have here three people who will be voting in the mayoral elections in May, so that is very good. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, mentioned turnout. I recall an experience I had in Greater Manchester of probably the worst turnout in history: the Benchill by-election back in November or December 2001, where turnout was 8%. That was a depressing low. Looking forward to the mayoral elections, I was quite sceptical about the Mayor of London, but that is not a position for which any political party is scraping round for candidates. It is very sought-after and has gained a profile over the years, and I fully expect that will happen in Greater Manchester and elsewhere. As it does, visibility will grow and accountability will become a lot more obvious.

The noble Lord, Lord Smith—I was going to call him my noble friend, but he is really—talked about blue light services being brought back down to GM. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked about ambulance trusts. It is within the gift of whichever combined authority to request collaboration in that regard, or that those matters be part of the devolved model. There are no limits to what the model may look at. That brings in the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy: that the different devolution deals are a bit of a patchwork. This is necessarily a patchwork because every area is different. For example, rural areas look very different from urban areas; they have different needs and different proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is smiling at me slightly but I said that on the then devolution Bill, and I firmly believe it. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that the Liberal Democrats grilled me on accountability and scrutiny during the passage of that Bill. We have very rigorous structures in place, certainly in Greater Manchester and, I hope, elsewhere.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked about the compulsion to combine police and fire authority areas, particularly where they are not contiguous. There is absolutely no compulsion to do that. If they are not contiguous, such a move would require structural change anyway.

I think I have answered all the questions, but if not I will certainly come back to noble Lords.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

If I could make some progress, I am sure the noble Lord will come back to me if he feels he needs to.

As the noble Lord said, the provisions in Part 1 give legislative effect to that commitment. Noble Lords will have ample opportunity to scrutinise the details of the Government’s proposals and to put forward amendments to them, but I am a bit disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, now seeks to strike out the key provisions in their entirety.

There are clear benefits to fostering greater joint working between the blue-light services, from better managing the changing nature of demand for services to providing greater value for money for taxpayers’ money in the interests of local people. While there are many excellent examples of collaboration between the emergency services across the country, which I talked about earlier—I draw the Committee’s attention to the excellent overview of such collaboration published by the Emergency Services Collaboration Working Group—it is clear that there is still more that can be done to secure smarter working, as I said. Collaboration is still patchy. We would like to make a more consistent service across the country.

The noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Beecham, talked about pilot schemes and trials. As I said, there is already substantial evidence to show that collaboration can work. The measures are locally enabling to reflect the Government’s view that local areas are best placed to determine the type of collaboration, but the provisions will in effect, by their very nature, be piloted as some areas will go first. A number of PCCs, such as Essex PCC, have already actively worked with their local fire and rescue services to develop a local business case.

[Lord Beecham]

Could the noble Baroness clarify what that means for responsibility for that service? Is it a collaboration between two services, or is she proposing that a single person should ultimately have responsibility for both services?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It is about a single person having responsibility for both services. By their very nature, some will go before others and some are more advanced in working up their business cases. The public consultation that the noble Lord asked about took place over a period of about six weeks, I understand. People had an opportunity to respond.

The noble Lord also asked whether I had had any individual representation. I certainly have from Greater Manchester, which will not surprise him. I probably have not been in post long enough for my mailbag to start filling up with people’s views. I suspect that the Fire Minister, Brandon Lewis, may have had rather more.

To go back to what I was saying, Sir Ken Knight, whom noble Lords have mentioned, carried out an efficiency review of the fire and rescue service back in 2013. He concluded that opportunities to foster innovation and joint working were “hindered by local relationships” —of course, things can be vastly enhanced by local relationships in parts—and that greater leadership was required to overcome barriers to collaboration. He concluded that police and crime commissioners are well placed to provide that leadership and could clarify accountability to the public.

Taken together, Clause 6 and Schedule 1 enable a PCC to take on responsibility for the fire and rescue service in his or her local area. The Government believe that the directly accountable leadership of PCCs can play a critical role in securing better commissioning and delivery of emergency services at a local level. By overseeing both services, they can maximise the opportunities for innovative collaboration between policing and fire services, and ensure that best practice is shared.

As noble Lords have alluded to, we are introducing two models for PCC governance of fire and rescue services. The first, the “governance” model, will enable the PCC to take on responsibility for fire and rescue services in their area. In this model, the two distinct organisations will remain, with a chief constable in charge of the police force and a chief fire officer continuing to have operational responsibility for the fire and rescue service.

As a further step, a PCC could put in place the “single employer” model, under which the PCC would appoint a single chief officer, who would employ both police and fire personnel. This approach will remove the barriers that can prevent the full potential of fire and police collaboration, including the need to draw up contracts and collaboration agreements. This model will also enable upper tiers of management to be streamlined, with a single chief officer at its head. To ensure consistency, Clause 8 applies the single employer model to combined authority mayors to enable mayors with both policing and fire functions to secure the same benefits of closer alignment of policing and fire as their PCC counterparts.

I stress that the provisions in Schedule 1, providing for PCCs to take on the functions of fire and rescue authorities, are locally enabling. I hope this gives the noble Lord, Lord Bach, comfort. I stress that the Government are not mandating the transfer of these functions to PCCs. We know that a one-size-fits-all approach would clearly be inappropriate and it should be up to local communities to have a say in how their services are provided. Rather, PCCs will be able to take on responsibility for fire and rescue only where a strong local case is made that it is in the best interests of either efficiency, economy and effectiveness on the one hand, or public safety on the other, for the transfer to take place. They would be required to consult locally on that case.

If the PCC does not have local agreement to their proposal but still wishes to proceed with their case, the Home Secretary will be required to seek an independent assessment of the PCC’s business case and consider it and the representations made by the relevant local authorities before taking the decision whether to give effect to the proposal. This will be a robust process that ensures local concerns are fully taken into account and provides for independent verification of the merits of the case.

It is also important to be clear—the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked about this—that under these reforms, local police forces and fire and rescue services would remain distinct front-line services, albeit supported by increasingly integrated back-office and support services. It is not an operational merger. The important distinction between operational policing and firefighting will be maintained, with the law preventing a warranted police officer being a firefighter remaining in place. There is no intention to give firefighters the power of arrest or other core powers of a constable.

Betting Shops: Serious Crime

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Monday 5th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce the incidence of serious crime affecting betting shops and their staff.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, all those who work in betting shops should be able to do so free from fear of crime. Where crimes are committed, they should be reported to the police so that they can be investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, given that betting shops account for 97% of all police calls to gambling establishments and 40% of serious crimes against businesses, and given that 7,000 machines are destroyed by gamblers in these premises each year and a growing proportion of shops have only one staff member on the premises, despite a rising tide of violent assaults on staff, when will the Government implement the delayed triennial review of the industry, and will it require a minimum of two employees to be present at all times when such premises are open?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right about the percentage, but of course betting shops make up a huge percentage of gambling establishments. He is absolutely right to make the point about tackling crime at betting shops and the police should be, and are, taking it seriously. As he will know, there are requirements around licensing to protect vulnerable people, and some of the partnership working that is going on—for example, the Safe Bet Alliance, which was set up in London in 2010—has proved very successful.

Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral Combined Authority (Election of Mayor) Order 2016

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 12th July 2016 Grand Committee

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, we are in the slightly unusual position of having no fewer than seven former council leaders gathered together here, including the noble Baroness the Minister. I do not know what the collective noun for such a group would be. Perhaps I may suggest a redundancy of council leaders, because—let us face it—most of us, or most of our successors, are finding their position extremely limited these days.

We are engaged in something of an experiment. It is an interesting experiment, as most of us have acknowledged, with considerable potential but with certain concerns which have already been voiced both in this debate and on previous occasions. The issues are very broad, but they cannot be addressed simply by the imposition of a mayoral system. Many of us feel that there should have been a local decision to adopt that system. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and I were on opposite sides of a referendum in Newcastle for having an elected mayor for the city. His successor was the Liberal Group Leader on Newcastle City Council who I formed an unlikely coalition with and which turned out to be successful in securing a no vote. But we now have a situation where Newcastle, if the North East Combined Authority goes ahead, will have an elected mayor imposed and in the Tees Valley area we already have an elected mayor in Middlesbrough. However, we have an authority which, having had an elected mayor, then decided to get rid of him and the position in Hartlepool, and yet they are going to be faced with that requirement. It is interesting that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee asked the Government what consultation had been carried out about these proposals and the Government replied that Ministers had indicated that the:

“Passage of legislation, is founded on the longstanding tradition of representative democracy in this country. The matters covered in these Orders have been consented to by the democratically elected representatives of the people of Liverpool City Region, and of the Tees Valley”.

Accordingly they said:

“Those giving consent will have done so in the knowledge that they are democratically accountable through the ballot box to the people of Liverpool City Region and of Tees Valley, and we can be confident that they will have engaged with their constituents in such ways as they consider appropriate”.

That is a very high-sounding affirmation of the belief in local democracy. Oddly enough, the principle does not seem to extend to the decisions which councils can take about the services they deliver. They are being constantly eroded. We are now seeing further moves to distance local authorities from the provision of education and we have seen similar moves elsewhere. More particularly, of course, we have the financial position of local authorities, which are rigorously and vigorously constrained in the exercise of their functions. For example, the vaunted democracy about which the Government boast did not extend to allowing councils to increase council tax by more than 2% without a referendum. That was not a decision they were deemed competent to make. We have of course seen similar erosions of responsibility in other areas.

On the financial side in particular there is significant loss of resources to authorities involved in the devolution process. The National Audit Office report sets this out very clearly. We hear much about the additional funding, which in the case of a number of areas will amount to £30 million a year over 30 years, or £900 million, which sounds like a great deal of money. That sum will be paid into the Liverpool City region. A smaller amount, because it is a smaller area, of £15 million a year and therefore £450 million will go into the Tees Valley area. It sounds impressive, but then we must look at what is currently being spent. Total capital spending—this is what the money will be for—in the Liverpool City region now is £312 million a year. In addition, £44 million under the annual local growth fund is payable to the LEP, which is obviously also concerned with that infrastructure. Therefore the total amount in the Liverpool area is something over £350 million, so £30 million distributed between all those authorities amounts to something like 8% of what is currently being spent on capital programmes. The position is similar in Tees Valley where the total capital spend of local authorities and the LEP is just under £190 million. It will get £15 million, which obviously is something like 7.5% of what is currently being spent. The financial investment that is being made and boasted about in connection with this project is minimal.

On business rates, I think the Government are still consulting on what needs to happen with them. It is all very well to say that local authorities will be able to keep business rates, but in both Merseyside and Tees Valley areas—I suspect particularly in those areas—the business rate income will be pretty minimal relative to the population and in comparison with other authorities. Presumably there has to be some kind of mechanism for redistribution. I do not know whether the Minister will be able to indicate how far the talks have progressed, and she may not wish to tell us or not be able to tell us what the outcome will be. However, where are we as regards the timetable for coming out with a clear position on how the business rates will be redistributed, if there is a need for, as surely there has to be, an element of redistribution? As it happens, it appears that in some areas we will go into this new system and committing to it without even knowing what the timetable is for when the business rate agenda will be addressed. Surely that is extremely unsatisfactory.

The issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about scrutiny is valid. There has to be local scrutiny and it ought to be built into local arrangements. We provided according to my suggestion for an audit committee under the legislation which would give some measure of independent scrutiny, and those who have been calling both today and hitherto for an effective scrutiny process are obviously right to do so.

But of course there is then the question, given that business rates will be the only locally raised revenue, of what happens to the services not merely of the combined authority but also of the constituent local authorities since revenue support grant will no longer be paid. Surely the two things have to be aligned if local services and the devolved functions are to be delivered adequately. I refer again without making any apologies for doing so to the regret that I and others have voiced about the abolition in the early days of the coalition Government of regional offices of government, never mind the regional development agencies. As the noble Baroness will recall, the abolition of regional government offices changed a system which had worked well in providing a close working relationship between Government departments and local authorities. In each region virtually all the Government departments were represented, engaging with local authorities and operating as a conduit between Whitehall and those areas. Now that we are creating these potentially powerful mayoral authorities, it seems to be even more important that there should be a local dialogue which can facilitate a closer working relationship between central and local government.

I have a final question to raise about the position of police and crime commissioners. The understanding is that it will be possible—indeed, Manchester has already opted for this—to have the police and crime commissioner position combined with that of the elected mayor. The next Prime Minister in her current position, which will last for another 24 hours or thereabouts, was keen to promote the notion that fire authorities should go down the same route as police and crime commissioners. Does the noble Baroness have any thoughts or information about how that process might develop and whether the Government are currently working on proposals which would add fire authorities to the police service? Perhaps we will have to wait to hear what the new Prime Minister says, but is it the Government’s expectation, and possibly their political direction, that the new mayors will have as a matter of course that combined power or even just the police and crime commissioner power? That raises in my mind and I suspect in those of others both here and elsewhere some really strong concerns about the concentration of power in such sensitive areas in what will be effectively a single pair of hands, something that many would consider to be undesirable.

Clearly we want to see the new system being given a chance to work and we want local decision-making to be effective at addressing the different situations that face each group of local authorities, but that cannot happen in my submission without adequate financial resources and without the Government preparing not simply to offload these responsibilities, but actually engaging with what will in effect be two levels of local government to secure the improvements that they talk about wanting to see and which are desperately needed in so many parts of the country.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have made a variety of points on the order. Perhaps I may apologise to noble Lords for being late. I was happily having a cup of tea with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and I did not hear my phone ringing to say that our business had started. I apologise to noble Lords for being a little late.

I shall start with the question from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. He asked if I could confirm the election of a mayor in 2017. Once the order is made, a mayoral election will be held on 4 May 2017 and if further orders are not agreed, the mayor will be elected and he or she will chair the combined authority, but will have no powers to exercise individually. The combined authority will have only its existing functions; that will be the situation if further orders are not agreed from now on in.

Planning: Retrospective Applications

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a very valid point. We certainly want to balance the imposition of too high fees and encourage people to bring forward applications, but in terms of budgets local authorities have certainly played their part in contributing to reducing the deficit. They have performed that service very well indeed. We need to strike that balance between having fees that do not encourage efficiency and enabling local planning authorities to carry out their role.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister was candid enough to acknowledge the frustration felt by those of us who were involved for so long with the Housing and Planning Bill, but is there not a larger issue here? The House has repeatedly received reports from the delegated legislation committee and other committees expressing their concern about the increasing reliance on secondary legislation and the inadequate scrutiny that ensues from that, both in this House and in the other House, where it is probably even worse. Is it not time to have discussion between the two Houses, and within this House, as to the proper role of secondary legislation and how the House can exercise proper scrutiny over it in advance of the completion of legislation?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we have had many debates on the subject of when secondary legislation should be used and its appropriateness. I hope that some of the pressure which this House, and indeed I, have brought to bear has ensured that we have had better information about secondary legislation. Certainly, where we have a framework Bill, that necessitates quite a lot of secondary legislation, but I think that the House has made its view very clear going forward in this Parliament.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Wednesday 11th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, we return for the last time to the higher-value vacant housing provisions contained in the Housing and Planning Bill. Earlier today, the other place considered the amendment in lieu proposed by this House yesterday and it has again offered a financial privilege reason for rejecting it. This is the third time that the other House has made the same point, each time following emphatic votes.

I fully understand why the other place has rejected the amendment: it is because the arguments are so compelling. High-value vacant housing is a clear manifesto commitment. It will increase housing supply through the delivery of affordable homes and extend home ownership by funding the discounts for the ground-breaking voluntary right-to-buy agreements. I reiterate what I said yesterday: the manifesto clearly states that the homes sold will be replaced by new homes. It does not say that there will be like-for-like replacement because that is not always what communities need. We want to ensure that new homes serve the needs of communities. That is why we want to retain flexibility in the legislation so that the Government, working with local places, can facilitate the development of the type of homes that communities need today.

From the outset, this Bill has enabled the Secretary of State to enter agreements with local authorities so that they can retain receipts from high-value asset sales to build new homes. Through the passage of the Bill, and with the immense scrutiny of your Lordships’ House, we have made it clear that where agreements are made, they will deliver at least one new affordable home for each property that is expected to be sold, and in London at least two new affordable homes for each property expected to be sold.

As I confirmed yesterday, the term “affordable” includes a range of different types of housing, from new homes for sub-market rent to home ownership products such as shared ownership and starter homes. I also explained that we will compensate local authorities for transaction costs and the debt supported by the higher-value housing expected to be sold. After that, we have been clear that the receipts will be used to fund both right-to-buy discounts for housing association tenants and the delivery of new affordable housing. We are not intending to use them for any other purpose.

As I explained yesterday, the amendment in lieu, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, would impact on our ability to work with local authorities to deliver the best, most cost-effective deals for replacement housing.

As we reach the conclusion of the Bill I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy, Lord Beecham, Lord Shipley, Lord Cameron and Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, as well as many other noble Lords, who have contributed their expertise to our debates and have done so with dedication and stamina. Together we have made real improvements to the Bill. Although we do not agree on all aspects of policy, noble Lords have debated the issue with intelligence and good humour—and we have needed it.

I pay tribute to the support that I have received over these many hours from my noble friends Lord Younger of Leckie and Lady Evans of Bowes Park. I have greatly appreciated the support of my noble friends behind me and of my officials. I am sure that we are all looking forward to getting some well-deserved rest.

For the last time, I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, before addressing the substantive issue before the House I wish to draw attention to material which appeared in today’s edition of the Sun, reporting on our deliberations yesterday. The article began by stating:

“Ministers last night vowed to make MPs sit through the night to pass new Right to Buy laws after Labour peers blocked them”.

It went on to claim:

“The Lords again voted down key funding arrangements to extend the 1980s policy to all housing association tenants”.

There are only three things wrong with that statement. First, there was no call for MPs to sit through the night—or indeed at all—on this issue until, as I understand it, this afternoon. Secondly, the vote in favour of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, included Lib Dem and several Cross-Bench Peers as well as Labour Peers. Thirdly, the amendment did not amount to the alleged voting down of key funding arrangements. In fairness to the Sun, it has clearly been fed this distorted version of events by the Government.

What is much worse, however, is the astonishing personal attack on the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, by the Minister, Brandon Lewis, which the paper also reports. Mr Lewis says of this distinguished and highly respected public servant:

“Not only is Lord Kerslake unelected, he is the owner of his own home who is trying to stop others from owning theirs”.

Quite apart from the offensive language unworthy of a Minister of the Crown, this disgraceful attack entirely overlooks the role of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, in supporting the voluntary agreement between the housing association movement, of which he is a leading member, and the Government in extending the right to buy to their tenants. He is owed a prompt and full apology.

I turn now to the substantive issue before us. The House has twice asked the House of Commons—yesterday by a small majority—to reconsider its position in respect of one aspect of the Bill in relation to the sale of high-value homes and their replacement. It has declined to do so, and we now have reluctantly to accept the position. But I wish to return to the question of financial privilege, the claim to which has been reiterated by the Commons and has already been the subject of debate in your Lordships’ House. Yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, made much of the issue and criticised the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, in terms which I think, on reflection—although by no means to be compared with those of Mr Lewis—he might just regret. He and I have had brief exchanges on the issue of financial privilege—a matter which my ancestors appear unaccountably to have omitted as the 11th commandment when they recorded what was engraved on the tablets of stone handed down at Mount Sinai.

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, averred correctly that the designation of an amendment as one involving financial privilege is not made by the Speaker, the Government or the House of Commons. But that is not the end of the matter. In a paper on financial privilege in February 2012, the Clerk of the House and the Clerk of Legislation set out the position with complete clarity. When the Commons considers Lords amendments in which financial privilege is involved, the Commons can waive its privileges. If the Government use their majority, which of course they are entitled to do, the reason given to this House will be the financial privilege reason. The paper goes on to affirm that “the Commons can accept” such an amendment and “waive its privileges”, and continues:

“The Commons waives its privilege far more often than not. For example, 115 LAs”—

Lords amendments—“to the Localism Bill”, emanating, I remind noble Lords, from the same department that has fathered the present Bill,

“were designated as involving financial privilege. The House waived its privilege on all of them”.

Moreover, it adds:

“In the last three years”—

therefore including more than a year of the last Labour Government—

“sixteen Bills have come back from the Lords with amendments which involved privilege”.

On eight of them, privilege was waived on all the Lords amendments; on seven, privilege was waived on most, but not all; and on only one was privilege not waived because it required a money resolution.

It is therefore clear that this House is not acting improperly in passing amendments that might invoke privilege and that the Commons can, if it chooses, waive such a claim. There is no justification for intemperate claims about the actions of this House in the exercise of its duties to scrutinise and if possible improve legislation, let alone for the kind of attack on an individual Member which was launched today.

I will conclude on a more congenial matter, which is to express once again the thanks of the Opposition and I suspect all Members of the House to the noble Baroness the Minister and her colleagues—but especially to the noble Baroness, who has seen through this dreadful Bill with as much charm, patience, skill and effort as could be demanded of anybody. We are extremely grateful to her and to those who have supported her. We end up, in the view of many of us, with a very bad Bill that is by no means the fault of the noble Baroness, and she takes with us our good wishes for a relaxing weekend—before eventually we start going through the mass of secondary legislation that will flow from her efforts.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I endorse my noble friend’s remarks about the issues perfectly properly raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. From the Minister’s remarks, one might have thought that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, was going to utterly sabotage the Government’s proposals for starter homes. There is no evidence to support that as a potential outcome if his amendment were to be approved. It does not replace the principle that the Government seek to advance; it complements it. We seem to be invited to adopt the Government’s position on starter homes, failing which we are going to get some starter Peers. We have probably had a few of those in the last few years but that is not a matter that ought to weigh too heavily on us.

I think noble Lords on all sides of the House endorse the Government’s ideas for promoting home ownership, particularly—but not necessarily exclusively—among younger people. After all, this is the week in which we are talking about mortgages for people up to 85 years of age. There are people above the age of 40, who have been on the housing ladder for decades, for whom this Bill will do very little. Whereas, a slightly more relaxed approach of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, is advocating, would assist them, without damaging the prospects of those aged 40 and under, for whom this part of the Bill seeks to provide some hope and action. I agree with that.

I sympathise with the noble Lord’s amendment. I regret that the Government do not appear willing to move towards something that would make a modest difference to the provision of housing for more people in a rather different way but not one which, in my judgment, would damage the Government’s intentions. It certainly would not contravene their manifesto commitment.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken so clearly on this group.

As I said in my opening speech, and have made completely clear throughout the passage of the Bill in this House, a nationally set starter homes requirement is essential to delivering our 200,000 starter homes commitment. The amendment would mean that the requirement for starter homes would become something entirely different. This is not what we promised to deliver in our manifesto.

The Minister for Housing and Planning last night set out on the Floor of the House in the other place that we need to get on with helping those people to fulfil their dreams and get on to the home ownership ladder. Some 86% of our population want to be given that chance to do so. I am in complete agreement with him, and with my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham for reiterating the point that he made last night. It is,

“beyond astonishing that the upper House should try to amend a measure that has received such a clear message of support from this elected Chamber, and in respect of which we have an election mandate to help young people”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/5/16; col. 459.]

Elected honourable Members have been clear in their overwhelming support for delivering our starter homes commitment, and, as my noble friends Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Cormack, said, Amendment 10B was rejected with a majority of 83.

This House has done its duty. It has scrutinised, and the Government have revised as far as they possibly can. It is time to stop and to recognise and respect the will of the electorate and the primacy of a manifesto mandate. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that the legislation had been rushed through and that the Commons had not scrutinised it properly. However, I understand from the Commons that timings were agreed, including by the Labour Whips. I have already made clear to the House that Amendment 10B would fundamentally change the Government’s manifesto intention as proposed in the Bill, and that we therefore consider the Salisbury convention to be engaged.

I once again reassure the House that the Government are completely committed to ensuring that a range of housing tenures come forward. These include shared ownership and other affordable home ownership products. However, we are legislating for starter homes alone as a new product, designed to address a specific gap in the market, and we have a clear manifesto mandate to do that.

I also reassure the House that the Government are consulting on setting the percentage requirement. These proposals include exemptions where a starter home requirement will not be expected. I would be happy to meet noble Lords to discuss this further before the resulting regulations are brought back to this House.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, said that the percentage requirement was set at 20%. Twenty per cent is currently a consultation proposal and is not yet fixed. However, we are consulting the sector on this and other aspects of the starter home regulations. The noble Lord also talked about current proposals being rigid and inflexible. We are consulting on how the starter homes requirement will apply. This includes setting out exceptions on the basis of viability and the types of housing being built, such as housing for older people.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, suggested that this was not a wrecking amendment. We promised the electorate that we would deliver 200,000 starter homes by 2020. This was our election mandate and this amendment would undermine delivering that.

I have listened carefully to the debate, and I hope our clear manifesto commitment for starter homes means that there is no need to divide your Lordships’ House. With these reassurances in mind, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment to my Motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, last night the Commons spent all of 52 minutes debating the amendments passed by your Lordships’ House. In the course of the debate, the Minister, Brandon Lewis, asserted that this House had,

“chosen again to oppose one of”,

the Government’s,

“most important manifesto commitments, namely the commitment to ensure that more homes are built: homes that we need, and homes that young people are crying out for”.

To borrow a phrase from a somewhat more famous Conservative, Winston Churchill, that is a “terminological inexactitude”. It is perhaps less personal than the assertion by a Conservative Back-Bencher that the manifesto commitment was,

“struck down and circumscribed by the unelected, unaccountable panjandrums in the House of Lords”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/5/16; cols. 458-59.]

I declare my interest, and perhaps others of your Lordships do so as well.

The Conservative manifesto commitment was to build 275,000 affordable homes by 2020 and all of—my words, not theirs—10,000 homes to rent at below market rents. Nothing in the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, conflicts with the manifesto commitment to build more homes. Part of the problem lies in the repeated use of the adjective “affordable”, and the failure of the Bill—and Ministers—to define the term other than in relation to starter homes, where the examples of affordability, reaching up to £450,000, are widely recognised as unrealistic. But the particular difficulty is the evident and extreme reluctance of the Government to acknowledge the need for affordable housing, which essentially means social housing, for rent, beyond identifying the massive programme of 2,000 houses a year at below market rents for the next five years.

The Government purport to address this issue by the provisions of the Bill which allow, but do not require, the Secretary of State to enter into agreements with councils to reduce the amounts they would have to pay to the Secretary of State, principally to fund the right to buy of housing association tenants. There is no requirement to do so, beyond the need in London, under an agreement for two-for-one replacement, and one-for-one elsewhere; but there is no requirement for the replacement to be by way of like-for-like tenure—only that replacements should be “affordable”. Moreover, as we have heard at some length during the passage of this Bill, the Government are unable to produce figures defining the meaning of “high value”, or the number of properties affected locally or nationally, or the likely rate of vacancies, or the cost of administering the scheme, or how they will judge how much to require councils to pay up-front annually, since the Bill envisages such payment will be required whether or not sales are effected. To misquote Marx—Groucho, not Karl—“A child of five could understand the impact of this policy. Bring me a child of five”, or perhaps, in these days, a special adviser.

Ministers constantly state that there are 16 million pieces of paper relevant to this issue and they are therefore unable to make any assessments. In that case, surely the answer is not to legislate before any real assessment of the impact is made, and not to rely on unamendable secondary legislation to ram through controversial and untested policies. That brings me to the claim that financial privilege prevents us from amending the Bill. The Government have already accepted some amendments with possible financial consequences, but the point is that financial privilege is not some God-given formula by which this House is prevented from amending legislation. We are not in the Moses Room with tablets of legislative stone; Governments can choose not to invoke or apply financial privilege, and we are entitled to invite them to do so. In any case, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, suggested, the amendment does not breach financial privilege.

The Motion moved by the noble Lord is a modest one. All that it seeks is that in calculating the financial adjustments to be made on the forced sale of high-value properties, councils should be able to retain sufficient money to provide two-for-one replacements in London, and one for one elsewhere, with the rider that the Secretary of State should consider allowing sufficient to be retained to permit that replacement by social housing for rent, when they can demonstrate need. It is not carte blanche—it is still a matter for the Minister to agree. It is the least that could reasonably be asked for. It is consistent with the manifesto pledge to build more homes, and it deserves the support of the House, and indeed of the Commons. In no way does it override a manifesto commitment, and if the noble Lord invites the House to ask the Commons to think again, the Opposition will support him.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken so eloquently on the amendment, particularly my noble friends who are such constitutional experts, far more so than me—my noble friends Lord Forsyth, Lord True and Lord Cormack. My noble friend Lord Cormack asked initially about the regulations and working with noble Lords. I hope that, whatever noble Lords think about the Bill, they will agree that I have taken the time whenever needed to engage with noble Lords from across the House to discuss any aspect of legislation or regulations that they might wish—and I fully intend to continue in that role.

Amendment 47E, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, in lieu of Amendment 47, is not acceptable to the Government. It would require that, when the Secretary of State enters into an agreement, sufficient funding must be provided to fully fund the cost of the new home. I hope that noble Lords will not misinterpret me when I say that the Government want more housing to be built, and I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that the arguments that this House recognised in relation to the last group apply just as strongly now. We have listened, and I have reassured this House strongly on how flexible agreements will be. It is now time to stop undermining our ability to proceed and to let us deliver our manifesto commitments.

We support the involvement of local authorities in delivering new homes. We value the creative partnerships across the sector to increase housing supply. But additional homes should not be funded simply through retained payments from the sale of high-value vacant housing. We have discussed that at length throughout the course of the Bill. There should be opportunities for local authorities to contribute their land, assets or funding, and to work in partnership with other providers in their area to build homes. We also want to ensure that value for money is secured, and ensure that the homes are delivered as cost effectively as possible.

