Localism Bill
Earl Attlee Excerpts(14 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I should explain that our official Front Bench position is that we support the amendment, which means that, should it be put to a vote, I, at least, will be obliged to vote in favour. I am not sure how many of my colleagues behind me would follow me into the same Lobby. Our position was formulated because of strong support from the GLA, but I take it as implicit in my mandate that supporting the amendment would be conditional on the Government being able to answer a lot of the very robust challenges that have come, particularly, from this side of the House during this debate.
My noble friend Lord Whitty spoke about the importance of preserving a strong consumer interest. Points were also made by my noble friend Lord Faulkner about whether this will benefit passengers, some of whom do not live in London and are not London voters. Indeed, it covers rail travel from such places as Luton. If we were to separate rail from other modes of travel, how would that work? I understand the thrust of the movers of the amendment, but these are questions that need to be satisfied before it could proceed. Perhaps in responding the Government can confirm that there was overwhelming support for the proposition among transport operators and rail user groups. Will the Government let us know, for the record, whether any alternatives to transfer to the GLA have been considered and on what basis they were rejected?
The Government have acknowledged the considerable amount of casework undertaken by London TravelWatch and are presumably satisfied that this could be handled under the proposed new arrangements. The London Assembly review of TravelWatch, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, spoke, recommended that the reorganisation be folded into the assembly but with rail functions distributed between the assembly and the national independent passenger watchdog Passenger Focus. Have the Government undertaken an analysis and will they support that as an appropriate way forward?
I look forward to the Minister's reply and hope that he can dig me out of my dilemma on this issue. Powerful issues have been raised that need to be answered before the proposition can and should proceed, much as we love the thrust of it. In particular, there is a mood that the status quo should not necessarily be accepted. There may be ways in which it can be improved and cost savings may be generated. I would be interested in the Minister's views on that as well.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, Amendment 108 would abolish the London Transport Users’ Committee and transfer its functions to the London Assembly. My officials assured me that this would be an easy amendment to deal with—even I would be able to deal with it. The reality is that I find myself in the middle of a pretty vigorous debate. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, also finds himself in an interesting position.
I regret we did not have time to discuss this amendment in Committee when it was tabled by the noble Lords. As my noble friend Lady Hanham indicated in her subsequent letter, the Government believe that it is inappropriate—at this stage through this Bill—for the London Transport Users’ Committee, which is the independent transport users watchdog for London, to be transferred to the London Assembly.
Among other things, the committee undertakes an important and impartial complaints ombudsman role on behalf of London transport users in and around London, and it is vital that any change to the current arrangements ensures that complaints continue to be dealt with in a genuinely independent manner. In particular, there is an EU requirement which mandates the designation of an independent body for complaints for rail transport users. So there is an important question that needs to be resolved about how far the assembly can be sufficiently independent for the purposes of this EU legislation, given its party-political membership, its role in scrutinising the work of the mayor and TfL and its influence over the strategic direction of transport policy in London—especially when this Bill will allow it to reject the mayor’s transport strategy.
Indeed, if the Government had proposed such an amendment, there would have been concerns from many noble Lords about the lack of independent safeguards in the legislation. Therefore, as we have heard from our debate this evening, there are still some important questions that need to be resolved before we can consider legislating for any new arrangements. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, asked me a few more and I do not know the answers, which is why we cannot support the amendments.
However, as I am sure that noble Lords will agree, it is entirely right during a time of fiscal constraint for the London Assembly to consider ways to achieve best value for taxpayers’ money from the London Travel Users’ Committee that it oversees. The Department for Transport has already undertaken a review of Passenger Focus, the national rail passenger watchdog, which will deliver significant savings, and DfT will work with the committee, the assembly and other partners to explore ways to deliver an efficient and effective ombudsman function for London transport users.
On this basis, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is quite correct. As I said, I have a great deal of sympathy with the point she makes but my concern is that the introduction of a new franchising authority, which the amendment proposes, would be in danger of creating greater fragmentation of the railway than we have at present. I agree with her that there are probably too many train operating companies. It is the Government’s intention that franchises should be longer than they have been in the past, and I strongly support that. However, to introduce a new franchising operator could lead to confusion and fragmentation. My noble friend Lord Berkeley refers to services that serve London but go well beyond. The classic example of that is the Thameslink line, which starts in Bedford, goes through Luton and St Albans—none of which is covered by Transport for London or the GLA—and then goes south from Croydon to Brighton.
Services like that need to be looked at in a regional context, and I am not certain that looking at them in a London context would make a great deal of sense. However, I pay tribute to what Transport for London has done in the development of its Overground service. The opening up of the East London line is an extraordinarily successful venture. The trains are very popular and they provide new journey opportunities for people who probably did not make those journeys, or tried to do it by car, or struggled on buses. It deserves to be commended for that.
I agree with my noble friend that it is helpful to have this debate, but this amendment is not quite the way that we should go.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I understand the intention behind my noble friend’s amendment; namely, that the mayor and TfL should have greater control over London’s commuter rail franchises, given their wider transport responsibilities. As my noble friend Lady Hanham said in her letter following the Committee stage, TfL already plays an important role in relation to London’s commuter rail services. It already has, as pointed out by my noble friend, effectively full franchising powers over the London Underground concession, covering a number of key routes across London. It works closely with the Department for Transport in the development of other rail franchises affecting London, with the mayor having the ability to pay for outputs over and above those that the DfT specifies. By the way, I undertake to look up in the dictionary the definition of “decrement”.
The devolution of other London commuter rail franchises to the mayor and TfL is not a straightforward matter. The geography of London’s commuter rail network does not sit well with London’s administrative boundaries, with many lines extending well into neighbouring counties, as pointed out by many noble Lords. Furthermore, capacity on much of the London commuter network is limited, and there are inherent conflicts between London-area and non-London services that need to be balanced in the best interests of all users, and to keep overall costs down.
I am afraid my noble friend did not satisfy me in how the balance would be struck between the needs of commuters who live in London, and who elect the mayor and the Assembly, and those living in Luton, Brighton and Woking, who do not. There is a real question of a democratic accountability deficit if other London commuter rail services are devolved to the mayor, as many commuters do not live in London so do not have the opportunity to participate in the elections.
Nevertheless, the Department for Transport is happy to engage TfL further about the devolution of local rail services, in the context of Sir Roy McNulty’s independent study on rail value for money earlier this year. This study suggested that more local control of rail services could contribute to the development of lower-cost regional railways and, in line with the Government’s localism agenda, we are considering options for more local control of some rail services in other parts of England. We will also continue to encourage operators to work more closely with TfL. The new working arrangements, put in place for the South Central franchise which was let in 2009, appear to be working well.
On this basis, I urge my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I am delighted that I have been able to stir up some debate on this issue and see it get some attention—rather than slip to its usual place at the bottom of everybody’s priority list—because there are some genuine issues here.