In placing expectations on receipts, the amendment would prevent the Government from fulfilling their manifesto commitment, because it would significantly reduce the funding available for the voluntary right to buy. Since November last year, more than 29,000 housing association tenants have asked to be kept up to date with the right-to-buy scheme via our website. It is not right that we should deny these tenants their dream of home ownership.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, talked about numbers. Let us reflect a bit back to the Conservative-led coalition being the first Government to end a Parliament with more affordable homes than we started with. Labour oversaw the loss of 420,000, by contrast. This is about our manifesto commitment to extend the right to buy.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, talked about the financial privilege that the Government look to invoke. That is not true—it is a matter for the Commons Speaker on the advice of Commons clerks. It is not a political decision. I do not know a lot about the constitution, but I do know that.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, talked about increased homelessness. A key part of this policy is to release the value locked up in vacant higher-value housing assets in order to build more homes. We are committed to supporting the most vulnerable in our society to have a decent place to live. Since 2010, we have invested more than £500 million to help local authorities prevent nearly 1 million households becoming homeless. Time spent in temporary accommodation ensures that no family is without a roof over their heads. We have made common-sense changes to the law to allow local authorities to offer accommodation in good-quality private sector accommodation, and households, on leaving temporary accommodation, now spend on average less time in temporary accommodation than they did in 2010.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked why we would not agree to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, to enable homes to be built on a like-for-like basis. Our manifesto made it clear that we wanted to increase home ownership and drive up the supply of new homes. The receipts from the sale of high-value assets will enable us to deliver both of these commitments. The receipts will be used to give up to 1.3 million housing association tenants the right to the same level of right-to-buy discount as has been enjoyed by local authority tenants for decades.

But—and this is equally important—it will provide receipts that local authorities that enter into agreement with us will use to provide affordable homes. When they choose not to—and some will choose not to—the money will be returned to government to provide additional homes. As I have previously explained, the proceeds from right to buy will contribute to the funding that the housing association will use to provide an additional home for the one that is being sold, and an additional two homes in London.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Wednesday 4th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Lansley for explaining the process of financial privilege; he has the privilege of coming from the other place and explained to us that no other reason needs to be given other than financial privilege, although there may be others.

Let me be clear: this Government will get our social housing working as efficiently and as effectively as it can, not only so that more people own their own home but to increase the affordable housing supply. A guarantee of one affordable home to replace one sold, and two affordable homes in London, is what our higher-value vacant housing provisions will deliver.

Amendments 47B and 47C have been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, in lieu of Amendment 47, which the other place emphatically voted against, as my noble friend Lord Lansley pointed out. These amendments mean that, when a local authority can demonstrate a need for social housing, it will be able to retain the receipts that it needs to fully fund the provision of that housing. They prevent government from considering whether local authorities can deliver the housing required, and they could significantly reduce the funding available for the voluntary right to buy, preventing the Government from fulfilling their manifesto commitment—a manifesto that they fully intend to implement, as my noble friend Lord Porter says. By focusing solely on social housing, they prevent the agreement process from recognising that flexibility will be needed to respond to diverse housing needs in the country. They also fail to recognise that other different types of housing may better meet local housing need. This feels restrictive and like a top-down approach. Instead, I believe that a localist approach to the agreement process would be better for everyone. Local authorities with particular housing needs in their area should be given the opportunity to reach bespoke agreements about the delivery of different types of new homes in their areas. If local authorities can demonstrate, for example, a clear need for new affordable homes, we should aim to make an agreement with them, subject, of course, to value-for-money considerations and evidence of a strong track record on housing delivery.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, talked about the Secretary of State having all the power in the new agreement proposal. The principle that local authorities have the right to come to an agreement with the Secretary of State is not a new concept. The key word here is agreement, with discussion between local areas and the Secretary of State with a national mandate to deliver the voluntary right to buy and new affordable homes.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked how much money we expect to raise from the policy. Receipts will depend on a number of factors and decisions. The Bill sets out a framework with further detail to be provided through secondary legislation. It has flexibility through the formula approach which enables us to continue working the detail through with the sector. Once we understand what the data tell us, we will be able to consider what the detail will be and subsequently how this will fund the two aims of the policy: right-to-buy discounts for housing association tenants and funding the building of new homes.

[Lord Beecham]

Do I understand the Minister to be saying that the Government do not have an estimate of the amount that is to be raised? What do they say about the Shelter estimate of £4.6 billion?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I agree with the noble Lord—

[Lord Beecham]

The noble Baroness must be so pleased to be getting towards the end of this. I do not blame her at all for trying to push matters forward.

We are hearing a good deal today about financial privilege as the Government are deploying a tactic of pleading it as a reason to reject amendments passed in this House. The words must sound ironic to couples on the national minimum wage, who are deemed to be “financially privileged” if their household income exceeds £31,000 outside London or £40,000 in it, and therefore face, as we have heard, increases in their non-subsidised rent. They will no doubt contrast their position with the financial privilege extended to starter home buyers, who stand to benefit from discounts of more than £80,000 in London on the more expensive houses and tax-free capital gains when they eventually sell.

Nevertheless, I welcome the Government’s modest concession on the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, again establishing that the best is the enemy of the ludicrous when it comes to legislation, and their acceptance at the last gasp, it must be said, of my amendment seeking to ensure updating of the thresholds on a regular basis—although I wish that they had listened to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who had a better idea than mine, which was to tie the formula to RPI. It may be, given that they have a discretion, that they will take that stance. If they did, I would applaud them even more. In the circumstances, I am very happy to support the amendments that the Minister indicated and I will not press Motion H1.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I apologise for—

[Lord Beecham]

Sorry, I have received a prompt from my noble friend Lady Hollis, to ask what the estimate is—I am sorry, I have even forgotten what the prompt was. Perhaps my noble friend can say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, Amendment 111 implemented a number of the DPRRC’s recommendations. It also took steps to ensure that our pilots would test the benefits of introducing competition to planning application processing on a level playing field, and make clear that the planning decision would always be made by the local planning authority. The other place has accepted Amendment 111 but has proposed a minor amendment, Amendment 111A, to clarify that regulations can provide only for temporary arrangements in England. I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, tempted though I am to indulge in a forensic examination of this complex and crucial amendment, I think I will spare the House.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Wednesday 20th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I also come to this without a full appreciation of the implications. In particular, I wonder whether schemes would be able to depart from what might become requirements elsewhere; for example, in relation to energy efficiency or other aspects that one would expect to be part of planning consent for new schemes.

I do not quite understand what the decision-making mechanism would be. Once the scheme had been floated, would it still involve applications having to be approved within the new framework by something equivalent to a development control committee or sub-committee of the kind that most councils now have, or is it to be a sort of executive process without member involvement at the level of individual local authorities or perhaps a combination of authorities when one is looking at a wider area? It is not quite clear how the practical side would be handled.

I share the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley—if not doubts, then questions—about the nature of public involvement and how that would be fed into the process. Can the noble Lord identify any experience in another jurisdiction—one which is somewhat analogous to ours—of this kind of approach? Is there experience of this way of dealing with applications that we might learn from in terms of how it might develop here? I would certainly be interested in seeing the matter progressed, but I do not think that we have enough information positively to affirm that it should go forward as part of the Bill—it is a bit early for that without knowing a good deal more about how it might work. It may be that some further indications can be given and the Minister wants to take the matter back, although not necessarily with a view to dealing with it in a week’s time at Third Reading—we are pretty late in the process to bring something as potentially radical as this into the Bill. Even if it does not go very far on this occasion, it is certainly a concept that is worth exploring, but if I were the Minister, I do not think that I would be jumping at incorporation into the Bill quite at this stage. However, she may have a different view.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, who moved it in his absence just before the Easter Recess. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, had a bad back at that stage and half the noble Lords who are interested in this Bill were somewhat indisposed, but I am glad that everybody is now feeling much better. We may well, of course, be ill before Prorogation. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, who spoke as well.

My noble friend made some interesting arguments about the benefits of this model. He made a compelling case for the leadership role of local authorities and their ability to innovate in a way that reflects the needs and voices of their local communities. There is also a pressing need to build new homes, and I am strongly convinced of the importance of the role that local authorities play in that. I am therefore open to new approaches such as this which might achieve our dual obligations of housing growth and localism. I want also to reflect further on how a model such as this might be used in practice—both the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, raised some questions which are worthy of consideration.

My noble friend has made it clear that his amendment is simply enabling. If a clear case could be made for the circumstances where these measures might apply, such circumstances would need to be set out in regulations which would have to be debated in both Houses. On that basis, and with those checks and balances in place, I am willing to accept the amendment at this stage, but subject to considering further whether any technical adjustments are needed for the remaining stage of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I wholeheartedly endorse the critiques of the proposal by the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Shipley. Several real problems have already been identified, but it is worth reminding ourselves that this is yet another incursion on the rights and roles of local authorities, imposing an external component on to the resolution of what ought to be determined locally between the local authority and the applicant. Moreover, the whole thing is another bureaucratic nightmare. There are five pages of the schedule. The Explanatory Notes make it clear that there are also to be regulations—surprise, surprise, once again made by the Secretary of State. They say:

“The Secretary of State can also make regulations setting out … who, other than the local planning authority and applicant, could make a request for the appointment of a person”.

So it need not even be the planning authority or the applicant who makes that application. Who else might make it is presumably at large—anybody could. The regulations can also deal with,

“the timing and form of requests”,

and,

“that a person can be appointed if outstanding issues have not been resolved within set timeframes”,

as well as,

“further detail about appointments … what qualifications or experience the appointed person must have”,

and “fees payable”. Those will all be determined by regulations.

The Explanatory Notes say:

“The appointed person must take into account any template or model terms published by the Secretary of State. Regulations can also set out other details … Regulations can also set out restrictions on the local planning authority’s ability to ask for additional obligations”,

as well as,

“periods for determining planning applications after a report is issued;

circumstances or cases where the consequences in this Schedule don’t apply; and

any further steps required to be taken by the appointed person”.

Once again, we are going to have myriad regulations, the sight of which is withheld from us, presumably because they have not yet been drafted. They will be produced at a later date, again without any prior consideration by Parliament at the time when the Bill has gone through. There is also the possible perverse effect that, given that applicants may have, as they perceive it, difficulties with the local authority, why should they not seek the involvement of the appointed person—not so much by way of an appeal but in the initial part of the process? They could delay things even more. If they thought that they were not going to get entirely what they wanted from their application, why not go through this process? That unintended effect seems to me a ridiculous proposition, and I very much hope that the noble Lord will test the opinion of the House—and, if he does not, I will.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for contributing to the debate and raising some very valid questions about how the process will work. Dispute resolution is part of the wider measures that the Government are introducing to make the planning system simpler and encourage housebuilding. We anticipate that it would be used only for a small number of applications, as a last resort, and that its existence will encourage all parties to work constructively together and agree planning obligations earlier in the planning process. Only 7% of major and 1% of minor planning applications both include a Section 106 agreement and are decided outside the statutory time frameworks or agreed extension. The objective of dispute resolution is to avoid protracted Section 106 negotiation, not to add unnecessary steps.

I have listened to the debate in Committee and this evening, and recognise that several noble Lords have valid concerns about how it will all work while, I think, supporting the general principle of arbitration. A key concern of my noble friend Lord True is not only the bureaucracy but the complexity of negotiations. However, the schedule has been drafted this way to encourage the parties to agree matters between themselves wherever possible. For example, taking out the cooling-off period would detract from the objective of speeding up negotiations. This process would be used only in cases where the local planning authority would be likely to grant planning permission were it not for unresolved issues relating to Section 106 obligations.

The legislation is also intended to be flexible enough to respond to feedback from the Government’s technical consultation, which has recently closed.

In this consultation we sought views from the sector on, among other things, the cost of the process, the matters that should be taken into account in dispute resolution and the necessary qualifications of the person to resolve the disputes. These matters will be set out in regulations, as the noble Lord said, and I acknowledge the expertise of my noble friend Lord True as leader of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. I would therefore welcome ongoing dialogue as we develop the regulations.

I reiterate that dispute resolution is intended to be activated by parties to the Section 106 agreement. It therefore should be seen as a tool to aid negotiations where necessary rather than as placing an additional burden. The Government are committed to doing whatever they can to unlock stalled sites and to increase the delivery of housing. We have just concluded a wide-ranging consultation which will inform the detail of how it will be applied through regulations. I hope—although I doubt—that I have been able to provide additional reassurance, and that noble Lords will not divide the House on this.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Wednesday 20th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

I join this parliamentary lovefest briefly to join others in congratulating the Minister on accepting the amendments and to pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Hayter; I do not think a doughtier champion of consumer rights could be found anywhere. This is a very satisfactory conclusion and it enables us to get on to slightly more contentious matters a little further down the Marshalled List.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am not entirely sticking to a script. In saying that, though, I hope I can reflect the views of the Government accurately. I add my tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and of course to the parliamentary draftsmen, who have turned this around so quickly. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord are experts in this area and have taught me much about it over the past few weeks. We have met them both in recent days and I have listened carefully to the points they have made.

I thank the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment following our discussion. If approved by this House, it will provide an enabling power for the Secretary of State to make regulations by affirmative procedure to require letting agents and property management agents to belong to a client money protection scheme. It will also provide a clear enforcement mechanism, which is important for ensuring that this regulation has teeth.

The Government have already shown our commitment to taking steps on this issue, committing to a review of the transparency legislation, which includes a requirement for letting agents to be transparent about whether they offer client money protection, and to work with the sector to explore the detailed options for regulation. However, it is important that we ensure that the regulation is balanced and does not overburden the sector, and that we get the detail of the legislation right and do not rush into it. So the review will be important in informing the details of the regulation, and I am very happy to give my assurance that the Government will act on its findings at the earliest opportunity.

There has been some discussion about “must”, “shall” and “may”. I have almost lost track of where we got to on the amendment, but I think we were satisfied on the balance of “must”, “may” and “shall”. Still, in no way does that lessen our commitment to the issue at hand.

I inform the House that the Housing Minister and I have asked the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, to play a key role in the review of client money protection and transparency, reflecting their knowledge of and commitment to these issues, and I am very grateful that they have agreed. I hope that, with those points in mind, noble Lords will agree to support the amendment. I think that is the first time I have said that in this housing Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to open further discussion on the permission in principle measure today. I appreciate the time and effort that noble Lords have invested, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, in considering its detailed implications. I am grateful that they have shared their experience and expertise, which have proved extremely helpful in ensuring that permission in principle operates as effectively as possible.

In a moment, I will explain our government amendments to Clause 136 and why I believe they demonstrate that the Government have listened to the views expressed in Committee and have taken action accordingly to improve the functioning of this measure. However, given that we have some further amendments on it, I shall briefly remind noble Lords what the Government are seeking to achieve and why we believe it is a worthwhile measure that should remain part of the Bill.

We know that there is concern in the industry about the lack of up-front certainty in the current planning system. In Committee, I highlighted issues around the cost of submitting outline and full applications without confirmation of the acceptability of the principles between plan-making and planning application stage. All these have been raised with my department by the Planning Officers Society, the Home Builders Federation and the Federation of Master Builders, and I highlighted that even last summer’s Lyons review recommended an approach where the principle of development is established earlier. Permission in principle seeks to respond to these concerns by making the planning process more certain and more efficient. It will help provide a way for small builders to enter the market and for locally supported plan development to get under way faster.

I explained at length in Committee that local authorities and neighbourhood forums would be in the driving seat when it came to choosing to grant permission in principle. I gave strong confirmation that the approach taken to granting permission in principle would be in line with local policy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

I hope that these brief comments have given noble Lords an update on the value of the measure. Alongside some of the amendments that we are laying to provide greater certainty on the use of permission in principle, I hope that this is enough to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, to reconsider their opposition to the clause.

[Lord Beecham]

The noble Baroness seems to be speaking to amendments in the next group.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am just giving a brief overview and shall now move on to the amendments. They were introductory remarks—scene-setting, if you like—and I shall now speak to Amendments 102C, 102D and 102E. I may have been a little premature in some of my remarks, but they were intended to be helpful; I am sorry if it is felt that I have been a little ahead of myself.

I am keen to touch on the merits of permission in principle and to set out the amendments that the Government are making today. However, I shall turn first to the amendments tabled and comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Kennedy, that would restrict the granting of permission in principle.

Although I understand why the noble Lords have returned with the amendments, I must set out why we cannot accept them. First, and most importantly, Amendment 102D would limit the granting of permission in principle to brownfield land, as my noble friend Lord Lansley said. During the passage of this Bill, the Government have been consistently clear that permission in principle is a measure that aims to strengthen the local plan-led system and ensure that development takes place on sites that people want to see built. The amendment therefore represents an unnecessary restriction on the Government’s desire to bring forward development where it is considered to be appropriate locally.

In Committee, I gave strong assurances that the choice about where to grant permission in principle would be a local one, guided by local policy and the NPPF. To put it very clearly, restricting the granting of permission in principle to brownfield sites would remove the ability for local authorities to grant permission in principle to other sites that they considered perfectly suitable for housing-led development, in line with local and national policy. The amendment would remove local discretion and severely limit the usefulness of the measure.

Secondly, Amendments 102C and 102E would limit the type of development suitable for a grant of permission in principle to “housing led” development. We have been consistently clear that we intend permission in principle to be limited to housing-led development and will specify this in secondary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referring to the DPRRC report, brought up a pertinent point and asked whether PIP could be granted for other uses. I have never sought to mislead the House, and I do not think that the noble Lord was suggesting that I was, but that we have been consistently clear that PIP is for housing-led development and that will continue to be the case under this Government. Clearly, we cannot hold future Governments to account, but we have made it clear that this is the Government’s intention. One of the DPRRC’s concerns was “What about future Governments?”, but this Government are absolutely clear that this will continue to be their intention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

I am sorry to return to the remarks that the Minister made in paragraph 36 of the response to the committee, but they are crucial. Will she clarify her stance now? She said then:

“I consider it to be reasonable for … other uses, such as retail or commercial space, where there is no housing element. There is no restriction on the types of development for which full or outline planning permission may be granted”.

That is not consistent with what she is now saying is the policy—that development should be housing led. The response to the Delegated Powers Committee makes it clear—or made it clear at that point—that it was not confined to housing-led development. That is why my Amendment 102C seeks to include that concept in the Bill. I am perfectly happy to abandon the latter two of my amendments because the first deals with the point which, as far as I can understand it today, seems to be the Government’s policy. But it was apparently not the policy when the reply was made to the Delegated Powers Committee.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I have paragraph 36 before me, and it refers to future uses. But I have always been clear that the intention under this Government was for this to be housing led.

[Lord Beecham]

I accept the Minister’s word for that, but that is all the more reason to build it into the Bill. All she has to say is, “We accept that”, and that is it. It confirms what is apparently the Government’s policy today, yet it was not the policy reported to the Delegated Powers Committee.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I can confirm today that it is the Government’s intention to have housing-led development. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, because the question of what “housing-led” might be is under consultation, I urge caution in placing such a definition in the Bill at this stage. We can put a suitable definition into secondary legislation.

I am well aware that there has been some misinformation about granting development involving fracking and other types of development for permission in principle. I hope that the government amendment tabled today that will prohibit granting permission in principle for development related to the,

“winning and working of materials”,

reassures noble Lords in that regard. With that, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will feel that they are relevant. With that, as I say, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment. I am sorry that the Minister is in such a tangle. I suspect that it is because she has not been properly advised either before today or indeed today. We seem to be clear that housing-led development is to be the principal purpose of this amended planning regime of permission in principle. I accept for the moment, although it is regrettable, that we do not have details of what housing-led development might amount to, but at the very least it must mean that housing will be part of the development. However, that was not confirmed in the response to the Delegated Powers Committee.

As in so many cases during the course of this Bill, it would have been much better if we had had a clearer indication of how the thing is expected to work in practice, but the principle at least should be enshrined in the Bill. Although that is not the full story, it would leave the Government to come back through secondary legislation—preferably affirmative—to specify what is meant by housing led. What it cannot mean is a development with no housing on it, by definition. Beyond that, there is scope for discussion and argument. I understand that the Minister is not in a position to give clear indications of proportions and the like at this stage, but the principle ought to be on the face of the Bill. Accordingly, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Monday 18th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

What I said was not in order to move them to paying a third of their income in rent; it was quite something else. I can repeat what I said: the households I described are in the top 40% of household income and, at a 20% taper level, most high-earning social tenants will be paying no more than 20% of their income in rent—much less than the average household in the PRS, and lower than the 33% of income often used by housing providers as a rule of thumb for what is considered affordable. I was making the point that we were not doing that.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, the Minister said that we might return to Amendment 77ZA at Third Reading. Is that an undertaking on her part to bring something back on the lines of the amendment?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The point that I was making was that the noble Lord made a valid point and that, if we can reach some sort of consensus, it may be possible to bring something back at Third Reading.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, who have all made powerful arguments about the importance of delivering new homes and meeting the needs of local communities, which is so important.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, that when government makes agreements with local authorities outside London about building new homes, we should ensure that at least one new affordable home is provided for each old dwelling that is sold. That has always been our intention, but today I am very happy to work to make that intention clear in the Bill. As I said earlier, I would like to consider further how we can best reflect that in the Bill, and I look forward to working with the noble Lord and others on it. The noble Lord makes powerful arguments about the different needs of different areas. Many noble Lords in the House—certainly many of those in the Chamber today—have, at some point or other, represented very different areas with very different needs. Reflecting this diversity and respecting the views of local people and local leaders is at the heart of the Government’s drive for localism, as several noble Lords have pointed out. I totally agree that in our dialogue with local communities, local authorities should be empowered to make the case for the right balance of housing in their area, and that there should be a strong expectation that the Government will listen. That is absolutely our intention; indeed, it reflects our broader approach.

The Bill enables dialogue through the provisions of Clause 72, which enables agreements to be made about the delivery of replacement homes. As I said, I am very happy to work with the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, to give local authorities with particular housing needs in their areas the opportunity to reach bespoke agreements with the Government about the delivery of different types of new homes in their areas.

With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake and Lord Kennedy, will agree not to press their amendments. I hope that this commitment will also enable the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, not to press her amendment, as we bring forward a proposal that ensures the delivery of housing in a way that specifies the cost of replacement, as a deduction to payments would not.

[Lord Beecham]

Before the Minister sits down, just to clarify, the amendment with which she indicates sympathy and which she will come back to, which is very welcome, is based on the premise that a property will have been sold and the money handed over. However, the Bill provides for payment in advance of the sale of any property, so the Government might have received money but no property has been sold. Will the Minister come back on Third Reading with a position on that? Otherwise, presumably, the money could simply stay in Whitehall; there would be no property to be replaced because no property may have been sold, yet money will have been paid over.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

I apologise if I have performed badly.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

In the spirit of the discussion that we are having, I am very happy to seek clarification on the issue raised by the noble Lord. In fact, we will be working through many issues for Third Reading. I am sure that noble Lords will tell me if I have got it wrong—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, this amendment would provide that revenue from high-value sales should be retained by the local housing authority rather than be transmitted, as required by the Bill, to the Secretary of State, and should be used to provide replacement affordable housing for rent in the same local authority area.

I shall begin by referring to the position in my local authority, Newcastle, which will be pretty much echoed up and down the country. Shelter conducted an estimate of the number of high-value council properties. Of course, we do not quite know what the definition of “high value” will be, particularly in the light of today’s government amendment but, as a working position, it estimated that Newcastle’s housing stock, which is something in the low 20,000s, would contain about 1,650 high-value properties. On that basis, and on the Government’s approach, it would look as though 82 properties a year might become vacant. I do not know quite what high value in Newcastle would come to, but if it were something over £100,000, at the least we would be looking at something like £10 million a year for several years being paid over to the Government. It might be higher than that, but I do not think it would be much lower. That would be replicated across the country, so the question arises of how this scheme would work and what its impact would be.

I turn for some guidance on that to the impact assessment—so called—which deals with Clauses 67 to 77 on this issue. It defines the problem under consideration as something that will require the Government to “determine high value”, about which we have heard something today,

“and a formula which will be used to calculate the payment each stock owning local authority is required to pay”.

There is a footnote at the bottom of the page in very small print, which states:

“We are engaging with local authorities and are currently in the process of updating data that will be used to help inform the high value threshold, which will determine how much individual councils will need to pay”.

That document was issued in January, and we are now in April. I wonder whether the Minister could give us any indication of how much progress has been made in updating that data and whether and how soon the Government will be able to indicate even a sample of what “high value” would be and how many houses might be affected.

The rationale for intervention is given in the mantra:

“Councils should effectively and efficiently use their resources … it makes sense to sell high value vacant houses to release the value locked up in them”.

The document point outs that:

“165 local authorities own a total of around 1.6 million council homes”.

Then the impact of the intervention is described:

“The main impact will be on stock holding local authorities as they will be required to make a payment to the Secretary of State based on the value of the high value vacant homes they own. By managing their stock more efficiently, and selling vacant housing”,

they can release the value. Of course, it is not just when the property is sold that councils will be required to make a payment; they will be required to do so in advance of any sale, which one might have thought was a somewhat peculiar process.

There is a summary of benefits and costs, and it is a pretty minimal description. The document says:

“Local authorities are not benefitting from their high value vacant assets”.

They have already said that in the report. It goes on:

“This policy will release the value of such assets to use in providing more housing”,

but without any indication of how much would be released, how much new housing would be provided and what kind of housing that would be. It goes on to say:

“The process also provides some flexibility for local authorities to decide which vacant properties they sell … Data will be used to inform the setting of the high value threshold”—

we await indications of what those data will be—

“and the assumptions underlying the calculations in the determination … The policy requires the sale of high value assets which may have some impact on the total stock that a local authority holds”.

By definition, that is going to be the case. This is hardly a detailed analysis of the impact of the Bill. Then it says:

“Local authorities are likely to incur some costs associated with the sale of vacant property”.

Again, that is a pretty massive understatement with no figures attached to it. It continues:

“Consideration will be given to the deductions that should be made from the payment”.

How very kind, but there is no indication of what consideration the Government are likely to give or at least what its outcome is likely to be. It then says, and remember that this is an impact assessment:

“A portion of the receipts will be used to provide more housing, reflecting housing need”.

There is no indication of what portion, or indeed any definition of “housing need”.

Then the impact assessment makes the one specific reference, which of course is timely in view of the impending election of a London mayor, that in London the provision must require that,

“at least two new affordable homes are provided for each vacant high value home that is expected to be sold in the relevant year”.

It may be purely coincidence that London has been chosen for this definition, but a cynic might point out that it is the only firm commitment revealed in the whole impact assessment.

So it is pretty deplorable after all this time, unless the Minister has some information that she can convey to us either today or before Third Reading, that we do not know what the impact is going to be, how much money or how many homes are involved, how many councils will be affected and what a “high value” is. It is a case of Parliament, and in particular your Lordships’ House, being asked to sign a blank cheque to the Government and, frankly, one written in invisible ink. It is highly unsatisfactory, and unless the Minister can produce some assurances about when we are going to get information, we will be left enacting legislation without any clear idea of what will be involved in terms of costs or, crucially, the numbers of replacement houses and where they might be built. In my submission, that is not a satisfactory outcome of a process that we have been engaged in for some months now in both Houses. I beg to move.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his amendment, although I am not sure that I should. I appreciate the considered thoughts from your Lordships’ House on ways in which we can improve the Bill but I fear that the amendment would compromise the ability of the Government to meet our manifesto commitment, which clearly states that receipts from the sale of local authority housing will be used to fund right-to-buy discounts for housing association tenants, as well as supporting the delivery of additional homes. The amendment would prevent us from meeting this clear manifesto commitment, and as a result housing association tenants would be unable to realise their dream of owning their own home.

We know that there is £200 billion of value locked up in housing in this country. We also know that some of that could be used to increase housing supply, something that noble Lords from across the House have expressed a wish to do. We also know that in many places the value has not been used for that purpose. That is why this Government are bringing forward this legislation. I make it clear that we also want to increase housing supply with these receipts and through the voluntary deal with housing associations that will see more homes built for each right-to-buy sale.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, these amendments are quite limited. They relate to the way in which the interpretation of the question of vacancy is determined. They seek to require the Secretary of State to specify what that interpretation should be by regulation rather than simply having the option of so doing. Amendment 71A would translate “may” into “must” in Clause 77, such that the Secretary of State must specify by regulations the circumstances in which housing is to be treated as not becoming vacant for the purpose of a high-value sales policy, while Amendment 71B would require those regulations to be affirmative. It is a fairly straightforward matter but it is important that the procedure should follow the route of secondary legislation rather than, as we heard earlier in another context, a matter simply for ministerial determination. I beg to move.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his amendment. It would replace the discretionary power of the Secretary of State to make regulations on specifying circumstances in which housing is not treated as being vacant for the purposes of this part of the Bill by replacing “may” with “must”. The amendments in this group would also require these regulations to be made as affirmative.

As many noble Lords will recall, and as many have made reference to, the DPRRC considered the powers that we proposed to take through this Bill. I am happy to report that it did not seek to change the proposal for this power to be made through a negative resolution. It accepted our arguments that it is appropriate to use the negative procedure for these regulations, as this approach will provide flexibility to ensure that if circumstances change over time or if a need for further exclusions is identified in the future, this can be easily addressed by adding, amending or removing exclusions.

Given my earlier concession on making the regulations setting out the definition of “higher value” through affirmative resolution, and given that the DPRRC agreed with our proposal, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I have received an invitation from the Minister which I regret to say I cannot accept; I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Monday 11th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, the Opposition support the Government’s amendment here. I guess that a line has to be drawn somewhere with regard to age, and the Government are probably right to have drawn it where they have.

I also support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I hope the Government will take it back in a positive sense because he makes a strong argument for extending the principle to these different forms of ownership—they are quite compatible with the Government’s intentions, after all—and meeting the particular needs that he has so clearly identified. I hope the Minister will feel able to say that she will take that back positively and perhaps return later on Report if she cannot accept it today. It would be ideal if she could accept it today but I guess that she may not have that freedom. Still, a positive response would be very welcome.

I sympathise again with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Best. I am not sure whether that needs to be in the Bill so long as it is on the record that it is the Government’s intention that the thrust of the amendment would be realised in practice. If the Minister were able to give that assurance, that might avoid the need to amend the legislation. That is a matter for her judgment, but it might be a way forward.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

On the government amendment regarding the minimum age of 23, I take the points made by my two noble friends. The under-23s are of course aspirants too, and in certain parts of the country this policy might really help them. But as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, says, we have to draw the line somewhere and, given that 96% of 23 to 40 year-olds will benefit, that is where we have chosen to draw it.