I say to those who are concerned about passengers outside the London area that most people have London as their destination and are therefore intensely important to TfL; they are not marginal. Also, most people who come in contribute in some way to London’s economic viability, either through business or entertainment, and so are very much a concern to Transport for London even though they do not actually live within the area. Again, we can also bring in other board members.
I am delighted to have sparked off some of this debate. Given that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee
“CHAPTER 2AOther authoritiesIntegrated Transport Authorities
In Part 5 of the Local Transport Act 2008 (integrated transport authorities etc) after section 102A insert—“CHAPTER 4General powers102B Powers of Integrated Transport Authorities
(1) An ITA may do—
(a) anything the ITA considers appropriate for the purposes of the carrying-out of any of the ITA’s functions (the ITA’s “functional purposes”),(b) anything the ITA considers appropriate for purposes incidental to the ITA’s functional purposes,(c) anything the ITA considers appropriate for purposes indirectly incidental to the ITA’s functional purposes through any number of removes,(d) anything the ITA considers to be connected with—(i) any of the ITA’s functions, or(ii) anything the ITA may do under paragraph (a), (b) or (c), and(e) for a commercial purpose anything which the ITA may do under any of paragraphs (a) to (d) otherwise than for a commercial purpose.(2) Where subsection (1) confers power on an ITA to do something, it confers power (subject to section 102C) to do it anywhere in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
(3) An ITA’s power under subsection (1) is in addition to, and is not limited by, the other powers of the ITA.
(4) Subsection (5) applies if there is, in relation to an ITA—
(a) a Passenger Transport Executive established under section 9 of the TA 1968 for the integrated transport area of the ITA, or(b) an executive body established by virtue of section 79(1)(a) or 84(2)(d).(5) The ITA may delegate to the Executive or body the ITA’s function of taking action under subsection (1) (but not the function of determining what action to take).
102C Boundaries of power under section 102B
(1) Section 102B(1) does not enable an ITA to do—
(a) anything which the ITA is unable to do by virtue of a pre-commencement limitation, or (b) anything which the ITA is unable to do by virtue of a post-commencement limitation which is expressed to apply—(i) to the ITA’s power under section 102B(1),(ii) to all of the ITA’s powers, or(iii) to all of the ITA’s powers but with exceptions that do not include the ITA’s power under section 102B(1).(2) If exercise of a pre-commencement power of an ITA is subject to restrictions, those restrictions apply also to exercise of the power conferred on the ITA by section 102B(1) so far as it is overlapped by the pre-commencement power.
(3) Section 102B(1) does not authorise an ITA to borrow money.
(4) Section 102B(1)(a) to (d) do not authorise an ITA to charge a person for anything done by the ITA otherwise than for a commercial purpose (but see section 93 of the Local Government Act 2003 (power of ITAs and other best value authorities to charge for discretionary services)).
(5) Section 102B(1)(e) does not authorise an ITA to do things for a commercial purpose in relation to a person if a statutory provision requires the ITA to do those things in relation to the person.
(6) Where under section 102B(1)(e) an ITA does things for a commercial purpose, it must do them through—
(a) a company within the meaning given by section 1(1) of the Companies Act 2006, or(b) a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 1965 or the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969.(7) In this section—
“post-commencement limitation” means a prohibition, restriction or other limitation imposed by a statutory provision that—
(a) is contained in an Act passed after the end of the Session in which the Localism Act 2011 is passed, or(b) is contained in an instrument made under an Act and comes into force on or after the commencement of section (Integrated Transport Authorities)(1) of that Act;“pre-commencement limitation” means a prohibition, restriction or other limitation imposed by a statutory provision that—
(a) is contained in an Act passed no later than the end of the Session in which the Localism Act 2011 is passed, or(b) is contained in an instrument made under an Act and comes into force before the commencement of section (Integrated Transport Authorities)(1) of that Act;“pre-commencement power” means power conferred by a statutory provision that—
(a) is contained in an Act passed no later than the end of the Session in which the Localism Act 2011 is passed, or(b) is contained in an instrument made under an Act and comes into force before the commencement of section (Integrated Transport Authorities)(1) of that Act;“statutory provision” means a provision of an Act or of an instrument made under an Act.
102D Power to make provision supplemental to section 102B
(1) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument make provision preventing ITAs from doing under section 102B(1) anything which is specified, or is of a description specified, in the order.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide for the exercise by ITAs of power conferred by section 102B(1) to be subject to conditions, whether generally or in relation to doing anything specified, or of a description specified, in the order.
(3) The power under subsection (1) or (2) may be exercised in relation to—
(a) all ITAs,(b) particular ITAs, or(c) particular descriptions of ITAs.(4) Before making an order under subsection (1) or (2) the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) such representatives of ITAs,(b) such representatives of local government, and(c) such other persons (if any),as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to an order under subsection (1) or (2) which is made only for the purpose of amending an earlier such order—
(a) so as to extend the earlier order, or any provision of the earlier order, to a particular ITA or to ITAs of a particular description, or(b) so that the earlier order, or any provision of the earlier order, ceases to apply to a particular ITA or to ITAs of a particular description.(6) Power to make an order under this section includes—
(a) power to make different provision for different cases, circumstances or areas, and(b) power to make incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional or transitory provision or savings.(7) The Secretary of State may not make an order to which subsection (8) applies unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order (whether alone or with other provisions) has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(8) This subsection applies to—
(a) an order under subsection (1), other than one that is made only for the purpose mentioned in subsection (5)(b);(b) an order under subsection (2), other than one that is made only for that purpose or for imposing conditions on the doing of things for a commercial purpose.(9) A statutory instrument that—
(a) contains an order made under this section, and(b) is not subject to any requirement that a draft of the instrument be laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament,is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.””
Earl Attlee
My Lords, in moving Amendment 119A, I shall also speak to Amendments 119B, 119D, 119DA and 119BA, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton. The amendments will allow integrated transport authorities and their executive bodies, passenger transport executives, to properly undertake activities that benefit or contribute to their purposes. The enabling power goes beyond the existing incidental powers and can extend outside their geographical boundaries and immediate hinterland. These bodies are not local authorities and will therefore not have the benefit of the general power of competence that is already contained in the Bill.
The matter was debated in another place and in this House on 20 June. In response to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, the Secretary of State for Transport sought agreement to include suitable provisions in the Localism Bill, and this was given. The amendment provides an appropriate broader general power for integrated transport authorities and their passenger transport executives. For consistency, the power will also be provided to combined authorities and economic prosperity boards.