I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for his Amendment 4. As noble Lords will know, we are committed to delivering the 135,000 shared-ownership and 10,000 rent-to-buy products. Each has its place, and these products can and do complement each other. They can be considered by councils as part of their wider affordable-housing requirements for their area, and the starter homes clauses will not prevent these developments coming forward. We will be touching on this later on Report.

However, trying to blend them would create complexity and lose the distinctive characteristics of each, and it could put at risk our starter homes manifesto commitment. For example, if a young person entered a right-to-buy arrangement, at what point in their occupation of the property would they be committed to purchase? After how many years of occupation would they be entitled to sell at an increased market value? That could be difficult to justify when we need to deliver as many new homes as possible.

Still, we recognise that there may be different routes to purchase, and over time there may be different opportunities to consider how these will fit within the overall starter home model. Much of the detail on the model will sit in secondary legislation, and the definition of purchase in the Bill is broad enough to allow different purchase mechanisms to be used. As the starter home model rolls out, we will keep it under review.

I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Beecham, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Andrews—who is not in her place—and Lady Bakewell, for Amendment 10. Our consultation on the starter homes regulations sets out potential flexibility on the on-site starter homes requirement. We recognise that some developments, including age-restricted schemes, do not easily lend themselves to an on-site provision, and we do not want to render those schemes unviable or undeliverable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord has just said. In particular, I very much commend his implicit view that we should not really be talking about individual developments or about just catering for a particular group of people but should be concerned with communities with a range of interests, ages and people of different backgrounds—not simply a group, important though it is, seeking to purchase homes for the first time.

It also seems to me that this part of the Bill cannot be read just on its own terms, as if it is unrelated to some of the material that follows. In the planning section of the Bill, there is of course the issue of PIP—permission in principle—and the Government’s ability to effectively prescribe what is to happen on brownfield and other sites. The two things seem linked to me, and the suggestion in these amendments is one that the Government should consider very carefully. We have heard a good deal about local aspects—the Minister herself was saying just a few minutes ago that the Bill would make provision for local people—but what is meant by local in this context? For example, you could have sites in London, in hard-pressed boroughs with their own housing needs, which would no doubt become available for starter homes, potentially at the expense of people from that particular borough, unless the Government are able to say that they could be limited to the residents of that borough—which I think is a bit unlikely, although it would be interesting to see whether the Government would contemplate that.

We have of course seen considerable changes in the make-up of communities in inner London and in other cities, and the danger seems to me to be that without Section 106 agreements, and without looking rather carefully at who might benefit from the desirable provision of starter homes, and from where they might be coming, we could simply be importing people into the area at the expense of those already living there. Perhaps the Minister could indicate whether such a consideration has been taken on board and the extent to which it might be reflected in the implementation of this part of the Bill. Otherwise, the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, will resonate even more profoundly. There has to be a way of securing a balance in all these aspects, and at the moment there does not seem to be, within the Bill, an adequate provision to achieve that purpose.

I hope that the Minister will respond constructively rather than—if I may say so, with all due respect—complacently. I do not mean she would be complacent in her own right, as it were, but that it would reflect complacency in the Government about the impact of what they are providing here, unintended though it may be.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for the amendments and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for speaking to them. I need to be clear right from the outset that there is nothing in Clauses 3 and 4 that prevents the use of Section 106 with starter home developments, and local authorities will still be able to seek on-site Section 106 infrastructure contributions. Section 106 agreements are crucial for securing the supporting infrastructure. Indeed, our starter home requirement will be secured on sites using Section 106 agreements. We are working with the sector on draft model Section 106 clauses to help local authorities and applicants with the process. As such, we expect authorities to continue to have regard to the need to secure Section 106 agreements on starter home developments, as they would do on any other development.

The noble Lord, Lord Foster, asked about the new burden assessment. I can assure the House that the new burdens on local authorities arising from starter home duties, such as that of providing monitoring information, will be considered in the usual way that new burdens are.

Planning decisions for all developments, including those that contain starter homes, will still need to be made in accordance with local planning policy, subject to the starter homes requirement and other material considerations. Infrastructure considerations will clearly need to be issued.

Yes, we are going to reaffirm in national planning policy that affordable housing contributions should not be sought for starter homes and that we need to exempt starter homes from community infrastructure levy contributions. I make it absolutely clear that this will align with existing practice on affordable housing and that local authorities will continue to be able to seek site-specific infrastructure improvements, if they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. They will also continue to be able to seek additional on-site affordable housing, including housing for social rent and shared ownership, where it is viable to do so.

I have listened carefully to the debate and hope that the reassurance that local authorities will continue to be able to use Section 106 agreements to secure infrastructure on sites means there is no need to divide your Lordships’ House and that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I endorse what the noble Lord said about my noble friend, who managed to survive yesterday’s long sitting. He hoped to get on before midnight, but unfortunately that was not possible, or perhaps fortunately because otherwise we might have been there until 2 am instead of something like a quarter to one. My noble friend has devoted a lot of time and energy to what is clearly a pressing issue.

There seems to have been an outbreak of megalomania in certain circles in London, in particular. From a distance, one is not as involved with the process, but every so often, just reading the Standard, one hears of case after case of absurd would-be developments. I have friends living in north London where similar idiotic adaptations are made to buildings. We warmly support the amendments and I hope the Government will acknowledge the real problem here and agree to deal with it. While they are doing that, could they protect the block of flats in Balham where I have a flat from the underground workings for Crossrail, which is likely to cause certain problems to me and to lots of other people?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord opposite in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on his tenacity last night; not leaving until, I think, gone midnight. My heart sank when I realised that he would not get on to have his say.

The noble Lord was one of the first people I met when I came into this House and we share a common interest. I have great sympathy for anyone who suffers some of the things he talks about. We have discussed the Death Star basement in this House, and the collapsing mansion, so I am not in any way denying that these issues exist and I thank the noble Lord for bringing them to the House’s attention. But of course I am going to disappoint him because I am going to tell him that the powers that he has described already exist. In fact, in some cases they are being implemented.

Local authorities are already able to prepare codes of practice for subterranean works in their area, and many prepare area-specific guidance to help owners ensure that they carry out the works legally and safely with a minimum impact on neighbours. As this amendment replicates powers that already exist, it is unnecessary to include it in the Bill.

I turn to Amendment 101BC. Local planning authorities are able to bring forward specific local plan policies limiting the scope of basement development if they consider that such developments are a particular issue in their area. In such cases, any planning application should then be determined in accordance with that policy. Basement development is not an issue in most local authorities, although I accept what the noble Lord said—that it is coming to an authority near him. But we know that local authorities in areas which are particularly affected by basement developments, such as Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster, are already in the process of introducing appropriate local plan policies to mitigate the impacts of such developments.

We have looked at a graph of how the trend appears to be going. What we are seeing now—to put it in context—is the hangover from previous permissions that are nevertheless causing distress in the area. I would be very interested to see how things look in, say, six months to a year from now. The amendment is therefore not necessary for the same reasons that I have explained for Amendment 101BB.

With regard to Amendment 101BD, the Party Wall etc. Act provides legal protections to owners of adjoining properties, but it is not in place to protect owners beyond next door, as there is unlikely to be damage to properties beyond the current distances set out in the Act. Similarly, introducing a new offence, as this amendment proposes, would not provide any greater protection to adjoining owners. In any case, there is no evidence of significant numbers of cases where notices required under the Act are not being given in respect of subterranean developments.

In addition, the amendment before us would introduce a new liability that goes beyond those currently imposed under the Limitation Act 1980. It would be difficult to justify singling out subterranean development over other forms of development for this enhanced liability. The Party Wall etc. Act applies to most subterranean development work and already provides for security for expenses to be covered by the award between the parties. Therefore, Amendment 101BE is also not necessary.

The noble Lord made the point that noise is not usually dealt with in planning permission. However, local authorities can consider local impacts, including noise pollution, when granting planning permission. The NPPF deals with noise, stating that, where relevant, it should be considered by the local authority in its planning decision. The noble Lord made the point that the GPDO allows basement development, but it is for individual local planning authorities to determine if development is within the scope of national permitted development rights.

The noble Lord also made the point that the Article 4 process is too burdensome and bureaucratic, and so local authorities are unlikely to follow that approach. It can take six to 12 months, but it is not particularly burdensome or bureaucratic—if I had eyes in the back of my head, I would probably see my noble friend behind me shaking his head—although I accept that this is a particular problem in particular parts of the country.

I turn now to Amendments 101BF, 101BG and 101BH. As I have already set out in response to the noble Lord’s previous, related amendments, and as I have just said, basement developments are not an issue in all local authority areas. Existing powers are in place which enable local authorities to adopt an appropriate local approach to mitigate the impacts of such developments where necessary. Similarly, existing legislation protects adjoining property owners from the potential impact of such developments. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

The point would be to circumscribe the Secretary of State’s ability to regulate it by linking it to an index. However, we are not voting on that amendment and I will not take matters any further.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the Government are committed to increasing housing supply. More homes are now started every year than at any time since 2007. The total stock of housing in England is now almost 800,000 higher than it was in 2009. In the spending review we announced investment of £8 billion to deliver 400,000 affordable housing starts by 2020-21. This includes £4.1 billion for 135,000 shared ownership homes, £1.6 billion to deliver 100,000 affordable homes for rent and £2.3 billion towards delivering our starter homes manifesto commitment.

In order to further support housing delivery, we need measures to avoid Section 106 planning obligations preventing or delaying new homes being built. Clause 142 inserts new Schedule 9A into the Town and County Planning Act 1990. The new schedule sets out a dispute resolution process to speed up Section 106 negotiations in order to help housing starts to proceed more quickly. Dispute resolution will be available on a broad range of cases, including where affordable housing is in dispute or particular infrastructure is needed to make development acceptable in planning terms. However, as with any effective dispute resolution process, we anticipate that it would be used only as a last resort. The speeding up of Section 106 negotiations is part of a wider package of measures that the Government are introducing to make the planning system simpler and more streamlined. We anticipate that its existence will encourage all parties to work constructively together and agree planning obligations earlier in the planning process.

We are also working with stakeholders to understand the particular issues caused by negotiating affordable housing provision. So far, we know that problems include the time and expense of viability negotiations, the lack of clarity over affordable housing requirements and the difficulty of getting housing associations to take only one or two units on a site. These effects can be felt more acutely by smaller developers, which are more likely to focus on building on small sites. We are consulting on some of the detail of the process and we will bring forward regulations in due course. Clause 143 allows us to address some of these issues by providing a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to the enforcement of planning obligations for affordable housing. The clause provides flexibility depending on the size, scale or nature of the site or of the proposed development so that we can target regulations appropriately.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans asked when we were going to consult on the powers. We are already engaging with key partners to identify those measures that would best support the delivery of new housing, and we will consult on our proposals in due course. Restrictions or conditions will be introduced through affirmative regulation, so Members of both Houses will have a chance to scrutinise any measures that we introduce. That means we can bring about a more consistent approach to how Section 106 agreements can be used in relation to affordable housing provision. It will reduce a key element of uncertainty for developers and, in doing so, support housebuilding.

The noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, asked how we anticipate using the power in Clause 143(2)—would it be used to restrict right to buy, and what about the rural aspect? The broad power proposed allows for a distinction to be made depending on the size and nature of the proposed development, such as rural sites, where restrictions may not be appropriate, and the distinction in relation to the types of affordable housing that may be restricted. This is intended to focus any restrictions where they would have the most likely benefits in encouraging housing development more broadly, rather than, as the noble Lord says, restricting it. For example, we could use this power to address the particular problems faced on small sites, as I have said, and we are working with stakeholders to identify how we can best use the power to address the issues and support the delivery of new houses. I should also say that the restriction provision would not apply to existing Section 106 agreements.

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, is concerned about the Government not supporting rural areas. As I say, this provision gives us the flexibility to target our regulations in a way that would best benefit overall housing delivery. For example, as I said, restrictions or conditions could apply differently depending on the type of sites, such as rural areas.

Amendment 101BGB limits the use of Section 106 dispute resolution, to be introduced through this clause, to affordable housing disputes only. It is not necessary for Amendment 101BGB to be introduced to implement this change. Schedule 13 of the Bill allows the scope of dispute resolution to be restricted through regulations, which could include limiting dispute resolution to cases involving affordable housing. We are presently seeking views on the scope of dispute resolution through our planning technical consultation, but dispute resolution would be a very useful tool for resolving disputes on applications without affordable housing as well as on those with.

Moving on to Amendments 101C and 101D, I do not think that they are necessary to address the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, because they would hinder our ability to address the issues that local planning authorities and developers tell us are caused by negotiating affordable housing obligations. This clause allows the Secretary of State to restrict the use of Section 106 planning obligations for affordable housing. The clause, therefore, goes on to define what is meant by affordable housing in this context.

The definition of affordable housing included in this clause focuses on housing that meets a particular need: for example, people whose needs are not adequately served by the commercial housing market. It also specifically includes starter homes, which are defined in Chapter 1 of the Bill. It does not restrict provision to meet the needs of any specific tenures. Indeed, we consider that the definition is broad enough to encompass all forms of tenure. Restricting the use of planning obligations for affordable housing across all tenures would not support the objective of addressing the specific issues caused by negotiations on particular types of site.

The clause also provides the Secretary of State with the power to amend the definition of affordable housing through regulations. Removing the power would affect the Government’s ability to take account of new forms of affordable housing provision that are being developed. This would limit the effectiveness of how Government can use this clause to support housing development. The power to amend the definition of affordable housing under this clause is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and noble Lords will have the opportunity to scrutinise any amendment of the definition.

Amendment 102B, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and Lady Parminter, inserts a new clause that would enable the Secretary of State to empower local planning authorities to require affordable housing contributions, in cash or kind, from small-scale developments and in rural areas. However, I do not think that it is necessary. Local authorities can set affordable housing policies in their local plans, which will take account of local housing need. Section 106 agreements can then be used to secure affordable housing delivery. They can also be used to agree financial contributions in lieu of on-site affordable housing contributions. Indeed, there is evidence of local planning authorities making very good use of this, including seeking contributions from small-scale developments and in rural areas.

The use of this power will allow us to bring about a more consistent approach to how Section 106 agreements can be used in relation to affordable housing provision. This could include conditions on how planning obligations are sought for affordable housing on particular types of sites. Such conditions could help address the problems that affordable housing negotiations can cause for particular types of sites, such as those identified in this amendment.

I will finish by saying that the Government will consult on the approach to any restrictions or conditions brought forward. Measures implementing this power will be set out in regulations. These, including any amendments to the definition of affordable housing, will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and noble Lords will have ample opportunity to scrutinise any amendment to the definition. I hope that, with those words, the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw his amendment.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Perhaps I may reaffirm that if a local authority considers that a site is suitable for housing-led development in line with local and national policy, it will be able to use the permission in principle to help to ensure that the site gets delivered. The NPPF already provides strong protections for the type of sites listed in these amendments, including the green belt, the historic and the natural environment. At its heart, the framework is clear that local authorities should plan positively to meet each of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. For example, paragraph 157 sets out that plans should identify land where development would be inappropriate and contain a clear strategy for enhancing the natural built and historic environment. Permission in principle does not change any of these existing protections. Local and national policy has always driven how local decisions are made, and the addition of a new route to obtaining planning permission does not change that. I suggest that setting out centrally what type of land may or may not be granted permission in principle would set an unwelcome precedent.

Noble Lords have tabled a number of amendments to Clause 136 that seek to restrict permission in principle to be granted for housing development only. Amendment 90, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is part of the group. Although I understand the desire to add more detail to the legislation at this stage, there are important reasons why it would be unwise to restrict the granting of permission in principle to housing development in the Bill. First, and most importantly, if we restrict permission in principle to housing only, we lose the crucial ability to facilitate mixed-use development. We are currently consulting on an approach that would enable permission in principle to be granted for housing-led development to allow for the possibility of mixed uses that are compatible with a residential environment. This means that as long as a site allocation is housing-led, local authorities will be able to grant permission in principle in line with local and national policy for other uses.

[Lord Beecham]

I will not ask the Minister to do so now, but will there be a definition in guidance about what housing-led actually means in terms of proportions of sites and so on?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Yes, my Lords. I can give an example of what that might include. It may be a retail community and office space. This approach is absolutely crucial to continuing to promote sustainable development and the delivery of balanced, mixed communities, spaces and places in line with the principles set out in the NPPF. We are currently consulting on this approach and we would welcome views about what would constitute a suitable proportion of housing and the compatible uses, in line with the noble Lord’s pre-emptive question. This will allow us to set out a sensible definition of housing-led development in secondary legislation.

Amendment 90 would also restrict the granting of permission in principle to brownfield sites only. I want to remind the Committee that the Bill will enable permission in principle to be granted to sites identified on the new brownfield register specifically to help to ensure that development takes place on these priority sites. We also intend to enable permission in principle to be granted on sites chosen and allocated by local authorities, parishes and neighbourhood forums within their local and neighbourhood plans. Restricting the granting of permission in principle to only brownfield sites in this context would greatly reduce the effectiveness of this measure and the freedom for local agreement on where development should take place as part of the plan-led approach.

Finally, my noble friend Lord Lansley asked whether new plans could automatically be considered for PIP. Once the secondary legislation is in place, our newly adopted plan could grant permission in principle. The choice about whether it should be granted will be a local one. I hope that, with those words, the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I rise with, I promise, uncharacteristic brevity to speak to Amendments 93 and 96, which are tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kennedy. These amendments relate to time. Amendment 93 relates to new Section 59A(4), which states:

“Permission in principle … takes effect when the qualifying document is adopted”,

and, critically, goes on to say in new paragraph (b) that it,

“is not brought to an end by the qualifying document ceasing to have effect or being revised, unless the order provides otherwise”,

which strikes me as somewhat peculiar provision. My amendment would ensure that the provision in principle expired when the plan was no longer relevant or had been replaced. It limits the time to circumstances when it remains relevant or has not been replaced.

Amendment 96 again relates to the time factor, because the somewhat convoluted proposed new subsection (2ZZC) says:

“Subsection (2ZZA) does not apply where … the permission in principle has been in force for longer than a prescribed period”.

That is what the Bill currently says. The amendment seeks to put a limit on that period of five years, so there would have to be development within a five-year period. That seems perfectly reasonable given what we already know about the vast number of outstanding permissions which are not acted on, and which therefore of course do not contribute to meeting housing or indeed any other needs.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the effect of all four Amendments 90A, 95C, 96ZB and 96 would be to put a timeframe in the Bill to allow local authorities to reopen the principle of development when determining an application for technical details consent after a permission in principle has been in place for three years.

Proposed new Section 70(2ZZC), as introduced by the Government, will give local authorities the ability to re-examine the principle of development when a permission in principle has been in place for longer than a set period and where there has been a material change in circumstance. I assure noble Lords that we intend to set out a suitable period for when the principle of development could be reconsidered in secondary legislation. We are currently consulting on the duration of a permission in principle granted either on allocation in a plan or on application to a local authority. To set the duration of permission in principle in secondary legislation rather than in the Bill is a prudent approach, because it gives us a better opportunity to ensure that this model works as intended and for the Secretary of State to keep it under review and respond as appropriate.

Amendment 92J would have the effect of removing the ability to prescribe the type of development that can be granted permission in principle in secondary legislation and—taken with some of the other amendments tabled by the noble Lord to this clause—would limit permission in principle to housing development only. Once again, I understand the desire to place detail in the Bill. However, as I have already set out, there are important reasons why permission in principle should not be restricted in this way. The power that Amendment 92N seeks to remove is there simply to ensure that permission in principle is consistent with the existing system. This is important as it minimises complexity, and for this reason, I ask the noble Lord to consider not moving this amendment.

On Amendment 93, I will briefly explain to noble Lords our intentions behind proposed new subsection (4)(b) in Clause 136 on the duration of permission in principle. We have no intention of allowing permission in principle to exist in perpetuity. We are intent on setting out a sensible duration and are currently consulting on the option of setting that limit at five years. Proposed new subsection (4)(b) would give us important flexibility to ensure that, in appropriate circumstances, where a plan or a register is more regularly revised or updated, it does not automatically mean that permission in principle comes to an end.

[Lord Beecham]

Did I hear the Minister correctly? She indicates that she is thinking of a five-year period, but how would that be provided for? It does not seem to be in the Bill—will it be a matter for regulation, and whence would that authority derive?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is right; as I just said, we are currently consulting on setting the limit at five years. Does that answer the noble Lord’s question or am I answering a totally different one?

[Lord Beecham]

Does the Minister mean that she is thinking about a government amendment to this clause on Report, or will that be determined by regulation?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am saying that we have no intention of setting it out in perpetuity; we are consulting on what the length of time would be and on the option of setting the limit at five years, which would indeed be set out in secondary legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I understand that it could be modified in an extreme circumstance such as that. This is a rare circumstance, but I understand that that is the case.

On the revoking of a PIP granted by a local plan or brownfield allocation, the noble Baroness makes a good point. The Bill does not currently make provision for this, as she has told me again and again. Can I take that away and thank her for her points? She also asked me to confirm absolutely that only local authorities can be responsible for the granting of permission in principle. Yes, that is the case.

[Lord Beecham]

The Minister has just made a concession and agreed to my noble friend’s point, but she talks in terms of revocation. Is it not necessary also to provide for variation?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness has raised something that I have said I will take away. I will also take away the noble Lord’s point because it is not particularly provided for in the Bill. Will the noble Lord and the noble Baroness let me take that away and reflect on it?

On Amendment 96ZA, an important starting point is that permission in principle will be granted where a proposal accords with the development plan for the area, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework, as I have said, alongside other material considerations. When choosing appropriate sites that may be deemed suitable for a grant of permission in principle through a local plan, local authorities will be able to draw on a wealth of information to determine whether that site is suitable. That includes information gathered to support their local plan, a strategic housing land availability assessment, local knowledge of areas of constraint, engagement with communities and statutory bodies, and other information. That will all be underpinned by consideration against local and national policy.

It is possible that on the basis of that assessment a local authority could conclude that granting permission in principle would not be appropriate, either because the site is unsuitable—which goes to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—or, in exceptional cases, that the fine detail of the scheme needs to be worked up before a decision can even be reached on the principle of development. I hope that what I have set out is a sensible basis for deciding whether to grant permission in principle. I remind noble Lords that it must be followed by a grant of technical details consent before development may commence.

I turn to Amendments 96ZC, 96ZD, 96ZE, and 96ZF, which provide by condition for the assessment of flood risk, highways and access, contaminated land, and securing of appropriate infrastructure through either Section 106 contributions or the community infrastructure levy. I hope that I have put the noble Lord’s mind at ease over the course of my remarks as I have described in more detail how permission in principle will operate—specifically that it will still include consideration of these important matters through an assessment against local and national planning policy.

Specifically on conditions, I hope that my comments on Amendment 94ZC set out the Government’s thinking on the timing for the use of conditions. Permission in principle is to provide simple certainty on the basic acceptability of a site early on in the process. As it does not on its own authorise development, conditions at this point would unnecessarily complicate matters, although we would expect local authorities to make clear, when they give permission in principle, the matters that they would expect to see covered in an application for technical details. On the community infrastructure levy, I confirm that, where it is in place, it would become payable once technical details consent has been granted, as is the case when full planning permission is given.

Finally, Schedule 12 is a list of consequential amendments that we have made to the Town and Country Planning Act and other planning legislation. This accompanies Clause 136 and is important for ensuring that permission in principle, as a new route to obtaining planning permission, operates effectively alongside the existing system. I will therefore press that Schedule 12 stands part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I said I would meet them before Report. This part will not come to Report on day one, which is why I made that offer.

[Lord Beecham]

Perhaps the Minister will bear with me. She is offering to meet, which is desirable, but does that embrace the two amendments in the noble Lord’s name? Amendment 101A is about local determination and Amendment 101B is about compensation to businesses. Would both those things be on the agenda?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think my noble friend’s principal concern is the effect on Richmond of the permitted development right, but if he wishes to discuss compensation, of course I will discuss it.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am very happy to write to noble Lords on the back of a discussion.

[Lord Beecham]

I am sorry to press the Minister, but important though Richmond is, it is not the only place where this is happening. She may not be able to answer this question now, but I hope that the Government have details of what is happening up and down the country on this front. They have imposed this policy across the country; they ought to know what is happening. It would be helpful for those discussions to be a little broader, with all due respect to the noble Lord. The Minister may want to open this up to other Members of the House, because there will be people from different parts of the country whose own experience would be quite helpful. But I hope everything is on the table.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

No, I am not going to sort it out—but I was going to suggest that one way in which to look at it would be to revoke the permission, so that that developer is no longer sitting on it. Does that not work?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am sorry to contradict a lawyer, and I shall probably get slapped down for it, but the planning permission is usually granted for a site and not for a person. I think that that is the point that my noble friend made. So you would not revoke the permission, because the permission is on the site rather than for the person—or you could, but it would run contrary to anything that planning law has ever done, in my memory anyway. But I am sympathetic towards the intent behind the amendment, because it raises the issue of planning permissions given but the building not happening. That is a challenge within the context of the Government trying to deliver 1 million homes by 2020. However, a requirement fixing a timeframe for both commencing and completing the development is a highly dangerous approach. While I appreciate that this measure is aimed at encouraging the build-out of permissions, it would not be prudent to introduce such a measure without the full and proper assessment of the potential consequences. In particular, careful consideration would be needed of the impact on the viability and deliverability of schemes. It is important to acknowledge that putting a standard time limit on when development should be completed might be unrealistic, given that developments come in different shapes and sizes, as my noble friend Lord Porter, said, and each has its own specific set of issues.

A number of factors can delay both starts on site and completion of development, including market conditions, availability of finance, difficulty discharging conditions and the availability of infrastructure and utilities. Imposing a requirement without considering any legitimate reasons for delay would be a highly risky, unreasonable approach that is likely to introduce fear and a reluctance to enter the market in the first place. It may deter development coming forward, given the added constraints and risks. That is not to say that I do not sympathise when these situations arise because, as a former council leader, I know that it is deeply frustrating. We are trying to encourage the build-out of existing stock of planning permissions and taking it very seriously. The department has already announced a number of measures designed to address these various factors that cause delays on site. They include a £1 billion fund to support small and custom builders to deliver 26,000 new homes, and the £2 billion long-term fund to unlock housing development for up to 160,000 homes announced in the spending review.

I hope that I have been able to set out that, although I agree wholeheartedly with the need to encourage build-out, the amendment is probably not the best way in which to deal with it, as other noble Lords have pointed out.

The noble Lord asked about the presumption to approve if a site has previously had permission. A planning application will always be considered on its planning merits at the time of application, so I do not think that that applies. I hope that with those words I have reassured the noble Lord, and he will feel happy to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

With respect, that is not what the amendment seems to say. The Minister and I are in rare agreement.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think we might be. I will start with Clause 139, which amends Sections 62A and 62B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It allows the Secretary of State to set out in secondary legislation categories of applications that a local planning authority may be designated for, should their performance fall below the specified threshold. This will allow our existing approach to addressing any instances of underperformance, which currently applies only to major development, to be extended to include applications for non-major development. The existing designation approach has proved successful in speeding up decisions on major development since it was first announced in September 2012. By extending our approach to include non-major development, we are ensuring that all applicants can have confidence in the service to be provided.

We will keep under review the categories of applications on which performance will be assessed to ensure that they remain targeted at the most relevant aspects of the planning process. As the existing designation approach has proved, this measure has several benefits. It encourages improvement and gives applicants the choice of a better service in the very few cases of persistent underperformance. This approach has shown its effectiveness in tackling performance on major development, so it is only natural that we should now bring non-major development within its scope.

I now turn to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, regarding applicants for planning permission having the choice to apply directly to the Mayor of London instead of the Secretary of State where a London borough is designated as poorly performing. I agree that it is essential that the Mayor of London plays an important part in strategic decisions affecting the capital, which is why the mayor already has power to call in for his own decision applications of potential strategic importance—for example, where more than 150 dwellings are proposed.

I should highlight that if applications are submitted directly to the Secretary of State by applicants in areas that are designated as underperforming, Section 2A(1B) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 already provides for the Mayor of London to have the same call-in powers for applications that are of potential strategic importance. This ensures that the mayor can still take the final decision on applications of importance in London. I reassure noble Lords that we value the important role of the mayor in taking strategic decisions in London, and we are taking steps in this Bill to devolve more planning powers to the mayor. With that reassurance, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Local Government Finance Settlement: Transition Grant

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so I refer to my local government interests.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the approach to allocating resources in the local government finance settlement now looks at the main resources available to local councils. The transition grant is a response to requests from local authorities through the provisional settlement consultation and is for places that did not benefit from these changes in the formula. It will be applied in direct proportion to the difference in the revenue support grant that would have been experienced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, was it just coincidence that 83% of the transition grant went to 135 Conservative councils, while 16 Labour councils which received moneys received less than either Surrey or Hampshire did individually? To what extent did authorities in the so-called northern powerhouse benefit from the grant, and can the Minister tell us what the impact on councils will be of the announced £6.7 billion cut in business rates on which they were expected to rely in future?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I can say from personal experience of where I live that Trafford did not benefit very much at all, and it is indeed a Conservative council. This money is to make up the shortfall of what would have been expected and will help councils to transition towards full local funding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Well, that is news to me, my Lords—but they will answer at the ballot box.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, would the Minister care to answer my second question about the impact on councils of today’s announcement of a £6.7 billion cut in business rates on which they were expecting to rely?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, like my noble friend Lord O’Neill, I have not caught fully the Budget Statement, but I will say that residents’ satisfaction with councils has remained high, and I expect it to go on being so. I will analyse what the noble Lord has said because I simply did not catch it in the Budget.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Monday 14th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I hope I will give further comfort to the noble Lord.

The HMRC data-sharing powers allow a sharing of income information for the landlord’s purposes under this policy only. If the landlord shares the information with anyone else, powers in the Bill could see criminal proceedings brought against them.

It may be that noble Lords have in mind that local authorities already contract their services out to private companies to collect personal information on income, and that they may do the same for the operation of this policy. Those authorities which contracted out services would have very clear rules in place about that function. The powers in the Bill do not cover that function. I therefore assure noble Lords that we take data security very seriously.

Amendment 80 would remove the subsection which allows HMRC to disclose information to a public body which has been given an intermediary function between HMRC and local housing authorities. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, for this amendment, as it gives me an opportunity to provide greater clarity over the subsection’s purpose. The intention is to enable data sharing by HMRC and local authorities for the purpose of income verification in the most appropriate way. The clause enables the function to be passed to a public body to act as a gatekeeper of information.

We are developing our thinking around how this function would operate in practice if it is needed. We want to retain flexibility in the Bill so that we can put processes in place to help local housing authorities implement the policy in a streamlined and efficient way. This may involve the creation of a public body to carry out that function on behalf of others.

The aim of this provision is to make the process as simple as possible to implement if HMRC needs to share information. I hope that noble Lords will understand that, should it be necessary to do it via a public body, that option should be available.

[Lord Beecham]

How does the possibility of a private organisation being involved fit with the requirements of the 2005 Act? Is a private organisation somehow to be made into a public body to carry out the function? I do not see how that works.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My understanding, my Lords, is that it will be private data to a public body.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

Perhaps I may interrupt the Minister in order to ask the Bill team or someone to check on the applicability or otherwise of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 in relation to this matter because I do not think that any of us are really in a position to confirm what the position is. I think that this needs proper legal advice.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I most certainly will do that, and I now know what the 2005 Act is; I defer to the noble Lord’s knowledge in that.

Amendment 80A seeks to put into the Bill a reference to arm’s-length management organisations; that is, tenant management organisations and local housing companies, in relation to the bodies that HMRC information can be passed to. I understand the intention behind the amendment, but I believe it to be unnecessary. Local housing authorities which have outsourced part or all of their housing management functions to another body such as an ALMO will have done so under powers in the Housing Act 1985. The Act provides that any function performed under such an agreement shall be treated as if it were done by the local housing authority. Therefore, when that housing management function includes functions related to implementing the policy for high-income social tenants, such as determining and setting rents, an ALMO or other body would be treated as if it were the local housing authority. In short, the reference to “a local housing authority” in Clause 81 already includes a body carrying out that housing management function on behalf of the council.

Once again, I hope that my reassurances—although I am not sure they have—have been enough to persuade the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

I am reassured by some of what the Minister has said, but to be able to test the Government on this, we need to see the guidance. This is a deeply worrying set of provisions for many tenants. The interaction between family life, secure tenancies and people’s aspirations when they live in a local community is very intense. This is creating a sense of insecurity on many of our council estates.

[Lord Beecham]

It is also a disincentive for people to invest in their homes, which they do now. They not only look after their homes but improve them. If you are not sure of being able to stay on as your child gets to the point of leaving school, or if you are a couple living in a house and your five years is coming up, is that not likely to result in a decline in the investments that people make in their homes which do huge credit to many tenants now?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I have seen many different types of social housing, some of which is incredibly well looked after and some of which is not well looked after at all. Living somewhere for a long time does provide incentives but one of the biggest incentives—I know I will hear a “Boo!” go round the Committee—is when someone buys their home. I can tell when someone has bought their home because those houses are immaculate.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Monday 14th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendments in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Best, made a very powerful case in relation to the problems that would arise from the right to buy of council housing. Rural areas have commanded and will continue to command a great deal of concern in your Lordships’ House as the Bill progresses.

I confess that I am old enough to recall listening to “The Archers” when Grace Archer was consumed by a fire in, I think, about 1954. I have not been a particularly regular listener since, but I understand that, by chance or otherwise, the question of rural housing has featured rather largely in recent editions. I believe I am right in saying that the Grundy family have encountered enormous difficulties in finding suitable local accommodation and may be driven to palming off their ancient father into some sort of care. Whether this was motivated by concerns over the Housing and Planning Bill is perhaps questionable but nevertheless it illustrates a real concern in those areas.

Of course, there has been right to buy council housing for some considerable time. I wonder whether the Minister can indicate to us the extent to which the right to buy has been exercised and what proportion of houses that have so far gone under the right to buy have ended up as second homes or private lettings, and what the impact generally has been on the provision of council housing in rural areas.

Needless to say, I searched in vain for any reference to this issue in what passes for the impact assessment on the Bill, which makes no reference at all in relation to the relevant clauses that we are debating today to the impact of government policy. Again, the Minister may or may not have the information. Those who drew up the impact assessment clearly were not interested in having it. If the information is not available today, and it may not be, will she take steps to ensure that by the time we get to Report we will have an assessment of what will happen to the existing stock of council housing that will be subject to the right to buy—and, for that matter, to housing association properties that will also be subject to the right to buy—given the unlikelihood of like-for-like replacement being achieved?

I find it very frustrating—and I am afraid it is becoming a constant refrain of Members around the House—not to be able to form a judgment about what the Government’s policies are actually going to lead to. They are leading us, and perhaps themselves, into a blind valley, as it were, without any apparent awareness of the impact of their policies upon communities, where unfortunately there is very little political gain to be made by my party as they are regarded as the natural territory of the Conservative Party. Perhaps they take it for granted. However, they cannot take for granted the needs of young and older people with very little choice of accommodation, a choice likely to be increasingly narrowed if this legislation goes through without the kind of safeguards that the amendments in the group would provide, limited though they are but nevertheless very desirable. I look forward to hearing some kind of explanation from the Minister as to how the aspirations of people in those communities are going to be met if the legislation passes in the form it is presented to us at the moment.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, before responding to the specific amendments on the sale of high-value vacant housing, I will say a few words about more detail on the policy of the Bill as a whole. Last Thursday I undertook to the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Foster—and I am sure there were several other noble Lords—that I will ensure that your Lordships will have a timetable of secondary legislation in a week or so. Later this week, I shall write to all noble Lords setting out the timetable for laying, and in some cases debating, the secondary legislation.

As I said on Thursday, and as noble Lords have pointed out during our debates, there is a healthy set of regulations to follow, but I hope to provide an overview of what your Lordships can expect and when. The finer grains of details may be subject to change—my senses tell me to expect some debate at Report, for instance—but I hope the general outline will be helpful. In addition, I have asked my officials to provide policy notes in lieu of secondary regulations wherever possible with the ambition that these will be sent to noble Lords before Report. These will build on the policy fact sheets and the information sheets which we have already circulated to noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, also asked me to confirm again today our response to the DPRRC report and I can reconfirm that that will be done by Report.

Before responding to the specific amendments, I will respond to a suggestion from my noble friend Lady Hollis—I have just called her my noble friend but I am sure she will not be offended—during the previous Committee discussion about setting up a working group with the LGA, the housing practitioners and others, to ensure that any fraud experienced through right to buy in the local authority sector is not repeated when we extend the right to buy to housing association tenants. I did watch the “Dispatches” programme over the weekend. I am delighted to confirm that I am happy to commit to setting up a working group with the local government sector and others to learn from their experiences in operating right to buy. For example, such a group could gather evidence about what has worked and what has not worked so well. It could also potentially build on the experience of a number of local authorities in tackling fraud more generally.

In extending the right to buy to housing associations, we are keen to ensure that we identify where any potential abuses could arise so that the right to buy goes from strength to strength and helps more people to achieve their dream of home ownership. We would also be interested in exploring whether such a group could usefully input on other related issues, including, for example, the provision of additional homes by local authorities that enter into an agreement with the Secretary of State following the sale of high-value vacant properties. This proposed working group will further extend our extensive engagement with local authorities and other stakeholders on high-value vacant housing. It will also help to inform our consultation with local authorities, representatives of local government and relevant professional bodies on the determination that will set out the payment required from each local authority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I hope that I have made clear my intention to bring forward information to your Lordships’ House by the end of this week as a “starter for 10”, and more in due course as the Bill progresses. However, we have debated the principle and the elements of this policy in some detail, and I rise for the last time to make the case for Clauses 73 to 77. I will also respond to Amendment 69A.

As I have previously explained, this chapter, on the sale of vacant high-value local authority housing, is an important contributor to the Government’s aims of increasing home ownership and increasing housing supply. Clause 73 simplifies accounting arrangements by reducing the total number of payments made between the Secretary of State and a local authority. It will apply if a local authority has, for example, made an overpayment through an incorrect data entry as a result of human error. It enables the Secretary of State to offset the amount that needs to be repaid against another payment that the local authority is due to make under this chapter or under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 2003, which concerns capital receipts from the disposal of housing land.

Clause 74 imposes a duty on local housing authorities that keep a housing revenue account to consider selling any vacant high-value housing which they own, recognising the importance of making the most effective use of valuable assets. The Secretary of State may exclude housing from this duty through regulations. The intention is that this will be in line with any exclusions made under Clause 68—that is, if we do not include housing in the calculation of payments, we propose that local authorities will not have a duty to consider selling it under Clause 74.

[Lord Beecham]

The Minister mentioned high-value properties but, as we have heard before, there is a greater proportion of high-value properties in rural areas. Does that not make the concept more difficult to apply in those areas in terms of the consequences of the policy for that category?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we will see how the mechanism works when it comes out, but I think I have said a couple of times in your Lordships’ House that we do not want to adversely and disproportionately affect one area compared with another, so the calculations will be made by area and by type of property according to the number of bedrooms. Noble Lords will have ample opportunity to scrutinise this through the regulations, and we may have more detail through the Bill as time goes on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, that is precisely why we are engaged with local authorities to make sure that we get this policy right. The noble Baroness has given me some figures for Norwich. I do not doubt that she is correct, but could she send me the figures so that I can have a look at them and perhaps comment on them?

[Lord Beecham]

The noble Baroness has said that there will be time to see how the matter develops. I remind her that Amendment 69A, in my name and that of my noble friend, would allow for that because it is a sunset clause. It would allow a three-year period to see how the process worked. If it did work, it could be renewed by the affirmative procedure, which, as we know, should not take all that long. Why do the Government not accept that amendment and give some reassurance that they will not press ahead with this irrespective of the outcome? The amendment would allow them to affirm the policy, assuming they are still in office, after a three-year period and on the basis of experience. Is that not a more pragmatic way of dealing with a difficult issue?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the amendment moves away from the intentions outlined in the Conservative manifesto, but while the amendment would prevent the duty to consider selling applying for a period of six months following a vacancy, the requirement of payments to the Secretary of State would not be changed. However, we monitor all policy as we go along.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Can the Minister repeat for the Committee what the Government’s problem is with Amendment 69A? It would not stop them doing anything. It is just a sunset clause and would provide them with the ability, if they proceed with the policy and find an issue with it, to stop it. If they wanted to carry on, they would bring forward the affirmative regulations to do so. I do not see what the major problem is. If the Minister could repeat her reasons, it would be very helpful.

[Lord Beecham]

Before the noble Baroness answers my noble friend, perhaps I may add to his question—it is the same point but viewed from a slightly different angle. If it turns out that the scheme is not working, on the face of it that would require the Government to bring in primary legislation to change the duty. What the amendment offers is a way of dealing with matters, if required, by secondary legislation, where that difficulty is much less—in fact, we complain about it being less much of the time. In this case, it would surely be a better way of dealing with it than imposing a duty to come back with primary legislation if the scheme proved not to be working properly.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it is not usual for a Government to bring forward legislation that they want to end. There have been sunset clauses in certain legislation, but, in this case, we do not particularly want to end it after three years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I think that we will have to agree to differ. I recognise that there are different opinions across the Committee on this, but I have made the point because social rents are lower than market rent.

[Lord Beecham]

Market rents are artificial. There is nothing God-given about market rents because they are determined by landlords, largely on the basis of a shortage of affordable housing anyway. In so far as there is a subsidy, surely it is the subsidy that is paid in the form of housing benefit for private tenants, about which the Government propose to do nothing at all.

In addition to that, the noble Baroness referred to the need for consistency across all local authorities. She has not made an argument for that, she has merely stated it as a given. The Government do not take the same view about council tax. They did in a sense when they introduced the poll tax, and they seem to be making the equivalent mistake here with local authority rents. It is an absurd proposition that the same system should apply across all local authorities irrespective, for example, of the value of the housing and average local incomes. Where is the justification for the simple assertion that that must be the basis of the scheme?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am sorry, I thought that the noble Lord was going on to make a speech. The fact is that generally social rents are cheaper than market rents, although they have been going up at a higher rate than rents in the private sector. I do not think we can compare this proposal with council tax because different areas have different needs in terms of the services they provide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, this second group of amendments is concerned mainly with exemptions from the policy and seeks to put a substantial amount of detail into the Bill about who the policy should apply to. Of course, it is important that where there is a strong justification for an exemption, we consider it carefully. We are doing just that, and putting the detail in the Bill would prevent us thinking through the pros and cons of potential exemptions carefully. We need some flexibility to conclude our work and put detail in regulations.

I will start with Amendment 70, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. It specifies a wide range of groups that the policy should not apply to. As I have explained, we do not want to put this detail in the Bill but I will outline my position on each of these groups. First, while I do not immediately see why someone on a zero-hour or seasonal contract whose household income is above £30,000 should be exempted, I recognise entirely that it will be important to build in some flexibility for households where income fluctuates, as I mentioned earlier. I will return to that issue later.

I am also not attracted to an exemption for people over 65. Income from pensions can be considerable and it would not be right to exempt a group of people who are mainly retired but where the annual income is greater than that of people in work. That strikes me as quite unfair. Having said that, we are of course giving careful thought to the issues of different pension incomes, including the treatment of Armed Forces pensions.

I am very sympathetic to the suggestion that we should consider how to protect those with a registered disability or who have significant caring responsibilities. However, we must recognise that even in these scenarios the household income may, in certain circumstances, be high. It would not be right on that basis simply to provide an exemption for whole groups. A better approach may be to design the policy to ensure that income from certain state benefits is not included in the eventual definition of income.

I will turn to the definition of income more generally in a later grouping but it is worth highlighting now that the disability living allowance is not a taxable benefit. It is unlikely that we would include income from this in the final definition of income. Carer’s allowance is a taxable benefit but this does not automatically mean we must include such income in our eventual definition. We will give this careful thought, and I welcome the views of noble Lords on it. The noble Baroness also mentioned the impact on certain protected groups. The data from the Family Resources Survey have been analysed to consider the impact on different household types. This is set out in the—now infamous—impact assessment.

I hope this section of the debate has persuaded the Committee that we are giving the issue of exemptions careful thought. I am happy to meet noble Lords privately on this issue, as I recognise how important it is.

Amendments 70B and 76, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake, Lord Best, Lord Kennedy, Lord Stoneham, and Lord Beecham, seek to restrict the policy to new tenants only. In most circumstances, new tenancies of social properties should be given to those in most housing need, where they are below the income thresholds that we have set. Those in the greatest need of social housing are therefore more likely to be new tenants with an income under the proposed thresholds. It is existing tenants who are more likely to be on higher incomes, and the policy should apply to those currently living in social housing.

I have already outlined the Government’s significant home ownership offer to existing tenants, particularly those on higher incomes, and I would encourage all tenants to look at the opportunities that are available, but it would not be right to exclude existing tenants from the policy.

[Lord Beecham]

Would the effect of encouraging people on higher incomes to buy their houses not be, ultimately, to diminish the number of houses for those who cannot afford it and who, apparently, the Government want to help?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Would the noble Lord please repeat what he has just said?

[Lord Beecham]

The Minister has just said that the object of the scheme is to get people with higher incomes to pay the full rent, move out of the property or perhaps buy it—she was talking about Help to Buy. The effect of that, ultimately, is to diminish the pool of houses available for rent by the people whom she thinks need support.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, that is why we have right to buy and why we have a programme in place to build so many houses, of different tenures, in the course of this Parliament. It is not undermining it; it is making sure that there is a more level playing field for both tenants on higher incomes and the new tenants, whom I referred to as being in genuine housing need. That is not to say that the other tenants are not also in genuine need.

Amendment 70C seeks to exempt households which exchange their property for another social home. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Kerslake, Lord Kennedy, and Lord Low, for this amendment, but I do not see the rationale for it. If a household is on a higher income, then the rules should apply equally, regardless of whether they exchanged their property voluntarily or not. Those households would be subject to the taper arrangements that I have set out at length. I am also reluctant to provide an exemption for homes that have transferred as part of a large scale voluntary transfer. For example, for homes that have transferred to a housing association, the policy should apply if the housing association has a voluntary policy in place. We want housing associations to adopt voluntary policies, and so my instinct is that there should not be an exception for properties transferred.

Amendment 74, brought forward by the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, seeks external valuation of high-income rents. I do not believe this is necessary. An external valuation is not only unnecessary but would add bureaucracy, cost and delay. I have confirmed that we will be introducing a taper, which will be the basis of rent setting. It will also be important for the Government to articulate how the process of establishing a market rent value for properties should work. The powers in the Bill can also provide tenants with an appeal mechanism if they feel that their rent levels are wrong. This is an important protection and we intend to use regulations to give tenants this right of appeal.

Amendment 75, also tabled by the noble Lords opposite, would provide for a notice period of one year before the rent becomes payable and transitional protection as the tenant moves to the higher rent. I am not sure how this would work, because rent setting is usually done around three months before a new rent year. Providing for a notice period of a year before the new rent comes in would mean that the rental amount would not be consistent with changes in household income over the notice period. As I have already said, we are giving careful thought to how income and implementation would work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that I said that higher-income tenants should think about buying. It was not a direction for higher-income tenants to think about buying but, going forward, they may well think about buying—86% of people aspire to own their own home. This may be the opportunity for them.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, said that the pilots need not be inequitable because they do not need to introduce the new rents. I would have thought that the reason for the pilots would be to see how the new rents actually work.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked about the CAB and whether conversations were going on. We are in continued engagement with the CAB and other—

[Lord Beecham]

With respect, I welcome the fact that discussions are going on. My question was: were there discussions with those organisations about the whole policy before the Government settled it?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will have to get back to the noble Lord on that precise detail. Somebody asked me a fourth question—I think it might have been the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis—but I did not write it down fully.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Thursday 10th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in the debate and the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, for their amendments. I welcome the suggestions on how we could limit the payments that are required, and their consideration of the potential impacts that the policy could have on local authorities. As I said before lunch, I also welcome their arguments on alternative ways of defining high value for the purposes of the Bill.

I understand the criticism of the impact assessment made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, but it was intended as an outline, not as a detailed value-for-money assessment. Alongside the impact assessment accompanying the Bill, we have worked in partnership with the Better Regulation Executive to produce regulatory impact assessments for all measures, including all reforming regulation on business or civil society. This is in line with the Government’s Better Regulation Framework Manual and these assessments are subject to independent scrutiny by the statutory Regulatory Policy Committee.

The regulatory impact assessments were not appropriate for the extension of right to buy and HVA measures. The extension of the right to buy to housing associations is voluntary, not regulatory, and the sale of local authority HVAs affects only the public sector. Of course, we are fully aware that we need to go through all the detailed steps of option appraisal and value-for-money analysis. We agree that this is necessary to ensure that Ministers’ decisions are informed by a full value-for-money analysis. That is why we have done very extensive and—as the NAO acknowledges at paragraph 3.17 of its report—internal analysis. We have clear processes to require this internally.

The work we have done includes policy costings in line with OBR/HMT guidance, an economic assessment of right-to-buy extension, which underpinned a bid in the SR for the pilot scheme, ongoing analysis of the costings, the impact of the sale of HVAs and the commissioning of new data to support this, analysis of financial flows and an inequalities impact assessment. We will publish further detail later this year. In the case of right to buy, this will be jointly with the HA sector, as the details of the voluntary agreement are developed, including though the pilots. In the case of HVAs, this will be alongside secondary legislation following Royal Assent. I reiterate that noble Lords’ contributions will inform these considerations, as will the thoughts from the other place and our engagement with local authorities and the other stakeholders.

Before I address the amendments in detail, I shall provide a general response to, and defence of, these measures, and in particular Clause 67. This chapter on the sale of vacant, high-value local authority housing is one important contributor to the Government’s aim of increasing home ownership and housing supply. The Government are taking the lead in managing public assets, selling where it is right to do so, and local authorities should do the same. We talked about this at length this morning. We want local authorities to sell their high-value vacant housing so that the value locked up in those properties can be released. This value will be used to fund the right-to-buy discounts for housing association tenants and the delivery of additional homes.

I know that there are a number of concerns about the policy.

[Lord Beecham]

What is the proportion between the right-to-buy discount and the provision of new homes?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, that has not been set out yet.

[Lord Beecham]

Again.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Well, we are all fairly frustrated about this, I think it is fair to say. I have to keep telling noble Lords that I am not ready to give the details. But as your Lordships know, I will do so as soon as I can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, will the Minister report to the Government that this House very much regrets the impossible position in which she has been placed by the Government, has every confidence in her good intentions but regrets that she has been unable to fulfil them because the issue is entirely out of her control, and has confidence in her but has no confidence thus far in the way the Government are proceeding?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank noble Lords for their words, particularly my noble friend, given that I have not been here for 11 of the past 13 years. This is a very complex Bill and how to proceed with or without some of the secondary legislation that goes with it is quite new territory for me. As the Bill is so necessarily complicated, I imagine that with it will go an awful lot of secondary legislation. I will definitely commit—I have already promised and I do not intend to break my promises—to the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, that that timetable will be with noble Lords in the next week or so. That is on the record now: the timetable of secondary legislation will be with noble Lords in the next week or so.

In defence of myself, in a sense, and certainly of officials, I make a plea to noble Lords to avail themselves of some of the technical briefings that are going on as the Bill proceeds. They are incredibly useful for getting some of the detail. I know most noble Lords here have attended the briefings, but please continue to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The days blur into one a bit, my Lords, when we think about the days we have spent debating.

I wanted to respond to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, about the appeal mechanism. The process for setting the payments is set out clearly in the Bill. The determination under Clause 67 will set out the formula and the payments, and the Government are required to consult before making a determination. Once the draft determination has been prepared, local authorities will be given the opportunity to check the figures and raise any queries with the Government. I know that that is not essentially an appeal process, but there is a toing and froing of views before the actual determination is made.

I turn to Amendment 63. I should make it clear that the policy has two aims: first, to fund the extension of the right to buy to housing association tenants; and, secondly, to build much-needed new homes. I reassure the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Beecham, that we have no intention of using the funding for any other purpose.

The second aim, the funding of new homes, is the reason why I do not want to restrict the payment that local authorities make to the Government simply to the same amount as the right-to-buy discounts for housing association tenants, as Amendment 63 would do. There may be times when local authorities do not want or are unable to deliver new homes, and I do not want to compel them to build more homes if they do not have the plans or processes in place to do so. As my noble friend Lord Lansley said, I want the flexibility in those circumstances for the Government to use that portion of the receipts to deliver new homes through other channels. Therefore, it will need to be paid to the Government. Flexibility will be essential to ensuring that the new homes needed are built.

[Lord Beecham]

Just to clarify, does that mean building new homes potentially in a different locality from that in which the money has been raised?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it could be, but the overall thing is that we will be adding to the stock of homes in this country.

Turning to Amendment 64, the changes proposed would be a significant task for local authorities, for which they would need considerable guidance. The biggest difficulty would be how to ensure that any methodology used across the 165 stock-holding local housing authorities was applied fairly, consistently and transparently. We have collected data from all stock-holding local authorities to enable a consistent methodology to be applied to determining the high-value threshold. That does not mean that we would set one high-value threshold for the whole country. Noble Lords have probed this on several occasions today, and I want to confirm again that we have the flexibility in the legislation to define it in different ways for different areas, as we know that house prices vary vastly across the country. However, it would mean using the same data and the same principles to apply a consistent approach to setting the definition of high value. The amendment would effectively transfer the onus of defining “high value” from—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That is my understanding, my Lords, yes.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, as ever, it has been an interesting debate—necessarily, I am afraid, longer than any of us would have liked but there is a huge amount of detail and a great many concerns about the Bill.

I thank all Members for their contributions, particularly my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, who regaled us with some very worrying details of life in Westminster. However, I caution him sometimes to take Zoopla’s valuations with a grain of salt; for a short period my own house in Newcastle, a pleasant four-bedroomed semi, was valued by Zoopla at £5.96 million, which would have made it by a considerable margin the most expensive house in the city. When I pointed out that this was possibly slightly overdone, Zoopla corrected it, and I have been going round ever since saying that I have just lost something over £5 million on the value of my house. So one has to look carefully at some of the figures. However, I dare say that the rest of my noble friend’s figures were robust.

The Minister has again earned the thanks of the House for the way in which she is endeavouring to deal with an almost impossible task. If anybody deserves some promotion and recognition among Ministers who serve in this House, she qualifies, and I expect my 10% of any increased salary for acting as her agent when that matter arises. However, I take issue with some of the conclusions that she has come to and indeed some of the replies that she made. She talks about selling the properties where it is right to do so. The question is: who determines where it is right to do so? The answer is not the local authority, which has knowledge of the local community, but, effectively, the Government. That is a ridiculously formulated conclusion because it does not put what should essentially be a local decision in the hands of anybody accountable to the local community but gives it to some machinery established by central government.

The Minister was unable—presumably because the information is not there—to give any indication about the balance of how the levy money would be spent between facilitating housing association right to buy and new build. This may be part of the information still being compiled in some office somewhere in the city, but it is crucial that we know what the intended balance should be between those two distinct options for the use of the money which will be derived either from sales, which is in the view of many of us bad enough, or even worse, from the Government anticipating sales long before perhaps they have occurred and requiring payment from the local authority. Given the position of local authorities, it is difficult to see how that levy could be funded. Perhaps subsequently we might have an indication from the Minister or the Government in general as to how they envisage authorities being able to fund such payments in advance of a sale.

The Minister was critical of Amendment 66, which deals with replacing such expensive housing. I cited the position in Newcastle, which I suspect will be similar in many other authorities, where a small proportion of properties in council ownership are large properties because of the need for five bedrooms, perhaps because the family is large or because there are special needs in relation to providing for disabled people—perhaps a carer needs to be on the premises, and so on. If all of these have to be sold as they come on the market, in Newcastle’s case, as I have indicated, we have roughly 28 applications a year for these properties and a turnover of only five a year. So on average it will take five and a half years now to accommodate applicants for accommodation of that kind. If the properties have to be sold—and only a handful become vacant every year: five a year—there is virtually no chance of that demand being met. I do not know whether anybody has given any thought to that difficulty. I suspect that roughly similar proportions would be found in many other authorities.

I invite the Minister to ask her officers, or whoever advises the Government on these matters, to look very specifically at the demand for that kind of large accommodation. Of course, there are other higher-value properties which are not of that size, but I ask that she look at the question of larger properties needed for larger families or for people with particular needs that must be met with that space and at how that would fit into the present proposals. At the very least, perhaps the Minister could look at a possible government amendment to deal with what would be a very real situation. The numbers are not large but the period is long for people with a need which might not otherwise be met. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy, Lord Beecham, Lord Best, Lord Kerslake, Lord Shipley and Lord Berkeley—in his absence—and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Grender, for their amendments. I welcome this opportunity to discuss their suggestions for possible exclusions from the housing that is to be taken into account in calculating the payments required from local authorities.

The legislation already includes the ability for the Secretary of State to exclude categories of housing from the calculation through regulations. Regulations will provide flexibility to ensure that if circumstances change over time or a need for different exclusions is identified in the future, this can be easily addressed by adding to, amending or removing exclusions in the regulations. We will carefully work through the suggestions that have been put forward, considering the points noble Lords and others have raised, while balancing the need for the policy to support the delivery of right to buy to housing association tenants.

Any exclusions of types of housing that have been suggested today would reduce the amount of money that would be available to increase overall housing supply and to extend home ownership, as the Government committed to in their manifesto. Therefore, we will be considering the data that have been submitted by local authorities, which I referred to earlier, covering the 1.6 million council properties, to identify the potential impact that these possible exclusions would have on the funding available to deliver our priorities.

While no decisions have yet been made, I assure noble Lords that we will be carefully considering the views expressed in your Lordships’ House and the other place and through our engagement with local authorities and other stakeholders when making these decisions. With this in mind, I hope that noble Lords will support our ongoing engagement with local authorities in looking at possible exclusions, and will agree to withdraw or to not move their amendments.

Turning to the detail of the amendments, Amendment 66C, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, concerns tenant management organisations. We are collecting data and engaging widely to inform the types of housing that will be excluded from the policy, but homes managed by TMOs that are in scope of this legislation must be owned by councils. We think that councils should not keep hold of their vacant housing, the value of which could be released to fund both the building of additional homes and the extension of right to buy to housing association tenants. Excluding housing managed by TMOs would result in less funding being available for these two aims.

[Lord Beecham]

Does that not effectively spell the end of tenant management organisations, and are they not a form of dealing with housing which is rooted in communities and self-management?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Would the noble Lord explain why he thinks that this would be the end of TMOs?

[Lord Beecham]

Because if the properties become high-value ones, on becoming vacant they will be sold. The whole concept of a tenant management group—a sort of co-operative, if you will—managing the property will not last.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, if the property were sold, surely the TMO would exist for different types of tenures.

[Lord Beecham]

I cannot see how that is going to happen. As people move out, the people who move in will be buying the house: they will not be part of a tenant management organisation at all.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, that is not the intention at all, but I am very happy to take that away and have a think about it. I would not want to spell the end of tenant management organisations, because they fulfil a vital role.

It is important to say at this stage that under the formula approach, if a local housing authority has discretion not to sell properties and does not want to sell a particular property—for example, one managed by a TMO—it should choose not to do so, provided that it makes the payment to the Secretary of State. I accept that that does not answer the noble Lord’s point. Perhaps he could just let me think about this—although it may be too late, as I cannot think very well at the moment.

Amendments 67, 67B, 68 and 69 seek to exclude various types of housing when calculating the payments required from local authorities, including newly constructed or renovated homes, homes in regeneration areas, recently improved housing and specialised housing. Amendment 68A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, would exclude dwellings that become vacant as the result of a transfer to alternative social accommodation from being taken into account. I assure noble Lords that we will look carefully at all these suggestions and consider the points that have been made today, while balancing the need for funding from the sale of high-value vacant homes to support the delivery of right to buy to housing associations.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, is concerned about two social tenants being unable to exchange properties. I can reassure him that the two tenancies do not come to an end, so a vacancy is not created. I therefore confirm that, in these circumstances, mutual exchanges will not fall into the scope of the policy. The legislation allows the Secretary of State to specify other cases where housing would not become vacant for the purposes of the chapter.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I understand that point. As far as I am aware, the Government have not made an assessment of the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, simply because they made a manifesto commitment on the mechanism that I have just outlined.