The main reason why these bodies need such a power is that local authorities using similar powers to the ITA’s existing incidental and well-being powers have been the subject of successful legal challenge. Integrated transport authorities and their passenger transport executives have therefore been unwilling to undertake activities and enterprises that are not expressly prescribed in law. The view that they could be successfully challenged has been supported by legal opinion obtained by the Passenger Transport Executives Group. An example provided by PTEG of the activities that they are seeking to use the new powers for is the provision of back-office functions for transport smart cards, similar to Oyster cards in London, to local authorities not in an ITA area or in another integrated transport authority area. Because providing and charging for such an activity is not expressly permitted by existing legislation, they fear legal challenge.
The potential benefits of integrated transport authorities being able to let their passenger transport executives undertake such operations for others is that they will be able to realise the economies of scale from providing similar services to a number of bodies. The bodies wishing to use these services will also benefit from obtaining the service more cost-effectively from an organisation that is already doing something very similar. The cost savings realised by both provider and client can be passed on to council tax payers. In the case of the service provider, this will be the metropolitan district councils in the area concerned. In the case of the client organisations, this will be either local authorities outside an ITA area or the metropolitan district councils within another ITA area.
The suggested amendment to government Amendment 119B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, is unnecessary because we are satisfied that where it serves some purpose in relation to a body’s function, collective action is already covered in the drafting of the new broader general power to be found in proposed new Clause 102B(1). Noble Lords will be aware that the parliamentary draftsmen undertake their work with great care. We are at one with what powers we want to grant and we should trust the parliamentary draftsmen to get it right on our behalf.
On government Amendment 119D, I have just explained to your Lordships our argument for providing integrated transport authorities and PTEs with wider general powers. This amendment seeks to do the same for combined authorities and economic prosperity boards, which are intended to provide stable governance mechanisms for long-term strategic decision-making on economic issues. In bringing groups of relevant authorities together, both are expected to be based upon meaningful economic geography. Where a combined authority is established for an area, it will be responsible for the transport functions in place of an ITA as well as having economic development and regeneration powers. Currently, one combined authority has been established in Greater Manchester. Economic prosperity boards are similar to combined authorities but without the transport functions. There are presently no economic prosperity boards.
Given that broader powers are being given to integrated transport authorities, it is essential that these powers are also made available to combined authorities and economic prosperity boards to ensure that they can effectively discharge their economic objectives. Indeed, given the close interrelationship between economic development and transport, it would be unreasonable not to confer these broader powers upon both bodies and would undermine their ability to deliver sustainable economic growth. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, this is an interesting group of amendments. The Minister explained their purpose very well, but it seems to me that the pendulum is swinging from local authorities, PTEs and ITAs et cetera getting a bit frightened of what they are allowed to do to something that is beginning to look like a Henry VIII clause in the transport field. That is probably quite a good thing, actually. It seems that they are going to be given powers to do anything. Perhaps the noble Earl could explain whether this could include, in respect of the integrated transport authorities or the passenger transport executives, things such as operating rail franchises if they felt like it. Could they take a bigger role in sponsoring and deciding how the franchises were run, and what would be the extent of their financial commitment to it?
Could those authorities go as far as was recently planned in Merseyside: for Merseytravel to run a vertically integrated railway and take over the infrastructure from Network Rail? It was interesting that that authority had been lobbying to do this for at least five years, if not 10, but then just as the McNulty report, which might have encouraged them to do it, came out it decided that it was not going to do it because it was too risky. However, it is an interesting option that may be open to other authorities. What will they do in running trams and operating buses? The prospect of even better integration between different types of services would be good, if it happened.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of these amendments, subject to any issues that come out of the very forensic questioning of my noble friends. Amendment 119BA seeks simply to ensure that the powers conferred can be pursued either alone or collectively with one or more ITA. I accept entirely the Minister’s confirmation that it can and that this amendment is not necessary. I am pleased that that is on the record. As the noble Earl said, we moved amendments in Committee to achieve a general power of competence for ITAs similar to that given to fire and rescue authorities in the Bill. These replicated amendments moved by my honourable friend Barbara Keeley in another place. The Minister there explained that these were matters for the Department for Transport and were under consideration. That, indeed, was the response when we debated the amendments in Committee here, but the Government committed to take matters further, which they have done. They have fulfilled their obligation to the House and we are happy to support these amendments.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome to these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked about extension of powers possibly covering rail franchising and Henry VIII powers in this amendment. Primary legislation would be required to allow the ITAs to be involved in franchising outside their area. If such changes are required, the Government will look for a legislative opportunity.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, mentioned the Highways Agency. He will understand that the Highways Agency is concerned with the strategic road network, but I am confident that it will work closely with local authorities. The noble Lord also asked about powers relating to local bus services in ITA areas. ITAs set a broad strategy for public transport, including buses. Most bus services in an ITA area are run on a commercial basis. ITAs are responsible, where they see fit, for topping up—in other words, adding extra services. There are some detailed questions and I will ensure that we get a full answer to all the questions. A copy will of course be placed in the Library. I beg to move.
Localism Bill
Earl Attlee Excerpts(14 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
My Lords, these amendments focus on the potential impact of accreditation schemes, both in the private rented sector and the social rented sector. I turn to the social rented sector first.
Amendment 52B would give the Secretary of State the power to require the Homes and Communities Agency, and from April 2012 the Greater London Authority, to supply information about any accreditation or standards to be held by landlords of social housing. I assume that the amendment relates to the HCA’s future role as a regulator of social housing. The noble Lord nods. However, under the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 the regulator is already obliged to consult on its own standards for social housing landlords and to bring those standards to landlords’ attention. In practice, of course, the regulator’s standards are freely available for everyone to view on its website, so I do not see a need to empower the Secretary of State to require that this information is published by law.
The amendment could also encompass accreditation or codes that might be adopted by social landlords on a voluntary basis. It is important that this kind of voluntary activity is owned by the sector itself, so I am not convinced that the regulator should be required to publish information about it. Indeed it is important that there is a very clear distinction between the regulator’s standards, which are compulsory, and any codes or accreditation arrangements that are adopted by landlords on a voluntary basis. Of course, we would encourage such voluntary activity in the sector, but we do not believe that it would be helpful for the regulator to police it or to report on it.
Turning to Amendment 85, which deals with accreditation in the private rented sector, I think that we all agree that a good accreditation scheme can play an important role in developing a local authority’s relationship with their local landlords. Many local authorities already run successful accreditation schemes, but as with the social sector, accreditation works best when it is owned by those involved. One of the main strengths of voluntary accreditation to date is that local authorities have been able to tailor their schemes to local needs, and experience shows that accreditation works best when it matches local circumstances.
Instead of allowing that local discretion, the proposals in front of us today would impose top-down burdens on all local authorities, including those who, quite legitimately, decide that accreditation is not appropriate for their area. Worse, they would force all existing and effective accreditation schemes into a straitjacket designed by central government. Schemes that did not match up would have to be, quite pointlessly, dismantled and reassembled at considerable administrative cost. This does not seem to make much sense and we cannot support it.