[Lord Beecham]

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, seems to represent a way forward. The noble Baroness indicates that it might not work or may not be necessary. I do not understand why she should reject it out of hand on the basis of her hypothesis rather than facilitate its introduction and test it. What is wrong with that? It would not necessarily replace the proposition that is contained in the Bill but it would allow a proper test of a proposition that she is sceptical about. The noble Lord is confident about it, and with all due respect to the Minister, some of us might be a bit more inclined to put our money on him than on the Minister’s advisers and those who have prepared her for this debate. I do not know what the noble Lord thinks, but I do not find the Minister’s response particularly encouraging.

Moreover, Clause 63 relates specifically to London and the Greater London Authority. That illustrates one of the difficulties of this debate, because London is a special case. It is arguable that some of the proposals in the Bill fit better in other parts of the country, as the housing pressures in London are very distinct. Can the Minister explain why Greater London should be singled out for special provision in Clause 63, whereas other local authority areas are not treated discretely, as it were? By the Greater London Authority I suppose we mean the mayor. Is London getting particular consideration? Why should that be the case when in the country as a whole there are the same demands and pressures to a greater or lesser extent? Why should London be treated differently for the purposes of this Bill?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the clause is necessary because the Homes and Communities Agency does not have the locus to make payments in relation to housing association properties sold in London. It is not being singled out for special treatment, but that is why the clause is necessary.

The reason I have rejected the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, is, first, because of the very clear manifesto commitment. The amendment departs in nature and in aim from the manifesto commitment. Secondly—

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I repeat that we will have full opportunity to discuss those points in future groups of amendments. I am trying to accommodate the House in moving towards the dinner break business. This has been an extremely long debate; I do not in any way wish to divest myself of my responsibilities for answering these points, but I ask that we address them in their groups. I am very happy to answer the noble Baroness’s questions.

[Lord Beecham]

In that same spirit, perhaps the Minister will confirm that we will have the information on starter homes before Report.

It is interesting to look at what the impact assessment says about the right to buy for the housing association sector. It says:

“Primary legislation is also required to monitor how these opportunities are being adopted so potential homeowners can hold their housing association to account, if necessary”.

That is an interesting perspective on the degree to which the Government trust their partners in the housing association sector.

More important, however, is the next paragraph, which purports to outline the impact of intervention:

“The Government expects the clauses within the Bill to facilitate housing associations offering home ownership opportunities to their tenants. Without the legislation, the Secretary of State, or the Greater London Authority would not be able to compensate a housing association for the cost of the discount … The Government will issue a prospectus setting out more detail of the scheme in due course”.

There is not a word about the impact of the Bill on the number of homes that might be transferred by housing associations, the amount of money that will be received by the associations or, indeed, where it comes from. That is not an impact assessment; it is an announcement about the objectives of the policy. I shall return to this theme, I am afraid, in later amendments. I do not blame the Minister for this, but it is a pretty poor effort.

The Minister rightly referred to people’s aspiration to own their own home, and it is true that a very high proportion of people have that aspiration. But if that aspiration is to be fulfilled, it should not be at the expense of those who cannot afford to buy their home and who need to rent. We know what has happened to property sold under the previous policy of the right to buy council housing. As my noble friend has said, 40% of those houses are now not owned by aspiring owner-occupiers; they are owned by aspiring buy-to-let landlords who let out the property at much higher rents and at greater cost to the public purse than would otherwise have been the case because of the way in which housing benefit works. It is not, therefore, a simple case of catering to that need, as if there were no potential adverse consequences.

The Minister also referred to the opportunity for older and disabled tenants to buy their properties. However, these properties are very often purpose-designed and, as she said, fitted out for a particular purpose. There is nothing to ensure that after the original purchase, those properties will remain available for older people and people with disabilities. They could simply disappear and the people who would have had the benefit of those facilities may not get them.

The noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Horam, talked about the risks of reclassifying these properties as part of the public sector, the implication being that this would have devastating consequences because it would somehow increase public indebtedness and the like. But the money is not going into thin air, it is going into assets. The assets will remain on the balance sheet. This is a phantom criticism, it seems to me, of the objections to the way in which the Government have proceeded.

We entirely support all the other amendments moved by the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Kerslake. I am disappointed that the noble Lord does not see the merit in Amendment 55, but I think that the arm of the housing association sector is going to be twisted. Indeed, the rather minatory words that I quoted from the impact assessment contain that implication—that pressure will be put on those housing associations. The noble Lord, Lord Porter, my successor—I was the first chairman of the LGA and the noble Lord is the current chairman; quite for how long remains to be seen but I suspect it may not end as quickly as I would like—was critical of aspects of what some of us have been suggesting but nevertheless made the very strong point that local authorities should not be expected to pay for this. I entirely endorse what he said in that respect.

Other issues have been raised. I do not propose to take much more time in winding up, but I would just like to refer to the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, who is no longer in her place. She congratulated the Government on the basis that the Bill would get the country building. There is absolutely no evidence for that. There is no requirement even for replacement building, for example. There is nothing, certainly in what we are discussing today, which will encourage building, let alone building in areas where it is most needed, including the rural areas about which we have heard a great deal. The case for this arrangement has been far from adequately made in terms of the future impact on the housing needs of people who cannot afford to buy, who are having to pay extortionate private rents. Given that concern has been raised—I think by the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, herself—about the unfortunate position of people who cannot afford properties, the reality is that there will be more of those people in rented accommodation than will be helped by this move.

I still take the view that while this is currently a voluntary deal, if ultimately the Government are not satisfied with the numbers—and of course we do not know whether they have a target number because there is nothing in the impact assessment to say what that might be—they will have recourse to legislation. I would be very surprised if that was not the case. The noble Lord, Lord Young, possibly slightly misunderstood me. My fear is that a second Conservative Government —or third Conservative Government, in effect; their former allies have dissociated themselves these days—would be driven to pushing further and requiring the same provision for housing association properties as they imposed 30 years ago on local authorities, with, in many cases, very adverse results. Having said all that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Affordable Housing

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Monday 7th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, affordable homes are 20% below market values, and our new starter homes, as I have recently demonstrated in the Chamber, will cost about £145,000 outside London, so will be well within the affordability range for many first-time buyers, but there is a range of other products for people to purchase, should they wish, such as shared ownership schemes.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I received a phone call yesterday from the son of a friend who is 48 and lives with his partner and their nine year-old child in a council flat in Hackney. He supports his 15 year-old son from a previous marriage, who also spends time with the family. The rent is £780 a month. The rent for an equivalent private rented accommodation is in the region of £2,500 a month. A single-bedroom flat costs £300 a week to rent. The combined income of the household is £45,000 a year—above the pay-to-stay level in London. Does the Minister regard the rents I have cited for those other properties as affordable? If not, what assurance can she give that this family and thousands like it up and down the country will be able to afford to continue to live in their present accommodation?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we have spoken at length about London and the variability of house prices between and even within different authorities. The noble Lord is not wrong when he says that rents are high in some places in London but, as I pointed out, a number of different products are available, including shared ownership, which may for the first time make the housing market accessible to those who previously were unable to afford it.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, in that case will local authorities be able to claim Section 106 land which has now been earmarked for starter homes and which in the past has funded more than 50% of social housing in this country? The Minister says that they can do it but she is denying them the powers, the authority and the revenue base by which to do it.

[Lord Beecham]

Before the Minister replies to that, how does this aspiration match the Government’s imposition of cuts in rents for local authority social housing, which will restrict their capacity to invest?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, to go back to the first question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, the councils will provide through various mechanisms different types of tenure, as they always have done. We fully expect that this will be the case in the future and I have outlined some of the funding mechanisms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as I have said this will happen through a variety of mechanisms. I appreciate that we are in disagreement at this point but if noble Lords will indulge me, I would like to make some progress.

[Lord Beecham]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way but broadly speaking, it is right to say that in terms of Section 106, authorities have been accustomed to accepting some 15% of houses in development under that scheme. Can the Minister give any indication of what she thinks the future likely percentage will be under the regime which the Bill introduces? In percentage terms will it be around the same, less or more, and on what basis does she advance her opinion? I accept that she may not have an answer immediately across the Dispatch Box and if she does not, can she write to us about that?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I cannot say at the Dispatch Box what the percentage will be, because it will be out for consideration, but I can give my opinion. In my experience, it will not be too dissimilar from the affordable homes expectation that was previously in place. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked me another question in following the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on the previous point and I have completely forgotten what he said. Perhaps he could repeat it—it is going to be a long day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It includes all sorts of properties, and that is for first-time buyers. But the price cap is a cap; it is not an average. We can and we will argue statistics today, but the cap is not the average, and the average first-time buyer price of a home in London is £356,000.

[Lord Beecham]

I thank the Minister. I referred to this when we discussed similar matters the other day. The suggestion—I was quoting Savills as my authority—is that new-build homes are going to be more expensive than houses on the market, so the £350,000 figure is likely to be an underestimate—if I recall rightly, by around 10%. We will be looking at nearer £400,000 for a new-build property, which makes it a different story.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I apologise to the noble Lord and to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, because the figure that I gave was the implied first-time buyer price of a new-build in London. I think we will all get a bit confused with prices and statistics today, so I hope the noble Lords will accept my apology.

I turn now to the amendments. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, for Amendments 43 and 44, which suggest limiting starter homes to local people, and for Amendment 40, which would prevent starter homes being sold to buy-to-let investors.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his amendments, which seek to restrict starter homes to those purchasing via a mortgage, and to require first-time buyers to occupy starter homes as their principal residence. Finally, the amendments in my name introduce some modest flexibility to the age 40 cap.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, matters may have been resolved by Third Reading, but I will speak to officials to see what can be done to expedite the detail of the regulations as soon as possible. I can do no more than that today.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I would like to revert from this dreadful series of process issues and assert that the Committee has every sympathy with the Minister; it is no fault of hers that we are in this dreadful situation. To go back to the last substantive thing that she said, which was about making sure that the houses are not let after being bought, what mechanism will there be for monitoring the situation? Unless it is effectively monitored it becomes a meaningless provision, and I am not sure how it might be monitored.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there will be a power to stop letting because this is a very important aspect. For the intention of what is being provided through starter homes to be flouted in that way would undermine the policy altogether.

[Lord Beecham]

That is obviously right. The question is how it is going to be done. Will someone be going around and checking letting boards or with estate agents to see whether properties bought under right to buy are to be let? Or is it going to be an obligation, although how it would be enforced is another matter, for an owner of a right-to-buy property to notify someone about letting? Again, how could that be enforced? There are real practical difficulties here to which I find it hard to come up with an answer. I am not expecting the Minister to come up with an answer just like that, but I hope that someone in the department is giving some thought to how they can make a reality of the aspiration, which the Government and the Minister no doubt have, that the principle of not letting these properties is actually enforceable.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord gets to the heart of some of the issues on which we shall be consulting and which we shall try to ensure do not happen—for example, abuse of the facility. The regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so there will be time to debate them, although I am not losing sight of noble Lords’ frustration.

I have completely lost my place. The English housing survey, which was published in February, found that 83% of first-time buyers funded their first property with savings; 27% had help from family or friends, while 10% used inheritance. Many first-time buyers used a combination of sources and 96% required a mortgage to buy. I am not convinced that a mortgage requirement will prevent the gaming that noble Lords suggest, although I can see exactly where they are coming from. People can play all sorts of games with mortgages. They can get a mortgage and, six months later, pay it back. I am keen to prevent local gaming, but I do not know that this would actually prevent it. We will keep implementation under review and issue further regulations if necessary.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, talked about resale in the first five years. This is a very important point. For example, what would happen to any money from the 20% discount? If a property were resold in the first five years, it would be sold at a 20% discount during that period, so it would remain a starter-home type of product.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am sure that we will go on to talk about “in perpetuity” today. The Government are quite clear that not making these homes discounted in perpetuity allows mobility up the housing ladder and frees up property for other people to live in. Also, it does not restrict the person who has bought the starter home in making progress up the property ladder.

[Lord Beecham]

I want to revert for a moment to the conundrum posed by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, to which the noble Baroness has endeavoured to reply—with some difficulty, which I quite understand. His question is predicated upon a single person inheriting a house. However, if two or three siblings inherited a share in that house, on the face of it that would also invoke the problem he raised. Again, I do not ask for an answer now but this is yet another area that needs to be explored by those advising the Minister. On the face of it, one out of the three, four or however many siblings might have a share in this notional property would be disqualified.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think that the noble Lord is right. If the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, will indulge me, I will write to him on this further. It starts to raise questions, particularly when there are two or three—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I take the noble Baroness’s point, but the Government’s wish is that people who want to move—and there are many reasons why people would want to move in the future—will be able to do so without being restricted by the same problems that they faced when buying before the starter home discount came in. Also, that mobility introduces a supply into the market. Noble Lords from all round the House have talked about the lack of supply and the lack of supply at a certain level. So it has a dual purpose, in allowing other people to come on to the market but also introducing supply when those people choose to move on.

I now move to non-government Amendments 43 and 44. Over the last 20 years, we have heard that the proportion of those under the age of 40 who are homeowners in England has declined by over a third, from 61% to 38%. There has been a 26 percentage point increase in the proportion of that age group who rent homes in the private sector, from 18% to 44%. Therefore, as one has declined, so the other has gone up. This is a problem faced by an entire generation. It would be wrong to say that some people cannot benefit from starter homes and buy a home in the location that works for them simply because they are currently living or working elsewhere. They could, for example, currently be priced out of the neighbourhood of their choice, or they could be relocating for work or other personal reasons. The effect of a local connections test on starter homes would be to restrict access for some people for no good reason. A starter home purchaser must commit to living in the property for five years and there will not be the opportunity to rent out the property, as we have already discussed. This must be a better test of commitment to an area.

It is also important that there is consistency, in order that our reforms and the commitment to deliver 200,000 starter homes are widely understood. This is particularly important for lenders and developers, and their support and engagement are critical to achieve delivery. Putting differential requirements in place as a matter of course, such as a local connection test, would introduce complexity that we do not want in getting housing delivery on the ground. However, my noble friend Lord Young brought up the point that a local connection may be warranted, and I recognise that. It has long been a common feature of rural exceptions sites, where opportunities for new housing supply are very limited. As part of our consultation on national planning policy, we sought views on whether local planning authorities should have the flexibility to introduce a local connection test for starter homes on rural exception sites. This would reflect the particular needs of some rural areas, where local connections are important and access to the housing market for working people can be extremely difficult. It would also be consistent with existing policy on rural exception sites. We are currently considering consultation responses on this point.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I wonder whether it might not be sensible also to look at possible urban exception sites. Take the case of inner London—there may be other places as well—where there are very high levels of demand and very high prices, and even these homes will not exactly be cheap. Would it not be sensible to allow the local planning authorities in those areas to have the discretion to require a local connection, having regard to the pressures they are already experiencing with their existing population? I certainly support the rural exception point, and presumably it may be possible to have a similar mechanism for urban areas. Perhaps in conjunction with discussions with the LGA or combined authorities, the Government could reach an agreement about which areas should have that. Some element of discretion ought surely to be provided for in urban areas. The Minister represented part of Greater Manchester where, I suspect, there will be areas with precisely the same problem.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I support my noble friend in what he says. This morning, I was sent briefing data from the city of Cambridge. The average house price in Cambridge city, based on February 2016 data, is £483,625—in other words, £484,000. The lowest quartile price is £315,000, and there has been a 17% increase in the last 12 months. South of Cambridgeshire—so people would have to travel in, but none the less—the average price is £385,700. In the east of England, it is £303,000. These figures confirm the point that my noble friend was making: we are going to need exemptions for urban sites of high demand just as we will in rural areas. Cambridge city and university cities across the country face this sort of price explosion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I was trying to articulate my point about housing mobility. People buying starter homes who want to move on to the next rung of the ladder would be disenfranchised at a further point down their aspirational route.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, if you have served your five-year term, as it were, and you make your £100,000 or so profit, you will have more money to spend on the second house. Surely the effect of that will be to push up house prices.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the effect of introducing 1 million more new homes into the housing market by 2021 will be to increase supply, which should, first, deal with some of the problems of demand and, secondly, start to moderate house prices in a way that has not been the case over the past few decades.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That is the figure being challenged and we will return to it later but in the absence of seeing the report and its figures, I cannot comment on that report at this time.

[Lord Beecham]

Can I remind the Minister of my request to see a comparison of newly built first-time purchases and any other housing that might be bought by a first-time buyer? I suspect that there is a difference.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I take it that the letters will be circulated to all Members taking part in the debate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

For “fixtures and fittings”.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord makes an extremely valid point and I will ask about what the mechanism would be there. People will be queueing up for these homes anyway because they are going to be appealing for first-time buyers, but I will ask about the precise mechanism by which that would work—whether, effectively, there is competition in the market. That is a valid question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I can say to the noble Lord that we will certainly request that—he has been teasing us all afternoon. I am looking forward to seeing that report and I am sure that we will debate it in full, comparing those data and the Government’s data. I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I express the thanks of the House to the noble Baroness. She has had a long, difficult and, if I may say so, lonely day in terms of support. Over the lunch break, I suggested to her that she should have a word with the Whips’ Office to ensure that somebody else could take some of the load of replying to the debate. Perhaps the noble Lord was sent in for that purpose, but I do not know how well he would have been prepared for it. For the rest of our discussions on the Bill, I hope that the noble Baroness receives more visible and audible support. It is unfair for her to have to deal with all these complicated matters on her own. I compliment her for her patience and good nature, if not for the policies that she is supporting.

In speaking to his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Best, came out with a rather delightful phrase:

“If the cream is too rich, the cat dies”.

It is not quite appropriate in this case because, effectively, the cat is the public purse. The public purse suffers because money is being pumped into this scheme—and it is not just the public purse, but other potential uses for that funding in the housing sector. So it is a rather strange cat that we are looking at.

The noble Lord also referred to the concern of the building industry in that regard. The noble Baroness did not refer to that but seemed to imply that this was a great thing for the industry. However, that is not, apparently, the view of the industry. It would be interesting to see, as we go through the Bill, whether more information comes from that sector.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, referred to Help to Buy and the Minister made some reference to it, too. It is not clear whether and to what extent the relationship between the two concepts has been thought through and whether the impact of the one on the other has been assessed as to eventual outcomes. As usual, there is little in the impact assessment to help us. This clearly needs to be addressed. Help to Buy might decline in the light of this arrangement. Of course, Help to Buy is not confined to this particular age group, but it is not at all clear what the impact of the change would be. The noble Baroness gave some figures for the amount that the scheme costs. It may or may not be cost-effective. On balance, it looks to be a sensible proposition.

Amendment 39A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who is not in his place, has a good deal to commend it. I hope that the noble Baroness will look at it slightly more sympathetically than she appeared to be doing, although I am not sure if I have read her intentions correctly. The amendment seems a sensible proposition.

The noble Lord, Lord True, referred to distortions in the market. Of course there are distortions in the market, particularly in the capital, with a vast amount of investment flowing into very expensive properties and buildings, many of them apparently for the benefit of overseas citizens who want to park their money somewhere safe. That must have a distorting effect on the whole housing market in the capital. Nothing in the Bill, or anywhere else, appears to address that issue, but the issue surely needs to be addressed—not necessarily in the Bill—as it is a factor in the huge price rises in the capital. It also uses the resources of the industry, which could be building more affordable homes elsewhere but, for obvious reasons, is investing heavily in these hugely expensive and unwanted developments. As the noble Lord rightly says, or implies, this distorts the market.

The amendments to which my noble friend and I have subscribed our names have two potential ways of dealing with the discount. We have signed up to both of them because they are both potential runners and we need to discuss them in further detail, perhaps before we get to Report. One is that the discount should be regarded as being there in perpetuity, which would hold the price down in perpetuity, while the other would taper the discount. They would not necessarily lead to money being paid by a seller as opposed to the price having to be retained at the discounted level—while of course allowing for the house inflation to which my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has referred more than once.

This is a hugely complicated area. We all need time to reflect and I hope that that period of reflection will be materially aided by as many answers as the noble Baroness and her team can provide and by advice from those in the industry and those concerned with the problem nationally, bearing in mind that there will be different approaches in different parts of the country, which we very much need to take into account. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That is very true. If the noble Baroness will forgive me, I will come back to her. I may well have those figures in my notes, and, during the course of Committee, I will come back to her.

[Lord Beecham]

I wish to return to the issue of the deposit scheme. The noble Baroness relies on the apparent success of the alternative dispute resolution scheme. She is right to do so for those who use that scheme, but of course the scheme is, in a sense, optional. Both parties have to agree to use the resolution scheme. If one party does not—and it might well be the landlord—then there is no resolution through that mechanism, so merely quoting the figures which are produced by that scheme does not necessarily reflect the situation in the marketplace. I do not know whether the Minister has or can procure any evidence of the incidence of problems outside the ADR scheme, or what the impact might be of making it not a matter to be agreed between the parties, but something in place for either party without necessarily having to sign up to an agreement. That might be a way of facilitating access to the scheme, usually for tenants, who would otherwise have to deploy other methods, including possibly their own resources. For the reasons I have already given, that will often be difficult.

With respect, while the ADR scheme is very useful, it does not necessarily cover the whole area. My amendment seeks the involvement of the Government in looking at the situation in the remaining area and deciding whether changes need to be made. I hope the noble Baroness will agree to have another look at that aspect of it.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will look at it again, but this is covered in How to Rent. I certainly know from my own experience, and I declare a past interest in this, that within a certain period from the start of a tenancy—I think it is 28 days—not only does the tenancy deposit scheme have to be set up, but the landlord has to produce the certificate in the house. We talked about an electronic version of it. Alarm bells should ring for a tenant if such a scheme has not been set up and evidence produced of it, but maybe I am not getting the right end of the stick.

[Lord Beecham]

I understand the difficulties of all this, but I do not think that the noble Baroness quite has the point. You can enter into the scheme but, as I understand it, it requires both parties to agree to the alternative resolution of a problem. If one party—usually the landlord—does not, that way of disposing of the matter does not exist. The question therefore is: what other methods are available and how can the system be improved? One way is to make not just the deposit but use of ADR compulsory where there is a dispute. Perhaps that is worth looking at but, as my amendment suggests, an overview of the whole situation would be a useful start.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will go away and explore the points that the noble Lord has made. I will write to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

In which case, do noble Lords want a response to it now, or to wait until the next group?

[Lord Beecham]

Seeing as I have confused everybody—including myself—I think it would be better to deal with Amendment 48 in the next group.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

If that is what noble Lords would like, that is what we will do. I just wanted all noble Lords to be satisfied that, if they wanted to speak to an amendment, they had the opportunity and I was not just running roughshod. If I miss out any contributions from noble Lords, please have a bit of sympathy with me because this has been quite a significant debate.

I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley, the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for the amendments. I support the intention behind them, which is to highlight that other home ownership products as well as starter homes can serve the needs of first-time buyers. I hope that I can refer to that in my comments on funding and on the Bill, but I hope that noble Lords will feel that the amendments are not necessary, as I will explain.

Amendment 46A from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, Amendment 47A from my noble friend Lord Lansley, and Amendment 47B from the noble Lord, Lord Best, all seek to extend the duty to promote starter homes under Clause 3 to other forms of home ownership. Amendment 48D and associated amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, seek to change the starter home requirement under Clause 4 to cover home ownership more broadly.

There was a question from, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about whether everyone aspires to own their own home. There is evidence that the vast majority of people—some 86%—aspire to own their own home. We are determined to extend the opportunity of home ownership to hard-working families by measures aimed at doubling the number of first-time buyers. We believe that shared ownership and other home ownership products have an important role to play as part of the diverse and thriving housing market in helping those who aspire to home ownership but who may be unable to afford it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not think that the noble Lord is wrong that in certain parts of the country—and I think I know the parts he is referring to—home ownership has declined because people do not want to live there. I think that some of the regeneration and transport policies and some of the policies for the northern powerhouse for rebalancing the economy will contribute to all parts of the country being able to maximise their economic potential and make people want to live there. I give the example of Salford, where MediaCity was built. That area of Salford is a very desirable place to buy.

There are a number of interventions that the Government can make that all add to the mix of a place being an attractive place to live. I have seen where transport investment suddenly has made areas that people did not want to go near—Wythenshawe—into ones where suddenly the house prices have increased dramatically. They are becoming very vibrant places in which to live because of those transport links and investment in the airport. I accept that point. We cannot just take individual government policies and criticise them. We have to take everything in the mix in terms of improving and rebalancing our economy outside the south-east while recognising that the south-east is a fantastic place to live and is the engine of this country in many ways.

[Lord Beecham]

One of the interventions the Government have made has been to impose a 1% reduction in rents for social housing, which is going to have a significant impact on the capacity of local authorities and the housing association sector to maintain or improve stock or build. That reduction will reflect itself in a reduction in housing benefit to local authority tenants but will not in any way contribute towards meeting housing need.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we have talked a lot this afternoon about tenants and tenants on lower incomes and actually the 1% reduction will help tenants. Housing associations are in a very—

Local Authorities: Fossil Fuel Holdings

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there may have been some confusion in the press over the difference between the pension investment guidance and the procurement guidance. There will shortly be guidance on pension investment, but I think what has made local authorities slightly uneasy is the slight confusion in the press. On divestment from pension funds, it is the first duty of a pension fund to provide the best returns for investors, as I said yesterday at the Dispatch Box.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Government have long since abandoned their pretensions to be the greenest Government ever? What business do a Government of self-proclaimed localists—for whom ethics appears to be a county in the south-east of England—have in instructing local authorities or their pension funds as to what fuel they should buy or invest in? Is there any area of local government responsibility that they are prepared to leave to the discretion of democratically elected councils?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, this is subject to consultation. The Government are not directing local authorities to do anything other than maximise the returns on investments and provide best value from procurement.

City Regions: Pension Funds

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I totally concur with the noble Lord that the GM pension fund performs very well and meets the needs of its members almost 100%. I am not surprised that the noble Lord has brought this up, given the way Greater Manchester has thought over the last few years, certainly in terms of its ambitions for strategic housing. I would be very happy to meet both the noble Lord and members of the combined authority to see what progress we can make in this area.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, given the disparity between some regions—for example, the north-east compared with the south-east—should not the Government incentivise not local authority pension funds but general pension funds to invest in infrastructure in the areas that have the least resources and the greatest needs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a vital point. The job of a pension fund, first and foremost, is to maximise the returns for its investors—there is absolutely no doubt about that. However, in pooling the resources of a pension fund, for example, you could go to fewer fund managers, which cost a lot of money relatively, and therefore have more efficient pension funds than perhaps we have now in local authority schemes.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, while trembling for the future of the noble Baroness’s husband, could I revert to the question I asked, as I do not think she quite understood my point? Will the Government consider incentivising non-local authority pension funds to invest in those areas that need the most economic investment?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I cannot speak for future government thinking, but to maximise the potential of pension funds, particularly where those funds are healthy, it would make sense that that is a very good way to go.

And I just want to tell the House that my husband is very well and healthy.

Housing: Affordable Housing

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Monday 22nd February 2016 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for securing it at what appears to be a very timely moment. I am sure waiting for three months has been worth it.

This Government have a good record on affordable housing delivery. Between 2011 and 2015, 193,000 affordable homes have been delivered in England, which exceeded our target by 23,000. The spending review announced that we will invest £8 billion to deliver a further 400,000 affordable housing starts. Councils will continue to support delivery of a range of affordable housing. A number of noble Lords brought this point up—it is not just about starter homes but about a range of different types of affordable housing. Councils are in the best position to bring forward more land for affordable housing.

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, who brought up council housing and asked what our aspirations were for it. More council housing has been built since 2010 than in the previous 13 years, and 2014 saw the highest number of council housing starts for 23 years. However, we are clear on prioritising support for low-cost home ownership. We want current and future generations to experience the benefits of owning their own homes, and I believe our reforms are the best way to achieve this.

The right to buy has already helped 2 million families to realise their dream of owning a home. We reinvigorated it in 2012, and as a result sales have jumped from 2,600 in 2011-12 to 12,300 in 2014-15. This shows that these realistic discounts have enabled significantly more people to realise their home ownership dreams—I see my noble friend Lord Young to my right, who asked a Question earlier about housing. A question was asked in Committee about the decline in home ownership. Last week saw a report that said that, for the first time, decline had halted. Hopefully, we are on an upward trajectory.

[Lord Beecham]

Could the Minister tell us how many of the houses that were sold were replaced?

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to the amendments, which have one aim: to support and protect those living in the private rented sector.

Amendment 20 would place a duty on landlords to ensure that their properties are fit for human habitation when let and that they remain fit during the tenancy. The amendment would also give legal rights to tenants to take action directly against their landlord through the courts when properties are in an unfit condition.

Clearly, all homes should be of a reasonable standard, and all tenants should have a safe place to live, regardless of tenure, particularly when they are vulnerable and living in unacceptable conditions. As noble Lords have already stated, an existing framework allows local authorities strong powers to require landlords to make necessary improvements to a property. Indeed, the last Labour Administration introduced the framework in 2004 as a replacement for the old fitness standard. The housing health and safety rating system assesses the health and safety risk in all residential properties, and under the Housing Act 2004, following a HHSRS inspection local authorities can issue an improvement notice or a hazard awareness notice. In extreme circumstances, the local authority may decide to make the repairs itself, or to prohibit that property from being rented out.

Local authorities have strong and effective powers to deal with poor-quality, unsafe accommodation, and we expect them to use these powers. However, this Government have gone further, to enable local authorities to take targeted action. Where rented housing in a particular area is characterised by poor property conditions, the local authority can now introduce a selective licensing scheme which enables it to target enforcement action. Last month we also announced a further £5 million funding for 48 local authorities to tackle rogue landlords, on top of the £6.7 million made available in the last Parliament. We have also consulted on extending mandatory licensing of houses in multiple occupation, again focusing regulation where it is needed. Finally, we are strengthening measures that local authorities already have by taking forward proposals through this Bill to enable local authorities to take further enforcement against rogue landlords, including through the database that we have talked about, the civil penalty notices and the extended rent repayment orders.