My Lords, these amendments are intended to support accreditation—and the noble Lord explained why he believes them necessary—but unfortunately they would have the opposite effect by undermining effective schemes that are already in place. Given this, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. However, I still think that there is an issue here that needs further consideration, so I hope that this will be kept under review. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Best
Amendment 54 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy and myself. Currently, the Secretary of State is able to direct the regulator to set standards for social housing in certain areas. In a strictly limited number of cases, he is able to direct the content of these standards. Clause 163 of the Localism Bill seeks to strengthen his powers in this area, allowing him to shape the contents of standards regarding tenancy exchanges in which tenants can swap properties. The view within the housing world is that this is giving the Minister too many powers to direct the behaviour of social landlords. The danger of accumulating more and more powers in the hands of the Secretary of State is that eventually, as one Minister after another brings their own fresh and no doubt good ideas to bear, you are effectively nationalising the housing associations; they are becoming creatures of government. They then run the risk of being regarded by the EU and others as public sector bodies. If the housing associations are no longer independent bodies and are regarded as public sector agencies, then all their borrowing becomes public sector debt and we have lost one of the key elements in having a social housing sector that is outside of public sector control.
So I am very sympathetic to standards about exchanges and the mobility of labour, and to the Minister’s hopes that housing associations will behave in a particular way, but laying this down, through direction to the regulator over these standards, does seem a step too far. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, Clause 163 is important in increasing mobility for social housing tenants who may wish to move for work, or to give care to or receive care from family or friends. We want to increase opportunities for tenants to move through mutual exchange. We have been working with the existing main providers of home-swap services to develop a technical solution that will put in place a national scheme that enables tenants to receive information on all possible matches across all providers in a scheme. Alongside this, we want all landlords to be required to provide their tenants with access to good internet-based home-swap services. Indeed, the majority of landlords who responded to our consultation on housing reform also agreed with this approach and said they could see no good reason why landlords should not subscribe to such a scheme. We therefore propose, through using the powers in this clause, that the social housing regulator should set a mutual exchange standard to make sure that social landlords sign up to good-quality services.
The noble Lord also raised the issue of public sector debt. While I am not undertaking to reflect on that and come back at a later stage, I will undertake to satisfy myself, through discussions with my officials, that the problem which the noble Lord alludes to does not exist. While I accept that some noble Lords view this as an overly bureaucratic approach, we believe that the benefits of increasing choice and mobility for social tenants must be the priority and that we should seek to deliver this better service for them.
Lord Best
I am grateful to the noble Earl for that response. I agree entirely that improving mobility and exchange schemes is a thoroughly commendable line to pursue. I think that I am now on my 23rd housing Minister since I started in this world. They have all had important ideas to add to the things that housing associations ought to do; it is just that in the end, if one is not careful, the cumulative effect is the creation of an agency that is simply a government bureaucracy. I am grateful for the noble Earl’s reassurances and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I will be as brief as possible in speaking to this group of amendments. My Amendment 55 seeks to designate an individual within the Homes and Communities Agency to be responsible for regulation. The amendment has the support of the National Housing Federation, and it is important because it seeks to avoid a conflict of interest between the HCA’s regulatory and investment functions. It will help to ensure that regulatory issues can be addressed, even to the extent of formal legal proceedings, without compromising the investment function of the HCA, and vice versa. The HCA would of course still be required to appoint a regulatory committee to oversee the regulation officer. The Government may say that this proposal will diminish rather than enhance regulatory independence but I do not accept that that is the case at all. I am in fact arguing the exact opposite. If that is the Government’s position, I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give the House additional words of assurance on this matter. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, succinctly moved his amendment. The Government are committed to ensuring the continued independence of the regulatory function once it transfers to the Homes and Communities Agency. However, our view is that the nomination of a single individual as a regulation officer would diminish rather than enhance regulatory independence. Rather than vesting the regulation function in an independent committee, these amendments, as the noble Lord explained, would confer the statutory powers on a single member of the HCA’s staff. In moving his amendment, the noble Lord talked about the problem of a conflict of interest. However, this person could presumably be dismissed at any time by the HCA on normal employment grounds. It could prove difficult for a member of staff in that position to take decisions that were demonstrably independent of the HCA’s other functions. In addition, where formal regulatory decisions are made by a properly constituted board or committee, there can be greater confidence that those decisions are broadly based and take account of the full range of relevant factors. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment in view of my explanation.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his response. Clearly we are not going to agree on this. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, the Opposition fully support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Best. The amendment seeks to correct the use of what can only be described as an odd and unnecessary use of the term unsuitable. Like the noble Lord, Lord Newton, we ask the Minister to address that specific point of why unsuitable is being used. There is much concern that the Government are taking a much wider view and a much wider power and have additional intentions of using it. I hope that the Minister either accepts the amendment or that we have a very clear explanation about what this does and does not mean.
The Secretary of State already has the power to remove someone who is unable or unfit. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, this is adequate for the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, so we on this side certainly think that it is good enough for the HCA regulation committee.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, it is important that the regulation committee is able to function effectively in order to retain the confidence of investors and the social housing sector. In extreme cases, it may prove necessary for the Secretary of State to intervene to remove a member of the committee to ensure that its crucial work is not jeopardised. “Unable, unfit or unsuitable” are fairly standard grounds and a nearly identical provision exists for membership of the boards of the existing social housing regulator and the Homes and Communities Agency.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, a member may be able and fit to carry out his or her functions without being suitable to exercise them. This might arise, for example, if there was an irretrievable breakdown in the relationship between the member and the rest of the committee. A member might engage in activities such as filibustering deliberately to disrupt the committee’s work, but that falls short of being “unfit”. He would be being very effective in disrupting the work of the committee, so I am sure that noble Lords can understand the need for “unsuitable”.
Government Amendment 61 is a minor amendment that will update the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 and the Equality Act 2010 to reflect the planned abolition of the Tenant Services Authority.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, does he see the problem that we on this side see: that somebody can be deemed unsuitable just because they are making a point that the others happen not to agree with? It is not filibustering but that they are making a perfectly valid point, which is not agreed with.
Earl Attlee
No, my Lords, that would not meet the test of what is unsuitable. If the Secretary of State tried to use his powers to say that someone was unsuitable because he or she disagreed with other members of the committee, he would leave himself vulnerable to judicial review.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Would the noble Earl like to suggest the number of times you have to disagree before you are deemed to be unsuitable?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I would imagine that a committee could have very free and frank discussions, perhaps lasting all afternoon, without falling foul of the test of unsuitability. On the other hand, if a member of the committee regularly interfered with the operation of the committee so that it could not function, the Secretary of State would have to step in.