I support the aim of this amendment—raising standards for tenants—but it would lead to additional costs for good landlords, who are the ones that will pay for inspections and certificates to prove the condition of their property. I also have concerns that the amendment would give legal rights to tenants to take action themselves through the courts for the following reasons. We have issued guidance to make tenants aware of their rights, and to make landlords responsible, through the How to Rent and Renting a Safe Home guides, both of which are available on the gov.uk website. I have already mentioned that there is a system whereby tenants can raise concerns with their local authority and it will carry out an inspection, with strong powers and a duty to act if it finds a serious hazard. Civil penalties of up to £30,000 and rent repayment orders will give local authorities significantly more resources to ramp up inspection and enforcement. Noble Lords may consider that local authorities have limited resources to carry out inspections, but through the civil penalties measures outlined in the Bill they would be able to keep those penalties for housing-related activities.

I question whether a vulnerable tenant would prefer to go through a lengthy court process rather than to be in a position to get their landlord to carry out repairs or to seek redress. My concern is that such a measure would lead only to rogues avoiding their responsibilities and the sanctions that could lead to them being banned. In addition, the amendment provides, among other things, for the court to have regard to whether there is a category 1 hazard in the property. In order to establish whether there is a category 1 hazard, the local authority would need to have carried out an inspection using the HHSRS methodology. In such cases, therefore, the tenant would need to involve the local authority in the proceedings.

As has been made clear in the other place, there is an appetite to ensure that landlords have a legal duty to carry out electrical safety checks on behalf of their tenants. Amendment 22, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and spoken to very eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, seeks to introduce this requirement for landlords to organise regular electrical safety tests in their rental properties. I understand the concerns that noble Lords have raised and the issue of safeguarding tenants. I hope to come back to the House in due course with further details on our next step but, as noble Lords have mentioned, research is being carried out with my officials to try to strike the balance between protecting tenants, and not overregulating and causing unnecessary burdens for landlords.

[Lord Beecham]

Does the Minister not acknowledge that it is more important to protect tenants’ safety than to protect against the modest financial cost that landlords might incur, which in any event would probably be translated into rent?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I hope I have made it clear that tenants’ safety is of the utmost importance. In fact, amendments tabled in the other place led to that agreement by the Government to carry out research into whether legislative changes were needed regarding electrical safety. I will ensure that noble Lords are updated on the progress of this because I totally recognise that tenants’ safety is of the utmost importance.

[Lord Beecham]

On that point, if the Minister will forgive me, will we have that information by the time we reach Report? If it is after the Bill goes through, there will not be much point to it.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am not getting any indications from the Box. However, I do not feel very switched-on at this hour of the night. Perhaps I could let the noble Lord know, because it would obviously be ideal if we could have it for Report. If we had it further in the future, perhaps secondary legislation could be introduced in due course.

Finally, Amendment 30 would require that the requirements concerning fitness for human habitation and repairing obligations set out in Sections 8 to 17 of the Landlord and Tenant Act are applied to contracts for guardianship schemes. I must at this point declare an interest because my son is a property guardian. I may ring him when I get out of here to make sure that he is still alive, given all the things that I have heard. These schemes are private arrangements between a building owner and one or more individuals. The Government do not support the schemes, as the guardians can be asked to live in conditions which do not meet the standards expected in residential properties. We do not therefore believe that it would be appropriate to require that Sections 8 to 17 of the Landlord and Tenant Act should apply to guardianship agreements. I hope that my responses provide reassurances—

[Lord Beecham]

The Minister is saying that she has every sympathy but that the Government are not going to do anything about conditions which, as she acknowledges, can be very unsatisfactory. I do not understand why the Government are reluctant to intervene here.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, if the noble Lord is talking about the property guardianship schemes, it is because they are arrangements between a building owner and one or more individuals, and the arrangement is temporary. They are not intended to provide stable alternative accommodation.

[Lord Beecham]

That may be the case but surely, as the Minister’s remarks implied, they need to be fit for people to stay there. There must be some basic standards to protect people from being exploited in these conditions. It is not a formal tenancy but if nothing is done, people will be exposed to risks to their health and possibly their safety. The Government must surely acknowledge that this matter is at least worth considering before we get to Report, rather than rejecting it.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, because of the nature of the arrangement—as the noble Lord said, there is no tenancy agreement in place—it is not a formal tenancy in that sense and we do not think that the Landlord and Tenant Act actually applies to it.

[Lord Beecham]

But provisions could be applied if the Government legislated to protect people in this position. Are the Government saying that they cannot find a way to protect people from the kind of circumstances which I have described, and which the Guardian report so clearly brought to light? It may not be a question of amending the Landlord and Tenant Act but surely it is possible to bring forward proposals which could be incorporated into this Bill.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would not wish to be considered to be a member of the “Liberal Demotic Party” but we have more important things to discuss in the 14 groups that are before us. I trust that the noble Baroness will deal with the matter briefly, and then we can get into the substance of the Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, before I begin, I will correct a comment I made at Second Reading. At col. 1266 in Hansard I attributed a comment to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham but he did not make that comment. Obviously, I cannot correct it in Hansard because I said it, so I use this opportunity to correct the attribution.

I will deal with the amendment briefly. When I saw the word “specified”, I thought of “specified housing” as opposed to a person. The public understand the concept of a rogue landlord, just as they would understand the concept of a rogue trader. BBC 1 in the morning is full of stories of rogues of various descriptions, so it is understood in the public mind. However, just to be clear, the majority of landlords and letting agents provide a good service, and we should commend them for doing that. This part of the Bill, which is widely supported, is about tackling the small minority of rogues who deliberately flout the rules. We should call them out for what they are, as they are rogues. It is important that we send a clear message through the Bill that such practices will not go unchecked. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s reply so far as it goes but there remain significant problems, particularly the contrast between a local authority being able effectively to impose a penalty of up to £30,000 for breach of a banning order on the basis of the balance of probabilities as opposed to a criminal prosecution, where of course the case would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. I am not at all sympathetic to rogue landlords, however they are described, but it is a curious position to have two processes, one of which requires a higher standard of proof than the other. That cannot really be satisfactory. In some respects, it may well be better to bring such a person to the courts on a criminal charge rather than the local authority taking action and securing financial compensation, yet that is a choice that will be left to the local authority. I am normally very much in favour of local authority discretion, but in this area we have to be careful not to infringe the responsibility of the judicial system. I invite the Minister to undertake at least to consider this aspect as well as those that she has already agreed to take back.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am happy to consider it, but the guidance for the local authorities will make it clear in what circumstances it would be appropriate to use a civil penalty rather than to prosecute. If it would be helpful, though, I will set out more detail around the two routes available.

[Lord Beecham]

That would be extremely helpful, but it would be particularly important to be clear what standard of proof is required under the procedures involved. Would it be the same standard of proof or a different one? I am not asking the Minister to answer that at the moment, but I would hope for an assurance that that would be dealt with in the information that she has kindly offered to supply. I assume that her nod was a nod of consent. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think that comes back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, about charges on properties. The local authority cannot in any circumstances of managing that property be out of pocket, but nor would the tenants be expected to live in substandard conditions. Therefore, any money that needed to be spent on the property could be recouped by a charge on the property. I think that answers the questions of both the noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Greaves.

[Lord Beecham]

A further question has just occurred to me. We are assuming that we are talking only about a landlord and a tenant but of course, there may well be a mortgagee. What happens in the event that the council takes over the property? Is the council then responsible for paying the mortgage payments out of the money it receives and, if not, is the tenant not at risk of the mortgagee obtaining possession of the property?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as far as I know, the mortgagee is responsible for paying the mortgage. If the rents do not cover the costs of any works that need to be done on the house, again, it comes back to the charge on the property in order to keep those tenants in the property for the agreed period of the tenancy. That is the way I think it would work, but I will confirm that in writing because I do not want to mislead noble Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

I am sorry to add to the noble Baroness’s problems. However, I am slightly puzzled by the relationship between government Amendments 3 and 4, which apply to Clause 20, and government Amendments 5 and 6, which apply to Clause 22. Government Amendment 4 to Clause 20 specifies:

“Where a person is convicted … of breaching a banning order and the breach continues after conviction, the person commits a further offence and is liable … to a fine not exceeding one-tenth of level 2 on the standard scale for each day or part of a day”.

However, government Amendment 6 to Clause 22 states that,

“subsection (3A) allows another penalty to be imposed … If a breach continues for more than 6 months, a financial penalty may be imposed for each additional 6 month period for the whole or part of which the breach continues”.

Is that on the same basis or a different basis? I apprehend that the Minister may not be able to give me an answer off the cuff, but will she have a look at that—or get somebody to have a look at it—to see whether there is a relationship between those two positions, or whether they deal with different issues? At the moment, I am confused—which is not unusual. It may be perfectly simple but it does not look terribly simple from these two amendments.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as I understand it, the second penalty is an enhancement of the first, so they are related. However, I think the first is a lesser penalty because it involves a first breach and the second is greater because it perpetuates the breach.

[Lord Beecham]

With respect, that does not tell us or the offender the basis on which the second penalty would be calculated.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, Clause 20 concerns a criminal offence whereas Clause 22 concerns a civil penalty, which is an alternative, if that makes any sense.

[Lord Beecham]

I am sorry to persist but that does not tell us the basis on which the relevant penalty would be calculated. It is clear as regards the criminal offence, if that is the distinction, but it is not clear whether the same way of calculating the penalty is used. I do not expect the noble Baroness to answer that today but if she could answer it in writing subsequently, that would be fine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it is the rogue landlords who are on the database. HMRC will have access to that database.

[Lord Beecham]

Does it not already have access to the Land Registry and can therefore find out more quickly and more cheaply who the owner of a property is?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, anyone can have access to the Land Registry but not everyone can have access to the database of rogue landlords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

May I revert to my Amendment 15 about the HMO licence? I do not understand the logic of the Minister’s position. If a landlord is described as a rogue landlord and is on the database accordingly, why should that not operate as a bar to obtaining a licence for a house of multiple occupation?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Could the noble Lord repeat what he has just said?

[Lord Beecham]

Amendment 15 would prevent a landlord on the database of rogue landlords obtaining an HMO licence, which seems perfectly logical. The Minister appeared to reject the idea; I cannot think why. If she cannot for the moment remember why she did, perhaps she could communicate her thoughts later.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I rejected the amendment because the purpose of the database is not to ban landlords and property agents from operating but to enable local authorities to monitor rogue landlord activity. It is crucial to give local authorities the freedom to make judgments regarding the licensing in their area, just as they do in other forms of licensing, so it does not necessarily follow that a rogue landlord should be banned from holding an HMO licence. Although a local authority may make the judgment that they should be banned from having such a licence because of their activity, it does not necessarily follow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the working group will meet in March and I would not want to pre-empt what it will come up with or recommend. I am saying that there is existing legislation to do what my noble friend Lord Flight suggests, but it is a question of local authorities’ willingness to take it up, which is varied. I cannot pre-empt what the working group will say.

My noble friend also made the point that only the good landlords will come forward, and I agree with that. I also agree that local authorities should focus their enforcement on the small number of rogues who knowingly flout their obligations, and that what is why we are establishing the database.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked how the council can crack down on a landlord if the tenant does not know them. The tenant can raise concerns with the council, which can use the powers in the Housing Act 2004 and seek action from the landlord or the property manager. The tenant may not know the landlord, but they should know the managing agent.

My noble friend Lord Flight asked how local authorities know where the rogue landlords are. Obviously the database will be built up, but authorities will be able to combine the tenancy deposit data with existing data sets, such as council tax and housing benefit data, to identify properties that are not on the tenancy deposit protection list and hence those potentially belonging to rogue landlords.

The noble Lord, Lord Foster, asked about immigration, particularly illegal immigration, and how those tenants would be identified. The Immigration Act 2014 introduces a requirement now to check the immigration status of the tenants. Where a landlord has concerns about a tenant’s immigration status, he should contact the Home Office. Local authorities can also raise any concerns regarding illegal immigrants with the Home Office.

With those points, I hope that the noble Lord will feel content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I will not keep Members of your Lordships’ House from their dinner or from the dinner break business, whichever they prefer or are committed to.

I have a couple of very short points. The first is that the Minister did not quite reply to my noble friend Lady Hollis’s question, but perhaps she will send her a reminder. Alternatively, of course, the Minister could look at Hansard.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, has raised Airbnb matters more than once in the House. If she looks down the list she will see that I have Amendment 32, which will touch on that matter, so, hopefully, we can revert to it.

Lastly, I shall say a brief word about Amendment 18. Part of the problem is that at the moment we have a selective licensing scheme that operates slowly, and there are hurdles to surmount before you can implement such a scheme. I mentioned the scheme that is now working in my own ward in Newcastle and which has received this additional funding—I repeat my gratitude in the hope that perhaps we will get some more—so it is not a straightforward matter to produce any form of licence scheme on a selective basis.

Having said that, I think it is clear that there is not much support for making this universal and comprehensive, but I invite the Minister to commit to looking at how the current scheme might be improved so that it could be speedier and done much more at the discretion of local authorities. At the moment you have to have a certain number and a certain percentage; it is full of hurdles that get in the way of dealing with what is quite an important problem for many people. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Local Government Finance

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Monday 8th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I extend the customary thanks to the Minister for repeating the Statement, although what is being offered to local government could best be described as the equivalent of a cup of hemlock, slightly diluted. It is seven weeks since the provisional local government finance settlement was announced. Today, barely a month before councils are required to determine their budgets and set the council tax rate for next year, we have the final instalment.

The reaction to December’s announcement was interesting. The Conservative leader of Bracknell, Paul Bettison, an old sparring partner of mine in the Local Government Association, protested vigorously at the cuts that his and other Berkshire councils were facing. The leader of West Berkshire district council rejected the notion, consistently promoted by Ministers, that councils could easily deploy reserves to close the gap, and the leader of Lincolnshire was critical of the Conservative-led Local Government Association for what he described as its muted response to the Statement, saying that it did not put across the scale of the issue. These are councils whose problems of deprivation and need are significantly less than those of many cities and urban areas—and, indeed, of some rural areas—which have been especially hard hit over the past five years.

The LGA in its response, while welcoming the four-year period of the indicative settlement, raised a number of issues. It asked that the rating appeals system be reformed and that the new system in which councils will retain business rates should be based on a fundamental review of the needs basis and include equalisation as well as incentivisation to promote business development. The Government have announced a long-overdue review of the needs assessment formula in the light of the abandonment of the revenue support grant, but what is the timescale? What is meant by the phrase that this will be used,

“to determine the transition to 100% business rates reduction”?

What action, if any, will be taken in relation to the rating appeals system?

The LGA pointed that while the better care fund is to enhance the amount spent on social care, there is no extra funding for next year and only £105 million for 2017-18, when not only is demand rising but councils will have to meet the cost of the national minimum wage rises, which will be £330 million next year and £834 million a year by 2020. Will the Government comply with the call for the better care fund increase to be implemented in 2016-17, as opposed to two years later, and how do they envisage councils meeting the longer-term costs, not least in relation to the minimum wage point?

Council tax freeze grant will no longer be paid as it has been for the past few years—although, of course, this was top-sliced from the settlement in the first place in a piece of political legerdemain. How do the Government respond to the complaint that £74 million included in the current year for local welfare schemes is not embodied in the settlement? What is the position in relation to the independent living fund, where the £191 million passing to councils last year should be updated to £255 million, the full-year cost? Is that provided for in the settlement? It is noticeable that there will also be a cut of £600 million in education services, notwithstanding the growing pressures reported in the press of rising school rolls and teacher shortages.

Today, it is fair to say that the Government have slightly softened the blow for rural authorities, which will be welcome so far as it goes, but severe problems remain for councils and their communities. The boasted 2% social care precept which councils can levy will help wealthier areas much more than those with high numbers in the lowest council tax bands. As I pointed out last week, Newcastle, with 70% of households in bands A and B, will gain only £1.7 million to reduce the severe impact on its social care provision within the £132 million cuts that the council faces next year. That sum, an annual sum for one council, is almost as much as the entire national transitional grant payable over two years and not far from 10% of the total national amount to be raised by the 2% precept and the better care fund contribution combined.

The Secretary of State claims:

“The devolution of power and resources from Whitehall is gathering momentum”,

and that he has,

“responded positively to sensible recommendations, in as fair a manner as possible, while holding firm to our commitment to free our constituents from the dangers inherent in the deficit”.

What is gathering momentum is the devolution of responsibility without power and the danger of the constant erosion of the services which a civilised nation should be providing across a range of services from social care to education, policing to child protection, public health to libraries, museums and the arts and many others—the very essence of community life and of a healthy local democracy.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, in terms of the final settlement and councils about to set their budgets—and I totally appreciate that point because, like the noble Lord, I would wait with bated breath until I knew exactly what I was dealing with in terms of final settlement—through the final settlement today, the Secretary of State has made it quite clear that no council will be worse off and no council will lose anything from the provisional settlement. In fact, Newcastle will benefit to the tune of about £6 million because of the new approach to the settlement. We recognise the difficulties of the first two years, which is why we are providing this transitional fund.

The noble Lord talked about the national minimum wage. It is definitely a significant cost, particularly in the area of social care. That is why the 2% precept, plus access to the better care fund, is being made available.

The noble Lord asked about the review of the needs-based formula. I cannot actually remember the point he made. Does he want to repeat it?

[Lord Beecham]

How long will that process take and how will it work through?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think that that will be in place for 2019 and it will be based on wide consultation with local authorities.

The noble Lord also asked why the council tax freeze grant was going. For many local authorities, the council tax freeze grant was a mixed blessing, because, while councils received it, it would also put their baseline down the following year. So many local authorities are pleased in many ways not to be dealing with the freeze grant but having far more control of their own destinies.

The noble Lord asked also about the Independent Living Fund. That will continue to be a separate grant made available to local authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the minute that I got the list of figures, I looked at those for Richmond because I know of the problems and some of the challenges that it faces. That £2.9 million adjustment must have been welcome relief indeed. On the planning fees, obviously the consultation is just beginning but my noble friend has mentioned this to me before and I am looking forward to having a discussion with him during the consultation process.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I apologise to the House; I omitted to mention my local government interests, which are recorded in the register.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think we know that the noble Lord is interested in local government.

Flooding: Relief Effort

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Monday 25th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think that the noble Baroness has a valid point, in the sense that we are seeing a lot of unprecedented flooding. Has it been a blip in the past, or is it becoming a more frequent trend for the future? That is informing the Government’s thinking in the review and on how we manage flows of water.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, the coalition Government initially cut the flood defence programme that they inherited from the Labour Government. The Government are presumably now contemplating an increase. What scale of increase are the Government looking at, and over what period will sustained investment take place?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it might be helpful if I outlined that under the Labour Government from 2005 to 2010, £1.5 billion was put into flood defence schemes. Under the coalition Government, £1.7 billion was put into flood defence schemes. Over this Parliament, £2.3 billion will be put into flood defence schemes.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord has just read my mind. Doing so might be helpful because I think that we are now talking at cross purposes. An exemption relates to a provider, which is why I could not give the noble Baroness an assurance, because I do not know what providers might struggle because of rent reductions, whereas an exception relates to a sector, such as one that might provide for domestic refuges. Therefore an exemption is quite different from an exception, and I think we might have been talking a bit at cross purposes. I almost lost my train of thought there. However, I hope that with those reassurances, the noble Lord will feel—

[Lord Beecham]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, she referred to the private rented sector and implied that it was not as important as it would appear to be. However, has not the proportion of houses now in the private rented sector approximately doubled in the last few years, so that it now makes up 20% of total housing stock? How does that equate to her apparent fears for the viability of the sector if, for example, the Government take equivalent action with the rents they charge?

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I can but apologise for the fact that the letter has arrived late and I hope noble Lords will accept that apology from me. However, I accept the noble Lord’s point.

Amendment 45, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, enables the Secretary of State to revoke orders conferring health functions on a combined authority. I hope the noble Lord will be slightly patient—perhaps we can come to that in a later grouping when my noble friend Lord Prior will be talking about health.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, also asked me, I think, what happens to business rates if a district joins a combined authority without a county. There is no direct relationship between the membership of the combined authority and the business rates, which will be subject to further legislation. I hope that that helps the noble Lord.

[Lord Beecham]

It depends on the legislation, although I do not envisage that the noble Baroness will be in quite the same position in that context as she has been over the point that she has just made. Can she indicate what time period we are looking at and what consultation will take place over that issue, and with whom?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I expect a very quick timescale, given that some devolution deals have already been done. Time would be of the essence in getting these matters through, so I would expect the consultation process and the regulations to be dealt with fairly quickly. That is imperative, given that devolution deals have been done with different places. I hope that that is good enough for him.

The noble Lord also asked me about Amendment 34. The regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and the amendment makes clear exactly what procedures can be fast-tracked. These include changes to electoral arrangements but the Boundary Commission’s responsibilities remain unchanged. I think we went through that yesterday but I am very happy to confirm that, as it is a very important point.

The noble Lord also asked me whether the Government are trying to reorganise local government. The answer is no. We are here to assist where local government wants to reorganise itself in terms of unitarisation. He also asked whether we are taking a Henry Ford approach. I hope that Cornwall shows that we are not. It will be up to local authorities to come forward with their proposals for their areas in due course.

I have been passed a note which says that—if I can read the writing—regarding business rates, “future legislation” means primary legislation, which we will bring forward as parliamentary time allows. I hope that I have satisfied noble Lords in all the questions that they have raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

When it comes to sitting on their hands, few better exponents of that philosophy could be found than those on the Liberal Democrat Benches. They sat on their hands and colluded with the enormous damage inflicted on local government and elsewhere for five years. They are not in any position to lecture us about anything around consistency. Furthermore, it is quite clear that the Government’s unfortunate position on this has been confirmed on three or four occasions in votes at the other end. We are not in a position to change that. Noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches know that it will not change. This is gesture politics of a typical kind and we ought to have nothing whatever to do with it. When we get a change of Government, we will see a change in the voting age, not only for local authority elections but for parliamentary elections, European elections and any future referendums.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I think I had better quickly break up the fight. When is the right time to have the debate on the franchise? It is most certainly not in a devolution Bill, in the House of Lords, when the House of Commons has voted decisively, on two occasions, to overturn this amendment. As for any arguments in addition to those I have already made, I have nothing much to add other than to back up the points that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, made at the previous stage of the Bill. The Electoral Commission has also voiced concern about this amendment. Other than that, I have nothing further to add. It is not the time, it is not the Bill and we are not the House to be deciding this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there has been much speculation about what these powers might mean in respect of fracking and so on. The whole purpose of the amendment is to give park authorities the scope to be more innovative, rather than to act in an unduly competitive way with each other.

The part of government Amendment 77 that amends Section 65 of the Environment Act 1995 is minor and technical and contains the amendments consequential on government Amendment 54. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to accept the amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, this amendment is welcome and has been warmly supported by the national parks authorities, although I understand that there was some slight misunderstanding about that on the part of the Opposition in the House of Commons. Certainly, we want to endorse the sentiments of the noble Baroness about the potential for each national park authority. Of course, I come from a part of the world where there is a remarkable national park, and it occurs to me that the Government might want to facilitate a close relationship between combined authorities such as the one in the north-east and, I suspect, the one in the Sheffield area with the Peak District National Park, so they can collaborate in a way that perhaps was not possible before. It would of course be a matter for the authorities, rather than for legislation, but it is something the Government might encourage.

One matter that was raised in the House of Commons was clarified at the time by the Minister, but I invite the noble Baroness to repeat the assurance that nothing in this proposal would facilitate the adoption of fracking in any national park area—that is, that it would not be open to a national park authority to allow such a development. It would be good to have it on the record in your Lordships’ House as well as in the Commons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I appear to have failed to notice that we are dealing with the last group of amendments. Obviously I want to join the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in thanking the Minister for her charming and helpful approach to legislation—this will do her reputation as a Minister no good at all—and to thank the members of the Bill team, who have always been helpful and approachable. That has been the case right from the start, I believe, some nine months ago when the Bill was conceived and has now been delivered in its final shape. It bears a great deal to the way in which the noble Baroness and her colleagues have assisted Members from all sides of the House.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Shipley, for their kind words. All three noble Lords have talked about the power of collaboration between authorities while not under- mining what the original intent of the national park functions is. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that the new power of functional competence does not change the statutory duty and purpose of the park authority; I can give him an absolute assurance on that. I can also assure the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that nothing in the proposal facilitates fracking. I think I gave that assurance to my noble friend Lord Deben. It might help him if I read the provisions of new Clause 65C to be inserted under Amendment 54. It states:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision preventing an English National Park authority from doing under section 65A(1) anything which is specified, or is of a description specified, in the regulations”.

The Secretary of State has the power to make sure that the checks and balances are in place for a national park’s priorities and functions to be protected.

I think that I have answered all points made by noble Lords and I thank them for the enjoyable experience that this Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill has been.

Rough Sleeping

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Monday 11th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we most certainly have. Young people getting into a homeless situation can often also cause other problems. The Government totally support what the noble Baroness is saying. The idea of prevention at that stage is vital for that young person’s future.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, in addition to the worrying increase in homelessness and rough sleeping, more and more people are being driven to rely on food banks. Which of these consequences of government policy do the Government regard as the more serious? In any event, will they now include provisions in the Housing and Planning Bill to address what David Cameron once described as the “disgrace” of having people sleeping on the streets?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, both aspects are important. People being homeless or using food banks is a worry for society, which is why the Government are investing centrally and locally to address the issue.

Local Government Finance

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Thursday 17th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, in view of her statement that it is an exciting time to be a local councillor, would the Minister agree that it would have been an exciting time to be a passenger on the “Titanic”?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not think that I would have liked to have been on the “Titanic”. But I say to the noble Lord, in all sincerity, that I campaigned for years for devolution, and across different parties, in Greater Manchester. We never thought that we would get it. What is an exciting time is, as a Minister, to have been able to bring the legislation through.

Planning Permission

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it is absolutely right to develop brownfield sites first. We want to avoid development of greenfield land and build on brownfield land first. That is why we have designated brownfield sites as a priority for our housebuilding.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, delays in planning matters are of course to be regretted, but it is very likely that there will be more delays in future, given the reductions in planning staff across many authorities of all political colours as a result of the Government’s cuts. However, in Newcastle, in a ward which the Minister had the pleasure of visiting recently, there are two housing schemes which the council wished to promote with housing associations. The fact is that two of the potentially interested bodies withdrew because of concerns about the impact of the Government’s policies on housing association rents and the right to buy on their capacity to enter into the development. The third organisation is yet to make its mind up. Will the Government not recognise that they need to take into account the role of housing associations, and look again at the proposals which will make it more difficult for them to engage in housebuilding?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, perhaps I can answer the second part of the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, as well as this one. In terms of the role of housing associations and reluctance to build, 96% of housing association stock providers have signed up to the right-to-buy deal with the Government. In Scotswood, where I saw the Rise development, which is incredibly impressive, they are building ahead of time. In terms of speeding up the process, we will be bringing forward measures to drive up performance within planning authorities. In terms of capacity to deliver, which we discussed only yesterday evening, there are funds to enable local planning authorities to build in capacity to enable them to deliver some of the Government’s new priorities.

Housing: Carbon Monoxide Monitoring

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I will not personally update the website but I thank my noble friend for alerting me to the fact that it is not as accessible as it should be. I will take that back. We constantly update the GOV.UK website to make it as up to date and accessible as possible. I mentioned the other matter of solid fuel appliances requiring carbon monoxide alarms during the debate on the relevant SI, but perhaps I could have been clearer about it.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been several days since the regulations were approved. In the debate on that occasion, I raised the question of the need to inform tenants, as well as landlords, of the new provisions. Will the Minister indicate what efforts have been made to inform tenants, and whether in particular local newspapers, local authority publications and local broadcasters have been asked specifically to target tenants with this information? What steps have been taken to check on the progress made by private landlords in relation to installation?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord did, indeed, ask me how tenants would be informed. I think I said at the time that the How to Rent guide would be updated by 1 October to give tenants the full information. It has, in fact, been updated and the information is on page 4 of the guide. I assure the noble Lord that every new tenant will get a copy of the How to Rent guide. In addition, there are social media handles and a Facebook page on the subject.

Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2015

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Monday 7th December 2015 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, beginning in 2013-14, this Government and their predecessors have brought major reform to the way local authorities can support local growth. The previous system meant that councils saw no benefit from additional business rates income in their area, even when they introduced policies to support businesses and encourage new investment. To correct this, from 1 April 2013, we acted to allow local government to retain 50% of its business rates. This means that those authorities which see it as their role to support business are rewarded with a share of the additional business rates income that growth creates.

Despite being only two years into our reforms, their success is already apparent. The latest statistics on business rates show that 63% of authorities have seen additional business rates income as a result of the local retention scheme in 2014-15 and, based on their own estimates, this figure is set to rise to over 90% in 2015-16. Furthermore, the scheme is benefiting a wide range of authorities with different service pressures, including those with high levels of deprivation, and both rural and coastal authorities.

Earlier in the year, the Chancellor announced measures to strengthen the incentive in Manchester and Cambridge by allowing those councils to retain 100% of the growth in business rates in their area, and by the end of this Parliament local government will retain 100% of its local taxes, including all £26 billion of its business rates.

The levy and safety net regulations contained in the statutory instrument include some technical amendments to the operation of the current rates retention scheme. They ensure that the payments made between local government, central government and precepting authorities are all correct and can be reconciled accurately. The safety net is designed to protect those authorities that have seen their rates income drop by more than 7.5% below their baseline funding level. It is funded by a levy on other authorities that have seen business rates growth in that year.

However, the calculation is not straightforward. It needs to include a series of adjustments to ensure that authorities are not compensated twice for giving particular reliefs—once through the compensation grants to which they are entitled outside the rates retention scheme, and then again through safety net payments inside the scheme.