Lord Best
My Lords, I will certainly not press the matter further. However, it is important for the Government to know that the housing sector is very concerned that this regulation committee is independent and that the people on it feel able to say things that are contrary to what the Government might wish to hear. That independence is paramount. I hope that that point has been taken. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Best
Amendment 67 stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. It concerns the appointments made by the regulator. It is important to note that this amendment relates only to appointments made by the regulator where the housing association has not failed in any way. It is not a disciplinary measure but constitutes a voluntary helping hand for the organisation. In a number of cases that I know well additional members have been appointed by the regulator as new members of the board and have been very helpful. However, there are limits to the number of appointments that the regulator ought to make to the board. We suggest that these be limited in future to a maximum of four. In my experience three new people are usually appointed to strengthen a board that has become weak—four is quite enough. We are trying to protect the independence and sovereignty of these organisations.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, as regards the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Shipley, I recognise the strength of local feeling in the case that he highlighted. We have looked at his proposal extremely carefully and have discussed it with the social housing regulator, the Charity Commission, the National Almshouse Association and the National Housing Federation. We have also received helpful representations from the United St Saviour’s Charity and from residents of the Hopton’s Almshouses in Southwark.
I fully understand the reasoning behind the proposed amendment. However, we are concerned that the amendment seems to require an increase in bureaucracy and potential state interference in the proper exercise of charity trustees' discretion. Currently, the identification of a new trustee is a matter for the existing trustee to decide and we are not convinced that new regulatory controls should be applied. The proposed amendment would apply only where the corporate trustee of an almshouse happens to be a registered provider of social housing. It is not clear that there is a strong rationale for requiring that these almshouse trustees, but not others, seek consent.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I know that the Minister was not tempted by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, but can he give the House any assurance that the issue the noble Lord raised will be looked at seriously by the Government? I accept that this involves charity law, which is complicated stuff, but it also involves real people with real concerns and the Government should look at this seriously.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am confident that my department will continue to monitor the situation, but we cannot do anything further with this Bill.
Lord Shipley
Will it be possible for the evidence that the Minister referred to from the regulator, the Charity Commission and other bodies to be provided in the Library so that we can see exactly what evidence they have supplied to the Government that indicates that legally this is very complicated? Would the Minister agree that it would be good practice for consent to be received where a transfer is being proposed for almshouses? Would he consider and give advice on what other steps could be taken to ensure that consent for transfer from tenants is delivered?
Earl Attlee
With regard to the evidence, if I can give the noble Lord some more evidence I will, but I am not certain that I can. I believe there are some difficulties with his second request.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Before the Minister sits down, I shall press him on this point. In order to get time for this to be resolved, would he be able to facilitate a discussion between representatives of these organisations, the almshouses and their residents with officials and Ministers in the department?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, we will do whatever we can to assist a resolution of this problem. We will continue to monitor it, but my particular point is that there is not much more we can do with this Bill.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, when I moved Amendment 62, I quoted from the Minister’s letter which said that she was sympathetic to this case, so I am pleased that we seem to have ended on a note of sympathy and understanding of the problem. I think we need to try to find a solution to this. I repeat myself, but I do not think it is tenable for tenants of almshouses to be treated differently from tenants of other social housing or local housing. There is a principle at stake here. There may be legal complexities to deal with in this Bill, but I am very grateful for the assurance from the Minister that we can enter further discussions prior to Third Reading.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I said that we cannot enter further discussions. We cannot use this Bill to solve this problem. I gave no such undertaking.
Lord Shipley
I understand the point that the Minister is making—that this Bill may not be the right forum for progressing the issue—but there will nevertheless be discussions about how the issue might be progressed in other ways.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, we are happy to continue work to resolve the issue, but not with this Bill.
Lord Shipley
I understand that situation. With that confirmation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee
“1A In section 122 (restriction on gifts and distributions by non-profit registered providers to members etc) after subsection (6) insert—
“(7) The Secretary of State may by order amend this section for the purpose of—(a) adding to the permitted classes, or(b) modifying or removing a permitted class added by order under this subsection.(8) Before making an order under subsection (7), the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the Charity Commission,(b) the regulator, and(c) one or more bodies appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of registered providers.””
Earl Attlee
My Lords, in Committee, the noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Patel, Lord McKenzie and Lord Beecham, tabled an amendment designed to liberalise Section 122 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, which restricts the payments that housing associations may make to their members, and a similar amendment has been tabled again by the noble Lord, Lord Best.
The Government agree with the aim of the amendment and have put down our own amendments to achieve it. The amendments we have tabled would give the Secretary of State the power, by affirmative order, to add to the classes of permitted payments that housing associations may make to their members. Taking this matter out of the Bill will give us sufficient time to explore a new exemption that delivers greater flexibility while protecting public investment. Any order would be made only following consultation with the Charity Commission, the regulator and the housing association sector. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
We are grateful to the Government for responding to the earlier amendment. I acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Best, will not move his amendment, but are classes 4 and 5 specified in that amendment classes that the Government would support and take forward under the process that they have set down?
Amendment 63 refers to,
“modifying or removing a permitted class added by order under this subsection”.
Do the Government have anything in mind concerning modifying or removing a particular class?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, those are exceptionally good questions, but unfortunately I will have to write to the noble Lord.
Earl Attlee
“17 In section 320 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (orders and regulations)—
(a) in subsection (3)(a) (orders subject to approval in draft by each House of Parliament), after “114” insert “, 122”, and(b) in subsection (7)(a) (orders subject to annulment by either House of Parliament, and exceptions from that requirement), after “114” insert “, 122”.”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I will follow the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, on the question of compensation. Clearly, the ombudsman route provides the possibility of compensation. It is not certain whether that would apply to the alternative route, which we debated at some length earlier. Perhaps the noble Earl could indicate whether under the alternative method of the designated person—a councillor, Member of Parliament or tenant panel—there will be the opportunity for a compensation payment to be made by the designated person. If not, we would have two systems, one of which would afford the possibility of compensation while the other would not. I am sure that the noble Earl much appreciated that word in his shell-like ear. In the event that we will have two competing systems, will the Government ensure that guidance is given to tenants that that is the case—in other words, that under one system they may get compensation while under the other they will not? The matter could be discussed in the forum to which the Minister referred. Strange circumstances could arise if the situation were not clear.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, Amendment 74 highlights the Housing Ombudsman’s power to order a member landlord to pay compensation to a complainant. I understand that my noble friend would like there to be greater clarity on how the ombudsman calculates the level of compensation to be awarded and I am grateful to him for raising the issue. Our view is that it is not necessary to include any new specific requirements in the Bill. In practice the ombudsman already provides a breakdown of any compensation he has decided to award, which is done in the context of what the ombudsman considers to be fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. This arrangement allows flexibility to address specific issues and to provide a useful level of information, depending on the circumstances of each case. Clearly it would be difficult to attain this flexibility in a legislative duty on the ombudsman.