Technically, these regulations do this by ensuring that authorities are required to add back the cost of the doubling of small business rates relief. This means that half the cost of the relief granted to ratepayers in 2015-16 will not be included in the calculation of their safety net. Nor will adjustments to certain reliefs made in 2015-16 that are in respect of previous years dating back to the introduction of the scheme. In both cases, authorities will be fully compensated for the relief they have given outside the rates retention scheme through compensation grants, so that they will financially be no worse off.

These are, by necessity, complex technical amendments, but they avoid double counting certain reliefs and ensure that authorities cannot be compensated twice. I can assure the Committee that all these technical changes have been agreed with local government officers on a working group set up to advise on the detailed implementation of the scheme, as well as with the Local Government Association and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. I commend these regulations to the Committee and I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I have memories— I cannot necessarily describe them as fond—of dealing with business rates during my period as leader of Newcastle City Council, which ran to some 17 years, five years of which saw me as chairman of the finance committee. It is revisiting old, if somewhat modified territory for me to speak to these regulations.

It is perfectly right that, as the Minister said, the scheme has incentivised business development, although perhaps in a somewhat uneven fashion. The redistribution elements of the scheme have, to a degree, helped to modify this and, indeed, in the ward I represent—and to which the Minister today paid a visit—there is evidence of that early collaboration. To the south of the housing development there is a building that now houses a large engineering company. It formerly housed British Airways and, before that, Vickers. With the Urban Development Corporation in the 1980s, the local authority and the Government were, working together, able to contribute significantly to the development of that employment.

There are, however, some questions I would like to ask, which perhaps go slightly beyond the remit of the regulations. The first relates to outstanding rating appeals. The noble Baroness will not, I suspect, be in a position to update me on this issue today but perhaps she could do so in the future because this has been a considerable problem for local authorities up and down the country. The Government, having collected all the money from business ratepayers, do not expect, in the event of successful appeals, to refund it all. That is something which ought to be addressed. Equally—although I am not up to date with the position—it is said that the time for these appeals is being reduced, but in many cases they still go back some years, which is a considerable worry for local authorities and has an impact of what they can do.

The Minister said that there has been consultation and I assume that there were no reservations on the part of those consulted; perhaps she would confirm that. However, the landscape is changing in a very material respect in many parts of the country, including the parts from which the Minister and I hail. Under the devolution programme, we will have a different structure with economic and related functions carried out by a new authority, which, if the Government have their way, will be headed by an elected mayor. In any event, the new authority will, by definition, extend across a much wider area than any individual local authority. I wonder what the impact of the current scheme will be in those circumstances, even as modified.

The Explanatory Memorandum refers to the position of precepting authorities. It is unclear whether, in the new structure, what I will call a “combined authority”—with or without an elected mayor—is to be regarded as a precepting authority. Of course, if a single body is not levying the business rate, there will be differential collections, relative to population, between the constituent authorities within the new devolved structure. Obviously my thoughts have been anticipated; I congratulate the Minister on her advisory team. The question then arises of who is to determine the business rate. Will that still be at the level of the individual local authority or will it be at the higher level? If it is at the higher level, what is to prevent there being a differential application of the business rate across the constituent authorities? We might be entering an area of some complexity here. I do not blame the noble Baroness if she cannot deal with that today, but perhaps I could hear from her in due course.

The other issue I would like to ask about is the enterprise zones because presently these are in some but not all the authorities in a combined authority area. Again, the question arises of whether, for the Government’s purposes, the proceeds of business rates from this category of property are to be regarded as belonging to the individual authority or, in the event of there being a combined authority or under the new devolution proposals, it is to be regarded as belonging to the whole authority. In any event, how long is it anticipated that the enterprise zone relief, if I might call it that, will continue? Is it indefinite or is there a timescale for that?

My only other reservation is the provision in paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which says:

“An impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument because it amends an existing local tax regime. Publication of a full impact assessment is not necessary for such legislation”.

I do not think that is a very good procedure. If there is to be a change, there should be an impact assessment, whether or not one is formally, legally required, particularly given the changing landscape to which I have referred. This might have pre-empted some of the questions I feel obliged to raise today. I hope, in future, that an existing regime being amended will not be justification for not providing an impact assessment, given the variation of circumstances between individual authorities.

Having said that, I am not minded to resist the regulations. I look forward to hearing further from the Minister in due course. In the event that she should revisit Newcastle, I would be very glad to show her round my ward and, indeed, the city.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. I look forward to being shown round his ward, perhaps when phases 2, 3 or even 4 of The Rise are completed.

The noble Lord first asked whether there were any reservations during the consultation process. There were none that I know of. If I am wrong, I will correct that statement but, as far as I know, there were none.

The noble Lord also asked whether the reforms would increase the level of risk in terms of appeals for local authorities. We are looking at the level of risk and reward in the new system and will work with the sector over the coming months in developing the design of the new system. As for the appeals system, I think there is an acceptance that the current system is not working for businesses, hence the point he made. Too many appeals are held up for far too long in the system, creating cost and uncertainty for businesses. Change is definitely what is needed and that is what we are attempting to do. We need a much more structured, rigorous and transparent system. Ratepayers will set out their issues fully and clearly early in the process, so that they can be responded to quickly and cases can be resolved far more quickly than at present.

The noble Lord also made the point about changes in local authorities’ needs. Again, the department will be consulting widely and openly to design a system that provides local authorities with the funding they need to deliver local services and nobody should lose out under the new scheme.

Perhaps I might write to the noble Lord about impact. Yes, the Explanatory Memorandum says that there was no legal requirement. Perhaps I could expand on that point. I will look into it.

The noble Lord asked about enterprise zones. Currently, the income from enterprise zones is guaranteed for 25 years. We will need to consider how enterprise zones fit into the system, as he pointed out. Once we move to 100% business rates retention, we will consult with businesses and local government on the other aspects. I think I have answered everything he asked.

Devolution: England

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Wednesday 2nd December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, leaders are nominated by their councils and are democratically elected. I do not think that the leader who did not discuss these issues with the members of the council would be leader for very long. These are the democratically elected heads who will then engage with government.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, given the votes on the creation of a mayor for London and on devolution to Scotland and Wales, and, at the Government’s behest, a vote in eight councils, only one of which resulted in support for an elected mayor, why have the Government set their face against the electorate having a vote on whether to have elected city mayors in the context of their devolution programme? Is their position by any chance related to the observation by Nick Boles—then, as now, a Minister—that the only chance of the Conservatives regaining Manchester was for the city to have an elected mayor? If not, how do they justify this apparently irreversible imposition?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the thought of Manchester having a Conservative mayor is a great one but, having lived there for some years, I am not sure that it is very likely to happen any time soon. Obviously the referendum some years ago on having a mayor was held under totally different principles from those that we have today, and local authorities can engage with their communities and their electors in any way that they see fit.

Northern Powerhouse

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the northern powerhouse and devolution should not be remote to any area of the country in which devolution is taking place. Whether it is in transport or in increases in the local jobs market—and actually, the north-west has seen the biggest employment growth of any region in the last few years—local people should be able to feel the effects of the northern powerhouse and devolution. Through the Localism Act, local areas such as town and parish council areas should be able to feel the empowerment more than ever.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, under the Government’s devolution proposals, there will be areas of the country, like Lancashire, with local parish and town councils, district councils, county councils and combined authorities with elected mayors. In the light of tomorrow’s spending review and the forthcoming local government settlement—in which, like his predecessor, the Secretary of State appears to have been first across the Treasury’s door to offer up local government for cuts—what assurances can the Minister give that this pyramidal structure will not be used to house the mummified remains of effective local government?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, devolution means empowering communities, from local authorities right down to town and parish councils, and even local neighbourhoods. I do not think—in terms of what the Government have been doing, certainly through devolution and some of their plans for the northern powerhouse—that anybody could accuse local government of not being at the forefront of this Government’s policy.

Byelaws (Alternative Procedure) (England) Regulations 2015

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister, who must have laboured long and hard, burning the midnight oil to prepare the speech with which she launched this momentous set of regulations.

The Explanatory Memorandum deals with the impact of the regulations on business, charities and voluntary bodies and describes the impact as “negligible”. That is the judgment that I would make on the impact of the regulations on local government and communities: it is negligible. The noble Baroness rightly said that matters were set on foot in 2008. I have a vision of armies of civil servants in the Department for Communities and Local Government labouring over seven years to produce this momentous change in practice and in law, and I am tempted to echo the sentiments of Winston Churchill in remarking on the fact that probably never in the history of secondary legislative endeavour has so much labour been employed for so long and to such little effect—for very little changes under these regulations.

It is particularly important that the Government continue to reserve a role for the Secretary of State. My honourable friend Steven Reed in the debates in the Commons pointed out that the Welsh Assembly Government have dispensed with the role of the Minister and the Secretary of State in Wales. Curiously, Her Majesty’s Government went to court over these matters; they are usually critical of those who seek to take the decisions of Governments to court, but they took the Welsh Government to court and I am pleased to say that they lost over that decision to leave the Minister out of the picture altogether. True localism, I suggest, would make that course much the more desirable.

There is another issue that arises from the Explanatory Memorandum, which is that by-laws are not only made under the auspices of this department: there are other government departments which have responsibilities for by-laws. One might have thought that across government there would be some discussion about having a uniform system for by-laws. No attempt appears to have been made to do that. So we have at least a binary system, where one or more other government departments will still require the procedure for by-laws made under the local government legislation which these regulations are changing. Has it never occurred to Ministers that they should look across government and provide a uniform system? I have already indicated that this change does not amount to much, but it is surely better to have a uniform system, whatever its character, than to have two apparently parallel systems running side by side. Perhaps the noble Baroness would agree to take back this aspect at least, and try to ensure that there is a common approach across government.

Of course the Opposition are not opposed to this very modest change. In fairness, I do not think that it was envisaged to be all that ambitious when it was initiated by the original legislation, so I am not claiming this as a party point. It does seem sad, however, that it has taken this long to produce such a feeble change in the system, and perhaps we can have assurance that any further change will be made with a great deal more expedition.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I thought that he was going to say at the beginning of his speech that he congratulated me for saying “by-laws” so many times in one speech, because it seemed like I was saying it constantly.

One of the questions that he asked, quite reasonably, was why it has taken so long for the regulations to come into force, given that this was first discussed in 2007 and 2008. I understand that we have been refining the new by-law arrangements, including the deregulatory framework, to ensure that the by-laws made by local authorities do not curtail civil liberties or increase regulation disproportionately. Of course they are local laws and can result in a criminal offence.

He also makes the pertinent point about other government departments. What other government departments do is a matter for them, but hopefully where CLG starts, others may follow, so that we may see a flood of by-laws from other government departments in due course. But I will certainly take back the comment about other government departments.

He talked about Wales. The Local Government Byelaws (Wales) Act 2012 required that local authorities have regard to any guidance issued by the Welsh Government, and that guidance has been issued. In short, local authorities in Wales are very much required to make their by-laws in a prescribed manner.

[Lord Beecham]

The noble Baroness referred to the possibility of other regulations coming back. Would it not be possible for a single regulation to apply across the whole of government rather than individual departments drafting their own regulations, presumably on similar lines and submitting them to this process?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Perhaps I did not articulate that correctly, but as I have said I will take back the comment about a common framework for government. With that, I commend the regulations.

Retail Sector: High Street

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Thursday 17th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it is good to hear what Northampton is doing. I certainly encourage local areas to share similar schemes with other authorities. Where local authorities are given the power to provide business rate discounts, they do as they see fit and the Government will meet half the cost. The noble Lord asked me about vacancy rates. They have fallen to 9.8% and are at their lowest since records started in 2011. I appreciate the point about online sales, which for many people are becoming more convenient, but retail sales have increased for the 28th consecutive month, the longest sustained period since 2008.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

How much progress has been made in dealing with long-standing revaluation appeals? What has the impact of those been on local authority finances? Will the Government, having received their share of those rates when they were paid, now meet their share of the cost of any refunds?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the Government are providing real incentives for councils to support enterprise and economic growth. We have introduced the local retention of business rates, allowing councils to keep half the revenue from business rates. In this year alone, 362 authorities will retain an extra £544 million in business rates, and local authorities are protected against significant declines in business rate income through a safety net that guarantees income at 92.5% of baseline funding.

Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Monday 14th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The point I was making is that we are trying to make the burden as light as possible. I will respond to the noble Lord on that.

The noble Lord asked about the exclusions and whether they would be covered in other legislation. Care homes, hospitals and hospices will be covered under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. Hostels, refuges and student halls will be treated exactly the same. The only sector that is not covered is social housing, but it is so good at its obligations to tenants that it was not an area that needed to be included in the regulations. He also asked what energy companies were doing. We could write to them and ask exactly how they are playing their part.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned that the regulations apply only to small parts of the sector. That is absolutely correct. They apply to parts of the sector that have shown the least duty of care historically to their tenants in terms of the installation of smoke and carbon monoxide alarms. He talked about no budget. Of course, a £4 million budget was given to the fire authorities, but I do not know whether he was referring to other budgets such as that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked about a widespread publicity campaign that still needs to happen. I will certainly go back to the department to see what further work can be done, given some of the concerns expressed in the House.

[Lord Beecham]

Before the Minister sits down, she referred to Airbnb and indicated that those properties were covered not by these regulations but by others. Can she—if not tonight, then in correspondence—provide the details of that? I was left somewhat puzzled by that response.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I forgot to respond on that. The fire safety order of 2005 is largely aimed at non-domestic premises whereas these regulations are aimed at residential premises. I will explain this point further in my letter to the noble Lord which we will send shortly. I will clarify the Airbnb point in the letter. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord.

Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Monday 7th September 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall raise a couple of questions on paragraphs 7.8 and 7.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which deal with the tenures covered by the regulations. Paragraph 7.8 defines a specified tenancy as,

“a tenancy … lease, sub-lease … of residential premises which grants one or more persons the right to occupy the premises as their only or main residence in return for the payment of rent”.

I find it difficult to understand why that restriction should be imposed. If Members of your Lordships’ House were renting premises in London but lived elsewhere, as many of us do, those premises would apparently be excluded from the provisions of these regulations. I am sure that the noble Baroness will be sensitive to the life expectancy of Members of this House—at least on the government Benches. However, it does strike me as odd that that restriction is imposed.

Furthermore, the schedule excludes other categories of letting arrangements,

“where the accommodation is shared with the landlord or falls outside of the traditional private rented sector”.

Again, I do not see why someone paying rent in a property the rest of which is owner-occupied should be exposed to a risk that would not be the case if he were renting the whole property. Then there is the question of what is meant by a tenancy or letting arrangement falling outside the “traditional private rented sector”. We now have Airbnb and similar organisations providing facilities by which occupiers or owners of property can let, usually for short holiday periods and matters of that kind, with probably quite a significant turnover of people. Again, why should those people be exposed to risk, unless the noble Baroness can confirm that such properties are included? It seems to me that they are not part of what the Explanatory Memorandum describes as “traditional private rented sector” properties.

Paragraph 7.9 says that the Schedule excludes agreements where there is shared accommodation with the landlord or landlord’s family. I briefly referred to that in speaking to paragraph 7.8, but paragraph 7.9 has the explanation:

“This is likely to arise where an owner occupier rents out a room in their own home”.

The justification for that is:

“The Regulations are not targeted at owner occupied accommodation”.

Of course, by definition this is a property that is no longer exclusively owner-occupied accommodation. Given that a profit is presumably being made out of the letting, the regulations should at least be extended to properties of that kind.

I appreciate that we are not in a position to amend these regulations, but a number of points have been made by noble Lords opposite, and at some length and with great force by my noble friend, that require attention. I suggest that the matters I have raised also need to be looked at. Otherwise, we are potentially exposing people—it will be a fair number of people if we take the different categories into account—to continuing risk. That is not in the least desirable.

In so far as owner-occupied properties, shared in the way set out in paragraph 7.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum, might be brought within the provisions of the regulations if subsequently amended or revised, the result is that nobody loses. The owner-occupiers gain and their safety is enhanced. Therefore, it certainly seems worth the Government taking another look at the regulations and coming back with new ones that meet many, if not all, of the points that have been raised in the Committee today.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which has been quite wide-ranging and informative, certainly to me. I also declare a former interest as the landlord of an HMO property. I say right at the outset that it is good practice for anybody, whether in their own home or in private rented accommodation, or indeed for local authorities, to have carbon monoxide detectors and smoke detectors fitted. As a landlord, I certainly did, and most landlords do so. Here, we are trying to target the small number of landlords in the private sector who do not feel responsible for their tenants.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, made some very interesting points. One was that the regulations do not go far enough, and she wondered whether there are far more deaths than the 40 that we think there are. She asked whether post-mortem testing for it would be the answer. In the context of these regulations, there are probably many things that we could do but this is a very good start in tackling the small number of private landlords who have little regard for their tenants, whether in terms of smoke and carbon monoxide detectors or the general standard of the accommodation. This is what the regulations seek to tackle.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked me about an amendment. The amendment is a “to review” clause. The regulations will be reviewed in two years’ time, acknowledging that they may need to be looked at again.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, talked about social landlords. They are exempt but generally in the social sector they tend to be far more diligent in providing carbon monoxide and smoke detectors. As I said, it is a small number in the private sector who seem to be the culprits.

The noble Baroness asked me about the regulations for installing carbon monoxide alarms applying only to rooms containing a solid fuel-burning appliance. I acknowledge that other things may lead to carbon monoxide leaks but these appliances are the main culprits in terms of creating carbon monoxide poisoning. Going way back to my O-level days, I remember learning that you could tell when someone had carbon monoxide poisoning because they would go pink. I do not know whether people stay pink at the post-mortem stage but that was a sign that someone had carbon monoxide poisoning. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, also asked about gas appliances. Again, she may well be right but I understand that the incidence is extremely low compared with that relating to solid fuel-burning appliances.

As I said earlier, there is a review clause in the regulations and there will be a review in 2017, but it is probably fair to make the point that these regulations have to strike the right balance by protecting tenants but not causing unnecessary burdens for landlords, the vast majority of whom, as I said, are diligent towards their tenants.

The noble Baroness also asked why the regulations require landlords to check the alarms only on the first day of the tenancy. We want to ensure that tenants entering a house or property are protected on day one, but we expect it to be both the landlord and the tenant’s responsibility. I have experience of a smoke alarm going off when the battery was getting low. Unless you deal with the problem, your life will be a misery.

My noble friend Lord Marlesford said that October 2015 was too soon and that there was not to be a grace period. First, any self-respecting landlord will already have installed a smoke alarm and a carbon monoxide alarm. They are available free. They are not complicated devices. The draft regulations were laid back in March. He is absolutely right that the explanatory booklets for landlords and local authorities were published only on 4 September, but they were emailed to key stakeholders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I take the noble Lord’s point that rogue landlords, just like rogue employers or anybody else, are the hardest to reach and the least likely to listen to legislation on their obligations. Certainly the Fire Kills campaign was very effective—I hope—in raising awareness of carbon monoxide, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, says, is a silent killer.

[Lord Beecham]

I wonder whether publicity is being aimed at tenants to demand that these regulations be enforced. If it is not, perhaps that is something that should be taken up.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

How to Rent may well be updated in terms of giving tenants more advice. More than ever, tenants have better information on how to rent and on their rights under their rental agreements. My tenants were certainly very well informed and I can assure noble Lords that they were well looked after.

My noble friend Lord Marlesford asked about new guidance. We have decided to issue new guidance in the form of explanatory booklets, one for local authorities and one for landlords. We also want to update How to Rent, as I have just said to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, in time for 1 October 2015. My noble friend Lord Marlesford also asked about decorative fireplaces. A decorative fireplace would be one that was clearly not used for burning; in other words, closed off for the purposes of being able to light a fire.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about electrical safety in the private rented sector. I can inform noble Lords that landlords are already under a general duty to ensure that electrical installations are safe and kept in good working order.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked why tenancies for main homes are included and not for people such as your Lordships, who might spend some of their time in London. That is a fair point. Again, it is a start in terms of addressing problems with landlords. I hope that none of your Lordships have rogue landlords looking after them. The noble Lord also talked about tenancies that have been excluded. Student halls, hostels, refuges, care homes, hospitals and hospices are excluded because they all have their own requirements regarding standards, just as Airbnb is not considered a permanent home. Noble Lords are looking slightly puzzled. The premises that I have just mentioned benefit from existing protections under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. I hope that that helps.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

Does that apply to the use of properties by Airbnb? I take the point about the others, such as care homes and the like. What about the Airbnb ones?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

No, it would not include Airbnb, but it would include those other types of premises that I mentioned. I hope that I have answered all the questions. I beg to move.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my local government interests, one of which is being a member of Newcastle City Council’s audit committee. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for accepting the thrust of my amendment that there should be such an independent committee. I join the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in expressing thanks to the Minister, who is, like me and, I think, seven other Members present in your Lordships’ House today, a member of the distinguished union of ex-council leaders—in my case, very ex.

The Minister has been very helpful and patient as we have gone through the Bill, but I should like to make a couple of points. First, while I welcome the inclusion of a reference to an independent person as a member of the audit committee, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, my original amendment referred to having the chair as an independent member. Perhaps that is something that the Government could look at when the Bill goes to the House of Commons. It would seem right for that provision to be made. We will obviously not press that point today, but perhaps the Minister will take it back to colleagues.

The other point is a question that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, touched on when he mentioned the need to effectively scrutinise the performance of government departments and other public agencies. I think I understand the position but it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm it for the record. The powers of the scrutiny committee to call before it any public body would apply, as it does in local government at present, to the overview and scrutiny committee constituted by a combined authority because there would be government agencies—we have referred several times to Highways England in that context but there may be others and I am thinking of health and social care, the role of NHS England and so on—which at the level of the combined authority may need that degree of scrutiny. I take it that that is the case, but it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that for the record. I repeat my grateful thanks for all her help, and I am happy to support these amendments.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for those points. Many of the arrangements for combined authorities are simply multiplications of the powers specified for local authorities, so I can confirm that the powers of calling for a combined authority would therefore replicate those in local authorities.

The noble Lord also made a point about an independent chairman. It may well be that the House of Commons looks at this and takes a different view, but we did not think it was right to mandate that the chairman should be independent because in local circumstances there may be an obvious person who could act as that independent chairman.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, was part of a Government which did not merely effect a change in personnel; they abolished a whole range of councils without any local choice in the matter at all. I am afraid that one must take his criticisms of this amendment with that background in mind. The Government’s current proposals effectively impose, as it were, a life sentence on the form of governance of combined authorities. That does not apply to the mayoralty in other authorities.

Your Lordships will recall that several councils whose people chose to have an elected mayor have, in light of the experience, changed their minds and, perfectly properly and democratically, decided that that should no longer be the case. It seems quite invidious that when councils were compelled to have a referendum—not by local demand but by the Government—they are stuck with that choice for evermore. The noble Baroness has adduced a perfectly consistent, logical argument and we on these Benches will support her should she choose to divide the House.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, this amendment seeks to remove Section 9NA of the Local Government Act 2000, which currently provides that, where a council has been required to hold a mayoral referendum under an order made by the Secretary of State, and where that referendum has been successful and a mayor duly elected, the mayoral model of governance cannot subsequently be changed except by a further Act of Parliament.

I recognise the strength of feeling that the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, brings to this debate and her view—I do not know whether it is the view of the people of Bristol—that the people of Bristol should have the opportunity to hold a governance petition for a referendum on a change to their governance arrangements. In summary, if I have understood the noble Baroness’s arguments, she would like the people of Bristol to be in the same position as they would have been in if they had, in 2011, had a petition for a mayoral referendum, and in the resulting referendum in 2012 had voted to have a mayor.

Were this to be the situation, I accept that the people of Bristol could petition for and hold a further referendum at any time from May 2022 on whether to switch from a mayoral form of governance to some other form of governance. The people of Bristol are not in that situation. The situation in Bristol is that Parliament agreed that there should be a referendum on whether to have a mayor, and the people of Bristol voted to have one. Accordingly, as noble Lords will have heard me say in Committee, I cannot accept this amendment on the grounds of both precedent and principle.

I have spoken previously about the precedent established by the arrangements put in place for establishing the London mayoralty, whereby Parliament instigated a referendum through enacting primary legislation and the electors subsequently voted for a mayor. The arrangements were then put in place by a further Act of Parliament. There is no provision in these arrangements for the people of London to vote that they no longer want a mayor.

I have also spoken about the position in Bristol, where Parliament instigated a mayoral referendum under the Local Government Act 2000 through both Houses approving an order establishing a referendum and the people of Bristol then voted for a mayor. That form of mayoral governance was then established under the Local Government Act 2000. As in the case of the Mayor of London, mayoral governance in Bristol can be changed only by a further Act of Parliament. The amendment before us would mean that the electors of Bristol could, if they chose, have a referendum following a governance petition, and if they voted to end the mayoral model, it would end.

I have also been quite clear that, in those cases where a mayor has been introduced wholly by local choice, it is right that wholly local choice should be able to end the mayoral governance. However, in the case of Bristol, a change of governance should be by both local choice and some decision of Parliament specifically related to Bristol.

Following our previous discussions, I have been considering what further options there could be for properly involving both Parliament and the people of Bristol in such a decision. I do not believe the noble Baroness’s amendment would properly involve Parliament in a decision about Bristol. However, the Bill provides a means for Parliament to be involved in various ways with specific places in the course of implementing a devolution deal.

Clause 10 provides that, with the consent of the councils involved, regulations can be made that modify an application in particular cases of the provisions of Part 1A of the Local Government Act 2000. Among other things, this makes provision about mayors, including provisions about mayors in Bristol’s situation. As we have discussed during the passage of the Bill, any regulations under Clause 10 powers need to be approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament, and the intention is to make such regulations where this is necessary to implement an agreed devolution deal.

Accordingly, as part of an agreed devolution deal with Bristol, through its approval of Clause 10 regulations —which would provide the opportunity not afforded by this debate for full consideration of the issues for Bristol—Parliament could indicate its willingness to see the electors of Bristol have a choice through a referendum to end, if they wished, the Bristol mayoralty. Having said this, it is, of course, entirely a matter for the councils involved in any such deal to decide what powers they wish to be devolved to them and what changes in governance arrangements they wish to propose. While the Government are ready to have conversations with any area about any proposals, I cannot prejudge what the outcome might be in a particular case. On that note, I hope noble Lords will be prepared to withdraw their amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

It will be interesting to see what the Daily Mail, the Telegraph and the Express make of the noble Lord’s suggestions when they come to be debated. I suspect that he may find those words reappearing in their columns. We will see.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have spoken this evening, particularly my noble friend Lord Marlesford, who has given a good warm-up act for his Bill, which we will discuss on 11 September and to which I will respond. I will return to the matters he has raised this evening when we consider that Bill.

Amendment 75A would require the Secretary of State to lay a report in Parliament on the introduction of higher bands of council tax in the areas of both combined and local authorities. The Government have stated their determination to keep council tax bills low. The last five years of council tax increases are the lowest since council tax was introduced in 1993 and have even been lower than inflation. We already provide local referendums, triggered at a threshold of a proposed increase over 2%, so that people can have a say on the levels of their council tax.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, compared different areas. Of course, councils will ultimately have a say on the level of council tax that they raise. Many councils have frozen their council tax over the last few years. We do not support higher council tax bands, or a council tax revaluation which would be required to implement them. Revaluation and higher council tax bands can lead to higher council tax bills for hard-working people. We are clear that council tax is not a wealth tax but a charge for the use of local services.

The current banding system reflects the fact that many larger homes make slightly greater use of local services, but it intentionally is not a poll tax or a domestic rate. The Government have already taken a number of steps to tackle property tax avoidance by a small minority of wealthy people, and also increased stamp duty on the highest valued homes.

Given these explanations, I hope that the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Monday 13th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall the leader of a council not too far away from Manchester who led the council for some 50 years before retiring at the age of 85 to make way for a younger successor who was 76?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not think that we are thinking of the same person, but that is very interesting. I thank the noble Lord and ask him not to press his amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, these amendments are all about requiring members of the combined authority or overview and scrutiny committee to be involved in actions which are, quite rightly, those of the elected mayor.

I will first speak to Amendment 11, which would insert the requirement that the combined authority must consent to functions of the combined authority being exercised by the mayor. I do not disagree with what the amendment seeks to achieve. There are a number of circumstances in which an order could be made to make a function of the combined authority exercisable only by the mayor. Our intention is that in all circumstances the combined authority must give consent—or, if this is at the initial stage of setting up the combined authority, the constituent councils must do so.

First, when an order is made to create the post of mayor and transfer powers to the combined authority, in this circumstance nothing can happen without the consent of the combined authority or the local councils involved. Clearly, consent would not be given if the order proposed to give a mayor powers with which the councils or combined authority were not content. Secondly, when an order is made to transfer further powers to a combined authority, similarly, such an order would require consent from all the local councils.

Finally, and notwithstanding our intention, I accept that there could be, at least in theory, a subsequent order to make an existing function of the combined authority a function exercisable only by the mayor. We are ready to accept that any such lacuna in the legislation should be addressed and we are minded to accept this amendment. However, the drafting will need further consideration and, if noble Lords will allow, I will come back to it at Third Reading.

Amendments 9 and 10 would require the mayor to obtain the consent of the combined authority or, in the case of Amendment 10, the overview and scrutiny committee before appointing the deputy mayor. For mayoral governance to be effective, the mayor and the deputy mayor must be able to work together and the mayor must have confidence in his or her deputy. Moreover, the mayor’s choice of deputy mayor is very restricted. As provided for in the Bill, the deputy mayor must be a member of the combined authority, so the mayor is already choosing from a small group of people.

In practice, a mayor will consult some of or all the members of a combined authority about a deputy mayoral appointment, but it would be wrong for the members of the combined authority or the overview and scrutiny committee to have the ultimate say over who the deputy mayor is. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, talked about Greater Manchester and he is absolutely correct that that is an interim arrangement.

The mayor, with a clear mandate, needs to be able to have the say over who among the members of the combined authority will be the deputy and who will assist him or her in delivering what he or she has promised the voters. Giving the combined authority or overview and scrutiny committee the final say as to whether a person can or cannot be the deputy opens up the possibility of appointments which would hinder the mayor and prevent the mayor and deputy working together effectively and smoothly for a common purpose. These amendments are therefore not a sensible check or balance on the exercise of executive functions and I invite noble Lords not to press them.