The ombudsman is intending to consult early next year on a revised statutory scheme to reflect the proposed extension of his jurisdiction to include complaints about local authority landlords, in addition to housing associations. I have no doubt that there will be further opportunities through that consultation process to engage on these and other issues. In answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, anything referred to the ombudsman means that compensation can be paid.
Lord Beecham
My question is in relation to the other routes that have been included in the Bill and which may be taken further in discussions before Third Reading. Would compensation be payable when the matter is dealt with by a local councillor, Member of Parliament or a tenants panel? If not, would that be made clear to the applicant, whereas the ombudsman would provide the possibility of compensation?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, in view of the complexity, a detailed letter would be appropriate.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his comments. I am quite confident that the monetary compensation would apply to all reports to the ombudsman, in answer to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, so I have no worries on that score. My only comment is that for the sake of clarity in the ongoing negotiations and discussions, it would be useful for non-QCs to see that there is monetary compensation without having to go back to the 1996 Act. I very much thank the Minister for his reply and the reply from the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendments 75 and 76. They would ensure that the ombudsman’s service is not damaged by unintended consequences. What is wonderful about the ombudsman’s service is that compared with the courts, proceedings are informal, inexpensive and accessible. It is respected as its rulings are complied with by registered providers. The Government are proposing to solve a problem that noble Lords on this side of the House do not believe exists. We should be careful not to undermine the service. Will the Minister tell the House where the proposal has come from? Who has asked for it? How has it arrived here?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the proposals relate to the proposed order-making power for the Secretary of State to enable the housing ombudsman to apply to a court or tribunal to enforce his determinations. One of our aims through our package of reforms to social housing regulation is to give a greater role to social housing tenants in the scrutiny of landlord performance. The Bill supports that by providing a clear role for tenant panels in the complaints process. In parallel, we are currently consulting on draft directions to the social housing regulator that will result in tenants having stronger tools with which to scrutinise landlords’ performance. The regulator’s consumer regulation role will be focused on setting clear standards and responding to failures that cause actual or potential serious detriment to tenants. Alongside these reforms we want to ensure that we continue to promise tenants an effective right of redress. The proposed power to enable the housing ombudsman to enforce his decisions through the courts—although I hope it is never needed—gives tenants confidence that effective redress will continue to be available.
The noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Kennedy, give an accurate description of the current situation. There is not a problem. The Government would use this power only if levels of compliance with the housing ombudsman determinations declined significantly. At present compliance is high, as noble Lords have recognised. Only one recommendation has been rejected in the past seven years. We hope and expect that this will continue. If so, we have no intention of using this power.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Am I right that the noble Lord is saying that the Government are taking a power that they believe they do not need?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, it is wise to make sure that we have the order-making power should we need it. It concentrates the mind. As I said, we have no intention of using it unless the situation deteriorates. I suspect that it will not, but it is always advisable to have something in your back pocket.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
That is a very interesting response. I have heard the exact opposite from the government Bench on many other proposals.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am confident that my department has properly considered those matters. It is obviously a very important issue and I have already undertaken to write to the noble Lord, Lord Best. Other noble Lords will of course get a copy, and there will be a copy in the Library.
Earl Attlee
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 78 and speak to Amendments 79, 80 and 243. These amendments are four minor and technical amendments to the new clause that we introduced in Committee. These combine to remove a lacuna in the clause as currently drafted. They would mean that Section 214(3A), which enables the court to order that the deposit be repaid in part or in full to the tenant, would apply if the tenancy had ended at the date of the application to the court but not if it had ended after that date. Clearly this is not the intention of the legislation and I ask noble Lords to support this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, the Opposition accept that these are minor technical amendments and are happy to support them on that basis.
Earl Attlee
“(6A) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Subsections (3A) and (4) apply in the case of an application under subsection (1) if the tenancy has ended (whether before or after the making of the application) and the court—(a) is satisfied that section 213(3) or (6) has not been complied with in relation to the deposit, or(b) is not satisfied that the deposit is being held in accordance with an authorised scheme,as the case may be.””
Lord Best
My Lords, Amendment 81 is about the exclusion of some rural dwellings from the preserved right to buy. Quite a few tenants who were previously in the public sector have become tenants of a housing association, through large-scale voluntary transfers. Those tenants, and indeed others in social housing, have the preserved right to buy: the opportunity, if they move around, to buy the place to which they move if it is another social housing home. However, if they wish to move into a home that falls under a Section 106 planning agreement, which provides that the property must be retained in perpetuity as a rented social housing home—that is; it is a condition of planning that a certain number of homes are for renting—they will be unable to do so because the landlord would be in breach of the Section 106 agreement. The preserved right to buy is rather paradoxically preventing people moving out of the council house that they are in at the time and into a new property that has been built under a Section 106 agreement.
This amendment excludes certain rural dwellings from the preserved right to buy, allowing the people to move in and not then be able to exercise the right to buy that property because of the Section 106 agreement and the restrictions on that property. This amendment would be helpful to people moving around—to tenants. It is unfair at the moment that they have to be turned away, even though the case is good, because the properties are restricted and cannot be sold into home ownership on a permanent basis.
During the summer, I received a lot of helpful correspondence from Ministers and the civil servants have been very helpful. On this matter, I had a reply which I think indicated that the point had not been fully understood by the civil servants. They have been marvellous in every other respect, but with this one aberration I did not get a satisfactory response. I am not entirely sure that the point was fully understood, which must have been my fault when making it in the first place. If this small, unintended consequence of legislation could be cleared up in the Bill, it would be helpful to the mobility of people in rural areas and in places where there are restrictions in the properties that have been built, thus helping mobility. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
The noble Earl was a bit too quick for me. The Opposition gives its full support to the noble Lord, Lord Best, in moving his amendment on the exclusion of certain rural dwellings from the preserved right to buy. He is seeking to deal with an unintended consequence of the planning system. Many social homes in rural areas are built through Section 106 agreements. An issue can arise where housing is transferred from the local authority to housing associations. In these cases, existing tenants are given a preserved right to buy. When Section 106 agreements are used to build new social homes in rural areas, there is often a planning obligation which means that they must remain for social let. In those cases, tenants with a preserved right to buy are unable to move into these properties.
The amendment fixes an unintended consequence and the tenants would then have the right to acquire, which does not apply in rural areas. Therefore, the problem would not happen and the tenants in those situations can seek to move to social housing in rural areas if they wish. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, can see that we are trying to be constructive and sort out a problem for everyone’s benefit.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Best, in moving his amendment suggested that his point was not fully understood. He alarmed me somewhat because he talked about Section 106 and its consequences. Unfortunately, my notes do not refer to Section 106 and nor do the Q and As. If my response does not fully answer his question, I will of course write to him with further details.
Tenants who have been involved in a stock transfer from a local authority to a registered provider would have agreed to this transfer on the basis that they would retain their right to buy. We do not think that it would be proper to remove this right from the tenant. Equally, we do not think that it is right that secure tenants who are part of a future stock transfer should have their longstanding right to buy taken away simply because they live in rural areas and their homes have been transferred to a new landlord.
However, while we wish to ensure that transferred tenants are not denied their existing rights, there is statutory provision to ensure that the new tenants of these properties do not get the right to purchase their homes in order that the properties remain available to those in need of social housing. There are existing measures in place to ensure that homes in rural areas, which are sold under the preserved right to buy, remain available to people at affordable prices.
Landlords can already impose restrictions requiring owners who wish to sell to either resell only to people who have lived or worked locally for at least three years, or first offer their home to the landlord, giving them the opportunity to return the property to their existing housing stock if they wish to do so. These restrictions on reselling are already in place in a very significant proportion of our countryside and remain in place in perpetuity. In our view, this is sufficient.
I hope that I have met the noble Lord’s points. If I have not, I will urgently have a meeting with him and officials in order to further examine the issues.
Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules
Earl Attlee Excerpts(14 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I should like briefly to add to the comments made by both my noble friends, with whom I am in total agreement. Indeed, I very much welcome today’s debate. I declare an interest as chairman of the Council of the School of Pharmacy, University of London.
It is already very clear through this debate that the process and outcome of the consultation, impact assessment and change in the rules have been grossly unsatisfactory. Although it was rather strange, I suppose that the qualified welcome given by some institutions to the March statement by the Home Secretary and the attendant statement of intent was explained by the fact that many in higher education were expecting worse. However, that does not mean that any of them are by any manner of means in agreement with the current state of play.
I want to talk, in particular, about the closure of the post-study work route visa, on which I have asked quite a number of questions over the past two years. The Government’s response to the Home Affairs Select Committee and correspondence to me from the immigration ministry are interesting in that they show that the Minister and the Home Office seem to have greatly underestimated the importance of the post-study work aspect of coming to a United Kingdom university.
As vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary China Group, I have had a great deal of contact over the years with Chinese students in particular. I believe that some 80,000 to 100,000 students from China are here at any one time. The opportunity to undertake what is essentially an internship with a UK business after graduating, to prepare for a career back in China, has played a very important part in the decision by Chinese students to come here. In the response to the Home Affairs Select Committee report, the Minister said:
“We want to ensure students come for a limited period and to study not to work”.
In his letter to me of 27 July, the Minister put it rather differently:
“Tier 4 should be about coming to the UK to gain a high-quality education and not about finding a route to work in the UK through undertaking a course”.
However, that completely misunderstands the reason for the post-study work route visa. It is a route to having brief work experience here in the UK and thereafter to working long-term back in the home country with the skills acquired.
The tier 2 route visa will be granted only on a case-by-case basis. If we were able to unpack the responses to the consultation, which we are not, I am sure that a better solution could easily be found—certainly looking at the evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee—to tighten up the PSWR mechanism under tier 4. That would be much more satisfactory. As it is, it will make our higher education institutions much less attractive to overseas students. As we know, and as has been mentioned by all speakers so far, the impact assessment for the new rules came out extremely late in a very unsatisfactory fashion. That, as we also know, was commented on by the Merits Committee on two occasions, and we now know that some £3.5 billion gross of income and economic activity could be at risk as a result. That potentially has a huge impact on our education sector and it puts that sector considerably at risk on the basis of little evidence of abuse of the post-study work route visa.
It is right to say, as the Merits Committee does, that it is not clear from the impact assessment or the Explanatory Memorandum to the June statement how the findings from the consultation have fed into the development of the policy or the estimates of the costs and benefits of the changes. I think that that is an entirely uncontroversial statement in the light of what we have heard today. That is despite the statement in paragraph 8.1 of the statement of changes. As we know, the consultation was rushed through in only a month, which itself was grossly unsatisfactory and, sadly, these new rules have taken effect in those circumstances. It is vital that the new rules are kept under review and I hope that the Minister can give an undertaking that that will happen after a very short period of operation. It would have been better if these rules had not gone through but, on the basis that they have, I very much hope that the Minister can give an undertaking that such a review will take place.
The experience of Australia is an extremely salutary lesson in these circumstances. When the Immigration Rules were changed, as the Home Affairs Select Committee reported, there was a slump in applications from overseas to Australian universities, from which they are still recovering.
Finally, the Home Affairs Select Committee report, which is an extremely good document, said that the committee members were not persuaded that students are migrants. The Minister, in his reply to the report, said that he disagreed, claiming that the definition was long-standing under UN measures. That does not make it right. It is high time that rationality prevailed and that students are not regarded as migrants unless they are here for the longer term after graduating.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for the opportunity to debate this Motion. A large number of points have been raised. I am eager to deal with the issues to which they give rise but clearly I shall have to deal with most of them in writing, as noble Lords have been quite wide-ranging.
The Motion before us deals with changes to tier 4 of the immigration system covering international students. The issue at hand is how the findings from the consultation have fed into the development of the policy and the estimates of the costs and benefits of the changes.
When the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, started, he told us about the importance of overseas students. He is, of course, quite right and I absolutely agree with him, but only in respect of genuine students who have come here to study at our world-class academic institutions. That is why we are devoting our attention particularly to the private education sector, where there is much abuse, although we are doing well to reduce it. However, I am at one with the noble Lord regarding universities. He will know that they enjoy considerable advantages under our policies. For example, we have introduced flexibility into universities on the English language requirements, on the ability to work and on the ability to bring in dependants.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked about loss of income from the UKBA. Although there will be a reduction in fees paid to the UKBA, the agency has made allowance for this in its business planning. I hope that he agrees that the UKBA exists to keep our borders secure and not just to turn over visa fees. He claimed the credit for the previous action to deal with bogus students but the previous Government only started that and left this Government with considerable work to do.
The noble Lord referred to the 35th report from your Lordships’ Merits Committee, which states that:
“The Committee regrets that it is not clear from the IA or the Explanatory Memorandum how the findings from the consultation have fed into the development of the policy or the estimates of the costs and benefits of the changes”.
Your Lordships will recall that the House debated the first set of changes to the student route on 16 May. At that time, the impact assessment for the student changes had not been published. However, the impact assessment for the changes to the student route was published when we made the second set of changes on 13 June. I reiterate my previous reassurance that we are quite clear that it is right and proper to provide the Merits Committee with the information necessary for it to do its job.