Amendments 12, 13 and 14 would require a mayor to consult the combined authority or, in the case of Amendment 13, the overview and scrutiny committee before delegating a general function to the deputy mayor, another member or an officer. The provisions in the Bill relating to delegation align with the policy for a local authority mayor or leader, who may arrange for the discharge of functions by members of the executive or officers of the authority. Although the mayor may delegate functions, he or she remains accountable for any actions taken and is accountable directly to the electorate.

I understand the thoughts behind these amendments—that is, to ensure that a mayor is indeed effectively and transparently held to account and that, while there is the capacity for strong executive action, equally the right checks and balances are in place to give confidence in that respect and ensure accountability. However, such checks and balances will not be delivered if executive and non-executive actions are confused by involving the members of the combined authority in decisions such as how the mayor performs his or her role.

Later, we will discuss the appropriate strong and transparent overview and scrutiny to ensure sensible and robust checks and balances on the actions of the mayor and the combined authority. It is entirely right that the mayor is held to account, but he or she must also be able to deliver effectively on the commitments made to the electorate, and these amendments could be severely detrimental to that. With those explanations, I hope that noble Lords will agree not to press their amendments.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for accepting the principle of Amendment 11 and I look forward to working with her to agree a form of words when we get to Third Reading.

I am slightly disappointed at the response to some of the other amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord McKenzie—in particular, about the delegation of functions. Given the huge scale of the authorities that we are talking about and the huge responsibilities which it is hoped will be devolved, it seems to me that this is a rather different role from that of a council leader or chief executive or even an elected mayor in the authorities as presently constituted. However, I will not press those amendments and will rely on the noble Baroness’s undertaking to revert to the subject of Amendment 11 at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Women in the Workplace

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Thursday 9th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The living wage has been announced. I am sure that detail of its phase-in will be announced in due course.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, how will the imposition of the proposed increase of around £70 a week in council rents for households with a joint income of £40,000 a year in London or £30,000 elsewhere help to improve equality of employment and participation of women in the workforce?

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Monday 29th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I have to say that I regard this amendment as somewhat unreal. I had the pleasure of working in three places during the recent general election: first, in my own authority of Newcastle; secondly, in the only seat that Labour retained in Scotland, clearly thanks to my superhuman efforts; and thirdly, in Stockton-on-Tees. The relevance of the last is that more posters were exhibited in Stockton-on-Tees for the Thornaby Independent Association than there were for all the other political parties put together; it is an association for the Thornaby part of the constituency.

The notion that electors are committed to the structures which have been created over time is somewhat fanciful. The good residents of Clara Street, in the ward of Benwell in the west end of Newcastle, which I have represented for approximately a fortnight longer than the Minister has graced this earth—that is, dare I say it, just under 50 years—are not consumed with interest in the governance structures of the local authority. I shall use the phrase again: it is quite unreal. Of course they talk of nothing else but the constitution of council committees in my ward and other places. What the amendment seeks to do is prescribe that, in some undefined way, the Secretary of State has to be satisfied that local government electors have been “properly consulted”, whatever that means, on the details of the procedures laid out in Clause 10. The clause covers the governance arrangements of local authorities, their constitution and membership, and the structural and boundary arrangements in relation to them. It goes on to state,

“‘governance arrangements’ means the executive arrangements, committee system or prescribed arrangements operated by a local authority under Part 1A of the Local Government Act 2000”.

In those 48 years, I have not had a single question addressed to me by a constituent on any of these matters. It may be that I am in an unusual position, but I suspect not. It may be that the constituents of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in another part of Newcastle where he was a long-serving councillor, were somewhat more engaged with the minutiae of governance structures, but I am somewhat sceptical that that occurred even then. What is suggested in the amendment is effectively undefined and unworkable, and it is not something we can support. I regret to say that when the Minister, as I expect she will, says that it is not necessary or that she does not understand it, or possibly both, I will concur with her entirely.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am sorry to hear that the noble Lord will regret that we concur; we quite often concur. It is not at all unreasonable to consider that, as the elected representatives of those areas seeking devolutions work up their proposals, they will have considered carefully what the communities, local people and businesses in their areas want and expect. It is not at all unreasonable to believe that those elected representatives will have thought deeply about how to implement the proposals they are seeking, what those proposals will mean for those areas, and how those proposals will affect the local people who live or work in those areas. We can be confident that local representatives have ensured that they have engaged with their communities and their electorate to whatever degree, and in whatever manner, they judge necessary in respect of the many different elements that may be in the proposals they put to the Secretary of State.

In these unprecedented processes to deliver devolution, it is not right that we start inserting detailed requirements about the Secretary of State having to second-guess those democratically elected locally, or to be required to form a view as to whether, in his opinion, those democratically elected local representatives have acted as they should. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, on this occasion, I am happy to support the amendment from the Liberal Democrat Benches. The noble Baroness has made a perfectly sound case and, indeed, one that should be extended wider in the sense that, as I understand it, the deal that will be offered to local authorities will be the kind that was imposed on Bristol; namely, that once a mayoral system is adopted, it will be permanent. That is wholly unsatisfactory.

If the previous amendment we debated had been confined to the issues of mayoralty, for example, as opposed to the internal workings of the authority, I would have been a great deal more sympathetic to what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, was moving. However, it seems indefensible that a structure can be created and imposed, effectively, on a local community and its electorate with no possibility of change as the price for whatever deal the Government agree to negotiate with the combined authority. I hope again that the Government will think twice before locking local government into a system without not merely having consulted the electorate but without having their approval, let alone that of the constituent authorities.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I have listened with interest to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I know that the noble Baroness feels strongly about providing the people of Bristol with the same opportunities to change their system of governance should they so choose by means of a valid petition for a governance referendum to the council. I am aware that during the passage of the Deregulation Bill through this House in February 2015, she tabled a similar amendment. I am also aware that she introduced on 8 June a Private Member’s Bill, the Referendums (Local Authority Governance) Bill, that would have the same effect.

As we have discussed in the past, we cannot accept this amendment on the grounds of both precedent and principle. The precedent for introducing mayoral governance following a referendum instigated by Parliament was set when the London mayor was established. In this case, Parliament instigated a referendum through enacting primary legislation. The electors then voted for London having a mayor and, by a further Act of Parliament, the arrangements were introduced. There is no provision in these arrangements for the people of London to vote that they no longer want a mayor.

The Government followed the same broad precedent in putting in place the legislative arrangements that have led to the establishment of mayoral governance in the city of Bristol. In this case, Parliament, through approving by a resolution of both Houses an appropriate order under the Local Government Act 2000, instigated a referendum. The people of Bristol voted for a mayor, and that form of mayoral governance was established under the Local Government Act 2000. As in the case of the London mayor, mayoral governance in Bristol can be changed only by an Act of Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

What particular knowledge does Parliament have about the condition of Bristol? Whence does it derive its intimate knowledge and concern for the residents of that city? Why should Parliament refuse to allow them a voice? The Government contrived a referendum, and it went the way they wanted, but is that to remain immutable? It seems a terrible proposition when Parliament can release the authority and return the decision to the people of the city.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The point that I was making was that Parliament had created this situation so it would be for Parliament to undo it. That is not to say that it could not be undone, but it would have to be undone by Parliament.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Monday 29th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I do not rejoice and I did not intend to be contentious. I was simply illustrating the effect of the council tax freeze and the money the Government have given to that. In difficult times, council tax payers will have been glad of lower council tax.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, while individual council tax payers might well feel a little more comfortable, of course the impact on services for their communities has been very marked, particularly in adult care and children’s services, as we are increasingly seeing. In any event, most of the £5 billion has been top-sliced from moneys that would have gone in the local government finance settlement in any event. It is a bit much for the Government to claim credit for the freeze. It is more than a freeze for some services because it is actually inflicting a cut.

That brings us to the central question about the impact of these devolution proposals between different areas. One of the objectives of the amendment, although perhaps we will need to look again at the wording, is to ensure that in the process of devolving functions and resources to the combined authorities, both of which would be welcome, fairness in respect of other areas and between the combined authorities themselves is a cardinal objective and is something that the Government will address. It is that which we want to see in terms of the report that Amendment 44B seeks to advance. Looking at it again and listening to the Minister, perhaps the objective was not made sufficiently clear in the amendment, so it is something to which we may have to return on Report.

Unless we have a fairer funding system for local government services and the people who depend on them across the piece, including those in combined authority areas, then, in our submission, the talk about devolution will prove to be more of process than of outcome, and that would be unfortunate. Let us credit the Government, and particularly the present Secretary of State, with good intentions in this respect, but unless this is accompanied by a much more rigorous examination and the necessary change in the funding of local government, including the combined authorities, those objections will not be met. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, Members of your Lordships’ House will have observed that I am short. I intended this speech to be equally short, but I will give it a minute or two, in order to allow this debate to be kept to five minutes or thereabouts. Then we can proceed with the very important Statement which is to follow. Between us, the noble Baroness and I will no doubt get the clock to 4.30 pm.

It would be anomalous if the existing general power of competence which applies to local government in its manifestation across the country was not to be matched with a similar power for the combined authorities. The whole point of the combined authorities is to give them a wider range of functions than local government generally enjoys and for them to take on a wider role across the provision of a range of public services. Therefore, a general power of competence would facilitate the implementation of the Government’s objectives, which are shared by Members on all sides of your Lordships’ House. I hope that the Minister will concur with that view at some little length. I beg to move.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the Localism Act 2011 provides that local authorities have the general power of competence. This is the same power to act that an individual generally has. All principal councils and eligible town and parish councils have this power. The provision in this Bill is designed to give the Secretary of State the discretion to decide whether or not to confer this same general power of competence to a particular combined authority. This is likely to go hand in hand with an arrangement in which the combined authority is to take on wider powers and functions, thus supporting the case for a general power of competence.

Flexibility, however, must remain in conferring this general power of competence to combined authorities, as it may not be appropriate to give the full power to act that an individual has to all combined authorities. For example, for combined authorities with relatively limited specific powers, it may not be appropriate to grant them a wide general power of competence. This is so given that Section 113A of the 2009 Act already gives them a power to do anything they consider appropriate for the carrying out of the specific functions that have been conferred on them.

This amendment is a further example of moving away from the enabling character of the Bill. It is an example of another centralised requirement which an area may not want, recognising that in its circumstances this would not be appropriate. So I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, if the noble Baroness is right, the general power of competence would seem to be more limited than, on the face of it, it appears to be. Certainly it might inhibit a kind of development across a combined authority area that might be thought to be most appropriate. For example, in another area in which I have an interest, the justice arena, a combined authority might be in a good position to develop schemes for assisting the rehabilitation of offenders. That is not a duty of local authorities at the moment but, particularly given the area involved in a combined authority, they might well have something to offer which they should be able to carry out. Their potential partners in the Prison Service or the probation service might want to join them in such an effort. I am a little puzzled as to why the noble Baroness should be reticent about extending a power in that sort of area.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I do not think that it is reticence; it is about flexibility and what might be appropriate in different circumstances. I hope that the noble Lord does not take it as reticence.

[Lord Beecham]

With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Monday 29th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I would imagine it is a statutory body. May I confirm that, because I am not entirely certain? I will confirm that either during this debate or after the dinner break on subsequent amendments.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

I would like to help, if I might, because the noble Baroness is obviously in difficulty. This question is a health issue and not her department. When we are talking about suing, we are talking not about suing for damages; we are talking about judicial review. I therefore suggest that somebody gives the Minister some advice, not necessarily now but certainly before we get to Report, on where and against whom action for judicial review might be issued in relation to decisions taken around the health service by whomever is responsible under these deals. That is the best way to clarify the position. I do not expect the Minister even with the assistance of the Box to be able to answer that now, but it should be answerable before we get to Report.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord very much indeed for that intervention.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked me to define “public authority”. It is any authority in the public sector, including all public bodies and NHS bodies, Ministers of the Crown and government departments. New subsection (4) in Clause 6 provides that, in the case of the Bill, it,

“does not include a county council or district council”.

With that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Communities: Young Muslims

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Thursday 25th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right—hate crime is hate crime.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Government consider convening a meeting of the different faith communities to encourage collaboration around combating Islamophobia? Perhaps that could draw on the experience of the Community Security Trust, which works with both Jewish and Muslim communities to protect places of worship—a very good example of interfaith collaboration.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I have a long history of work with interfaith communities, which is well established back in my home area of Trafford. I am pleased to be able to tell the noble Lord that I am already engaging in that work.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Wednesday 24th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I know that we will return to it, and I look forward to that.

The noble Lord, Lord Warner, asked what legal advice had been received about the relationship between the MOU and the 2012 Act. NHS England and Greater Manchester have developed the MOU, and any draft order that the Government bring before the House to implement any arrangements agreed will of course be compliant with the relevant primary legislation. The noble Lord also asked about further change to the terms of agreement with Greater Manchester. We can envisage that, with the agreement of all concerned, devolution in Greater Manchester will develop.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked what the statutory roles of health scrutiny committees are in the context of devolution. Health and well-being boards will continue to exercise their statutory functions.

[Lord Beecham]

The scrutiny committee of the local authority is not the same as a health and well-being board. If the Minister does not have an answer now, perhaps she can advise me later.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I remember the health scrutiny committees in the context of AGMA and the combined authority. I am loath to deal with this point tonight, so I will come back with a firmer reply in due course and request that the noble Lord withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the issue of effective scrutiny has come up a lot during the course of the Bill. As I said during the debate on the previous group of amendments, I am ready to have discussions with noble Lords across the House about their ideas for strengthening scrutiny.

Amendment 39C would remove the power for the Secretary of State to make provision about the chair of an overview and scrutiny committee and about the appointment of a scrutiny officer. I am not sure that removing the ability of the Secretary of State to ensure, if it were deemed appropriate, that all overview and scrutiny committees have a scrutiny officer, or to make provisions about the chair, would achieve our joint aim of strengthening scrutiny and safeguarding against a one-party state.

Nor am I clear that Amendment 40A would strengthen overview and scrutiny. The amendment would remove from the scope of the order-making provision on overview and scrutiny issues the publication of reports et cetera and the information which must or must not be disclosed to an overview and scrutiny committee. I am clear that strong scrutiny needs the overview and scrutiny committees to have access to all the information that they consider necessary to pursue their work. Equally, it is important that their reports and recommendations are public, transparent and properly taken into account by those making decisions. The following amendments essentially set out some of the ideas that may achieve these aims and the substance of which we will wish to consider carefully.

Amendments 36H and 37B seek to expand the scope of overview and scrutiny so that it includes the possibility of an overview and scrutiny committee examining not only decisions made or actions taken, but decisions made or actions “under consideration”.

Amendment 41 would require that any order made by the Secretary of State about the membership of an overview and scrutiny committee must ensure that such membership reflects the proportion of votes that each political party received at the most recent local government election for the constituent councils. Amendment 42 would require that any order made by the Secretary of State about the chair of the overview and scrutiny committee or committees must include provision that the chair is to be a representative of a different political party from the party of the mayor of the combined authority. Amendment 49 provides the definition of “party” for these two amendments. While I believe that there are some practical issues with Amendment 41, given that not all parties who receive votes at an election may have an elected member, I understand the concern that underpins the amendments.

Finally, Amendments 39AA and 40B seek to introduce the affirmative procedure for orders and guidance about overview and scrutiny. Given the importance that we attach to overview and scrutiny, I have some sympathy with the aims of these amendments, and, indeed, in our wider consideration of how best to strengthen overview and scrutiny. We may consider that some matters might be better dealt with on the face of the Bill, rather than through secondary legislation. In our previous short debate I highlighted some of the important issues that we will wish to consider when looking at how to make scrutiny strong and effective in all areas. This, most importantly, includes those areas where the members of the combined authority come from one party.

Given this commitment, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

I take it from that that the Minister is offering discussions on all these amendments and not ruling any of them out.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I have given my view on certain amendments and certainly where I see there is scope in others.

[Lord Beecham]

That is welcome, and I am certainly prepared to withdraw my amendment. I have to say that I am not overimpressed with at least one of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, relating to the percentage vote of parties that may well achieve no membership at all of the local authorities they have contested but will somehow appear on the combined authority. Of course, that general view is consistent with the proposals that the Liberal Democrats made for the composition of your Lordships’ House, about which I suspect we will hear very little for the next few years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank both noble Lords who spoke to these amendments and will say pretty much what I said in response to the last group of amendments—namely, that we have considerable sympathy with what noble Lords are saying. Therefore, I reiterate my willingness to have discussions and hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

I am delighted with the Minister’s usual co-operative stance. I am happy to accept her acceptance of my suggestion and look forward, together with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and others perhaps, to see whether we can get something agreed between now and Report. In the circumstances, of course, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of parish and town councils and to their national organisation, the National Association of Local Councils, I think it is called—NALC. Having said that, I do not think that the proposal that the noble Earl has made is really a very practical one. The area I live in, which I am afraid I keep citing, is enormous, and there are others like it. I do not know how many hundreds of parish councils and therefore parish councillors there are in the area between the Tees and the Tweed, but I suspect that there will be a very large number. Quite how you would appoint people from there to an overview and scrutiny committee, I am not entirely sure.

I also do not think that this is really what is needed. I have an alternative suggestion to make to the noble Earl, which perhaps will be considered by the Minister. Should there be parish councils in the area of a combined authority, there should be a requirement on the combined authority, and on the mayor if there is one, to meet at least annually with representatives of those parish councils. After all, we are talking here essentially about large strategic issues, not very specific local ones. Although there should be a local voice at some point in the process, I do not think that it is realistic to add them to an overview and scrutiny committee. It could not be very representative anyway unless you had large numbers of such people on such a committee; it would not cover the whole area.

A better way might be to require the combined authority and/or the mayor to meet on at least an annual basis—it could be more often than that—with a representative group from across the whole of the parish and town council interest in the area concerned, to discuss the overall position. It would be part of the consultations that those bodies would be having with a variety of bodies, but recognising the particular position of those who have been elected to their very important but very local office. That would meet the more important aspirations of those people better, if I may say so, than the attendance of perhaps one person, representing so many hundreds of others, on an overview and scrutiny committee. I am not moving anything at this stage, but we and the Minister may want to consider it as a possible alternative to the noble Earl’s amendment when we get to Report.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I say at the outset that we value very greatly the work that parish councils do up and down our country. As the tier of local government closest to their communities, they provide a democratically accountable voice for taking community action. Parish councils provide services to their communities and have also played an important role in neighbourhood planning, setting the priorities for their local area in line with the local plan.

It is entirely right that a wide range of people from the community are able to participate in scrutiny of the combined authority in one way or another. An overview and scrutiny committee can invite parish council representatives to its meetings. We do not see, however, that it is necessary to name them on the face of the Bill, as the Bill already provides that an overview and scrutiny committee may invite any persons to attend its meetings.

We must balance the wish to have a wide involvement in overview and scrutiny with the need for a committee to be of a suitable size to be effective. Having parish councillors as members of an overview and scrutiny committee may not be the best way to achieve that, but there may be other ways to encourage parish council involvement. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, made a good suggestion which good practice might dictate that a mayor, combined authority or scrutiny committee might wish to take up.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Wednesday 24th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I would like to correct the comment that I have just made and come back to it in a future group, because I have clearly got it wrong.

[Lord Beecham]

That just illustrates the complexity of the matters that we are discussing. I refer to one matter that the Minister mentioned, when she said that the deputy mayor must be the leader of a council which is part of the combined authority. I am not sure whence that arises, as it is not in the Bill. It may or may not be the case that combined authorities consist purely of council leaders.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is correct, in fact—it would usually be a local authority leader, but would not necessarily always be. It has to be a member of the combined authority, but it would in usual circumstances be a leader.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the deputy mayor has to be a member of the combined authority, not just a councillor in one of the councils.

[Lord Beecham]

So the shape and construction of combined authorities may vary, but there will be a distinct membership, as the Minister has just confirmed, of the body defined in whatever way ultimately emerges as the combined authority. That much is clear to me —it may not be clear to others, but then so much of this debate is, I suspect, not going to be entirely clear to all of us. I think we can move on from that point, unless the Minister wants to come back.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I just want to confirm that the noble Lord is correct.

[Lord Beecham]

Well, we have agreed on something. Whether there will be any more agreement before the afternoon is over remains to be seen.

Much of the discussion that has taken place has been about the appointment of deputies. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, and my noble friend Lord Adonis have spoken particularly about the question of the choice of deputies. That is an important issue, but by no means the only issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, Amendment 24 would insert a new provision within new Section 107E to require the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals to make alternative arrangements where the geographic boundary of a police and crime commissioner area does not correspond, as noble Lords have said, with the area of a combined authority.

New Section 107E would enable the Secretary of State to provide, by order, that the mayor of a combined authority area would exercise the functions of a police and crime commissioner, subject to the necessary consent from the appropriate authorities. If such an order were made, new Section 107E would also require the Secretary of State to provide that there is no separate police and crime commissioner for the area of the combined authority. The Bill also enables secondary legislation to be made which creates the position of mayor for the area of the combined authority, while retaining a separate position of the police and crime commissioner for the policing area.

The Bill does not prevent a mayor also being given police and crime commissioner functions where the relevant combined authority area does not correspond to a single police area. Should it be considered appropriate to transfer functions to a mayor in such a case, powers in existing legislation would enable police areas to be altered to facilitate such a scenario. On this basis, mechanisms are already available to enable alternative arrangements to be made. However, as we know, Greater Manchester’s devolution deal is the only one to date which will include a directly elected metro mayor also taking the police and crime commissioner function. We also know that in this area the police force boundary corresponds to that of the combined authority.

We will consider any future proposals to transfer police and crime commissioner functions to the mayor for a combined authority area on a case-by-case basis, and will transfer these functions where appropriate. Clearly, geographic issues will be an important consideration in this regard. With these explanations and assurances, I hope the noble Lord will feel content to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Baroness has answered the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I, too, start with an apology, having not answered the point of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Riddle—Liddle, sorry—brought up the same point, which was about how police areas would be changed. Power to change police force boundaries exist in Section 32 of the Police Act 1996. I referred to that mechanism in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, a moment ago.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, also asked a question, which I shall answer now because he asked it previously as well, about the full-time nature of the PCC role and how we will ensure capacity to cover PCC matters. It will be for the mayor to ensure that there are sufficient resources to fulfil all PCC functions and we have included the ability for a mayor to delegate these functions to a deputy PCC mayor. We anticipate that there will also be a wider police governance administration structure taking over the role of the PCC’s office.

[Lord Beecham]

If it is convenient, could the Minister indicate whether there is any intention to make arrangements equivalent to that of the police and crime panel, as well as the two points that she has already made?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I can confirm what the noble Lord says. I go back to a previous question that relates to this issue which was asked by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and which I did not answer, about the powers that the mayor has being prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State. We have said we will ensure that in all circumstances such an order will be made only with the consent of the local authorities. What can be done—I was not clear on this earlier—is for such an order to be revoked or amended, changing or withdrawing the functions that a mayor has. What cannot be done without abolishing the combined authority is to end the authority’s having a mayor. Abolishing a combined authority requires the consent of the councils concerned. I think that the noble Lord made that point earlier.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I begin by taking up the penultimate point that the noble Baroness made in relation to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about the mandate, as it were, for police functions being transferred. She said that the electorate in a mayoral election for a combined authority area would know whether or not the police powers were to be transferred. However, I do not see how that fits with new subsection (1) of new Section 107E in the Bill, which states:

“The Secretary of State may by order provide for the mayor for the area of a combined authority to exercise functions of a police and crime commissioner in relation to that area”.

That looks as though the Secretary of State will take that decision before a mayoral election. If that is the position, it does not become an optional matter at all on the face of it, does it? The mayoral candidates will be stuck with a decision that has already been made and will have no choice over whether they wish to take on that role. Therefore, I am puzzled by the position which the noble Baroness described.

I am also still not entirely clear about the police and crime panel position. Is it intended that within a mayoral authority which, one way or another, ends up with the police and crime commissioner role, there should be a separate police and crime panel, as is now the case, or will that role be exercised by members of the combined authority, which is a rather different scenario? Perhaps we need that to be elucidated but, again, if the noble Baroness cannot do that tonight there will no doubt be time before Report to determine the issue.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Monday 22nd June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, in the situation where a local authority does not consent to a combined authority adopting a mayor, the Bill requires that if the Secretary of State makes an order to enable the mayoral model to be adopted, the Secretary of State must remove the non-consenting local authority from the combined authority. Amendments 11 and 12 would change this requirement to an option that the Secretary of State could choose to take and enable a local authority in this position to make representations.

I appreciate the intention behind these amendments but, as we have said, the Government are open to discussing devolution proposals from all places. We want areas to come forward with proposals, developed and proposed by local areas. If a local authority within an existing combined authority does not want to have an elected metro mayor, we believe that it should neither be forced to do so—going back to discussions earlier—nor be able to veto the rest of that combined authority from adopting this model. This is what the Bill does.

Amendment 11 would give discretion to the Secretary of State as to whether to remove the non-consenting local authority when making an order to provide that the combined authority area has a mayor. This would in effect mean that the Secretary of State can force the local authority to remain within the combined authority, which we do not believe is appropriate.

Amendment 12 enables a local authority which has been removed from an existing combined authority, by virtue of its non-consent, to make representations. We also believe that this is not necessary. The Secretary of State must gain consent from each constituent local authority before an order can be made to enable an existing combined authority area to have a mayor. It is open to the local authorities when deciding whether to consent to make any representations they wish to.

Amendment 23 would omit new section 107D(6)(a) to remove the power of the Secretary of State by order to,

“provide for members or officers of a mayoral combined authority to assist the mayor in the exercise of general functions”.

As the Bill stands, this provision allows for the mayor to be supported in his or her executive functions, in the same way that council officers support an elected mayor or leader of a council. For example, the mayor may set the strategy for the combined authority and officers would support the mayor in drafting, preparing and publishing any necessary plans. Removing this provision risks creating arrangements that would hinder the delivery of the mayor’s executive functions and hence frustrate the very purpose of a devolution deal. Mayors will be clearly identified as the accountable figurehead and be answerable to their electorate for any function they undertake or are assisted in undertaking, so it will be clear where the responsibility lies.

With all these assurances, I hope the noble Lord will agree that the amendments are not necessary.

[Lord Beecham]

To respond to the first point, obviously the Minister—or those who helped to prepare her speech in response—did not take into account the case that I actually put, which was in relation to an authority, under the provisions of the Bill as it stands, being totally excluded from a relationship with the combined authority on matters that are not the subject of the deal. Perhaps the Minister will undertake to look at that aspect of it, which is really the thrust of the amendment. However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

As the Minister implied, jumping on the bandwagon with the Liberal Democrats is not generally a fruitful proposition. Indeed, the concept might be an oxymoron. We are certainly adopting a somewhat Fabian approach to the extension of the franchise. I am a little surprised that the noble Lord’s broader amendment has been regarded as within the scope of the Bill, but if it has then so be it. We would certainly look to an extension of the franchise but for the purposes of what we are discussing here the amendment we have drafted is correct.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as the Bill currently stands, the ability of the Secretary of State to set the timings of elections by order allows for the fact that there is no single pattern of local elections across the country with which a new mayoral election may be synchronised. It also recognises that devolution deals would be bespoke and therefore it is possible that different arrangements may be sought by and agreed with different areas. For example, an area may wish its mayoral election to be held in a year where there are no council elections while another area may wish to combine mayoral and council elections. While we expect that the majority of areas will wish the mayoral term to be four years—the same as councillors—we would not want to rule out the possibility of, say, a five-year term, the same as Parliament, if that is what a particular area wanted.

The essential point is that, whatever arrangements are adopted, they will be put in place only after this House and the other place have debated and approved them. Moreover, these provisions in the Bill replicate those for local authority mayors in the Local Government Act 2000. The 2000 Act also provides a default position so that, if the order-making power is not exercised, a mayor’s term is four years and the election takes place on the ordinary election day, the first Thursday in May in the relevant election year—that is, the election specified in the Act for different classes of councils. However, that is a default position, as indeed was recognised in the report by the DPRRC. Rather than setting out a default position, the amendment proposes a more restricted arrangement that applies in all circumstances other than when the office of mayor is first established. Given that the purpose of the Bill is to implement bespoke deals, it would be inappropriate to include such an inflexible position. However, we are prepared to look at whether to include in the Bill some genuine default provision. This would not in any way curtail the scope of the order-making powers in Schedule 5B but would be the provisions that apply if an order were not made.

Amendment 15 would change the franchise for those entitled to vote for mayor in a combined authority area to include 16 and 17 year-olds. The Bill provides that the franchise for electing these mayors, which would have been established as an integral part of an agreed package of powers to be devolved to the combined authority, should be the same as that for electing councillors in any electoral area situated within the combined authority. The voting age in those areas is 18. More broadly of course, the voting age for parliamentary elections is set at 18. Beyond that, the voting age in most democracies, including most member states of the EU, is also 18. In the EU, only Austria allows voting for 16 year-olds.

We have heard arguments for a change in the voting age. However, my concern is that that is part of a wider debate and it would not be appropriate—as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said—for any such change to be implemented in these quite specific circumstances. I have concerns as well about the administrative complexity of running an election in an area based on a register that would include 16 and 17 year-olds and running other council elections or referenda in the same area, quite likely on the same day, on a different basis with a different franchise. These are circumstances in which the risk of confusing the electorate is very real and this can only weaken, rather than strengthen, our local democracy. There is a wider national debate to be had about the electoral franchise, but I am clear that the specific circumstances of the Bill are not the place for it. Accordingly I hope that, on this basis, the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Beecham

Monday 22nd June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it is not an imposition. It has to be agreed. The Secretary of State does not want to impose anything on anyone, but he does want to see full accountability for the full devolution of powers.

[Lord Beecham]

You go into a shop and there are two items for sale. One of them has a price tag—the price in this case is a mayoral authority—and the other is a different, cheaper item. If you want the bottle with mayoral authority, you have to pay that price. Is that not the position? In that sense, there is not really a choice, is there?