However, the issue having been raised, it would be remiss of me not to put this again in the context of the previous practice in this area. While it is generally accepted as good practice, there is no legal obligation for the UKBA to consult on changes to the Immigration Rules. In March 2010, the previous Government made significant changes to tier 4—the student route—without a formal public consultation. Despite taking the views of key partners, they did not publish any formal explanation of the findings. Similarly, in March 2006, following consultation, the previous Government published their policy for a points-based system but did not publish the 517 consultations that they received.
I am satisfied that this Government have gone to great lengths to seek the views of the public and of the sector, and to take account of these views in developing our final policy. On 23 November 2010, the Home Secretary informed Parliament that she intended to hold a public consultation on reforming the student visa system. This process began on 7 December, when the Home Secretary announced our proposals and the consultation paper was published. The consultation ran until 31 January 2011—shorter than a standard 12 weeks but that was in order to announce decisions at a time that would allow the sector and students to plan for the following academic year.
Our consultation received over 30,000 responses—10 times as many as the consultation on economic routes—and officials spoke to representatives of over 200 institutions during the consultation period. On 22 March, the Home Secretary made a full statement in the other place setting out the detail of the Government’s decisions, and the public reaction and data that had informed those decisions. On 31 March, we published a detailed statement of intent describing the full policy package and lay changes to the Immigration Rules to implement the first changes resulting from the consultation, which came into effect on 21 April. On 13 June, we lay the second set of changes to the Immigration Rules and published the impact assessment.
It is true that, like the previous Government, we have not published every consultation response. As I mentioned, there were over 30,000 responses online and over 200 longer written responses. We published a summary of the online responses to all questions asked and answered in the consultation. We also indicated the level of support in relation to every response. We felt that this was helpful information for Parliament and interested parties to have. The government code of practice on consultations states that:
“Following a consultation exercise, the Government should provide a summary of who responded to the consultation exercise and a summary of the views expressed … Consideration should be given to publishing the individual responses received”,
but, in this instance, the volume of responses made that impracticable.
The level of response demonstrates a high level of public engagement with the policy development processes. The changes that we have made to our final policy show that we have genuinely listened to and taken account of the views expressed. For example, we initially proposed raising the minimum level of English to an upper immediate level and required secure English language tests for all students. This received a clear, negative response from institutions, who indicated that pre-university pathway courses provided a vital route for international students to access our world-class universities.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I wonder if the noble Earl could clarify—if not now, then at a later time—the basis of the use of the responses to the consultation. I was not entirely clear whether he was saying that it was factual information that was not used, and that other sources were used, or whether it was something wider than that.
Earl Attlee
My main point was that the consultation was responding to the policy rather than giving us detailed data on the likely effect of the policy.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who seems to be working very hard today.
First of all, I echo the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the work of the Merits Select Committee, of which she is a distinguished member. It is very difficult for noble Lords to go through all the statutory instruments and statements of changes, and without the Committee we would be in a very difficult position as far as parliamentary scrutiny is concerned. Essentially this debate is about two issues. One is parliamentary process and the information provided by the Home Office; and it is also about the policy. On the issue of parliamentary process, it is very important that the Home Office learns lessons from the way in which this statement and previous statements have been produced for when further changes in Immigration Rules are brought before your Lordships’ House.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said that this is not the first such occasion, and indeed it is not. We come back consistently to this House to debate these changes because of the inadequacy of the department’s approach. The noble Earl said that his department readily takes on board the points made by the Merits Select Committee, but so far it has not. We continuously come back to debate these issues because the Merits Select Committee has identified inadequacies in his department’s approach. I have very little confidence that we will not be back in another few weeks with further discussion on the same basis.
The noble Earl has kindly offered to write to noble Lords on points to which he has not responded—he always does and it is appreciated—and I hope that his department will take this to heart. I thought it was very interesting when the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that the problem with the IA was that it only had two options: the do-nothing option, or the option of taking what the Home Office wants to do. Rather surprisingly, the Government have come to the view that the Home Office got it right in the first place. I am sure that we are all reassured that, after rigorous consideration of the Home Office’s original proposals, they have indeed, through the IA, come to the view that that is the right approach. Normally on IAs, one seems to get a series of options where I think one can get a more considered view, and I would hope for that in the future.
I too would pay tribute to the ILPA. I thought that the briefing paper it produced for us was, as ever, very comprehensive. Very interesting were the examples that it gave of people who would be badly affected by these proposals and changes. I hope that the noble Earl will have some time to have a look at these examples, because I think that they bring home to us how these changes can have a real impact on people from other countries.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, spoke about the impact of English language schools, and I agreed with everything that he said. I thought that he put a very pertinent point to the noble Earl about the proposal to change from the accreditation scheme to the monopolistic provider that is now going to be provided in relation to inspection, which will be very expensive indeed. The noble Earl gave the reasoned response that he thought this was going to be a more effective and more rigorous scrutiny. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, might feel able to bring this back in some form because I think that it warrants further debate. I am particularly worried about the monopolistic issue and the cost, and I hope that there will be an opportunity to debate this further in due course.
I very much agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who spoke from his experience of the School of Pharmacy. My experience is particularly in the health field. Throughout the world we have wonderful contacts with healthcare systems in other countries, and it is because we have always had this marvellous open door, with people from other countries who often come to help the NHS. My fear is that it is not just the change in the rules that will make a difference but the change in the atmosphere; people from other countries will get the feeling that they are no longer wanted here to study, and that is a major concern.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Yes, my Lords, but surely the point is to deal with the abuse in a holistic way and not stop legitimate people coming here. I fear that the changes will have that dampener impact. I really do.
On the question of consultation, I, like the noble Baroness, was rather confused by the Minister’s response. The Government seem to dismiss these responses because they commented on the policy or because they were unrepresentative. I do not know who decided that they were unrepresentative; it is almost as if the Government have decided that anyone who does not like the policy should not be listened to because they are unrepresentative. I just point out to him—and I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Rosser for referring to this—that the Merits Committee in paragraph 10 says that the committee very much regrets the lack of information and how the findings from the consultation fed into the conclusions and estimates that the Government have made. As the committee says,
“the estimation of costs to educational establishments would benefit from”,
consultees, and it is,
“regrettable as the Government presumably received some useful information given that the consultation specifically asked about the main advantages/disadvantages of the changes”.
If you are commenting on the general policy, I would have thought that you were actually talking about the main advantages and disadvantages of the changes. That really gives the game away. The fact is that all those legitimate organisations involved in education know that this has been a disastrous change in policy; they told the Government that and the Government take no notice. No wonder they have not fed that into the results of this statement of changes.
This has been a thoroughly good debate. Once again, the Government have found themselves rather lonely on this policy. That is because this policy is wrong and highly damaging to this country. I of course withdraw the Motion, but I hope that the Government will listen to what noble Lords have said tonight.
Localism Bill
Earl Attlee Excerpts(14 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for introducing this amendment and for his description of the Community Land Trusts approach. We have a good deal of sympathy with the thrust of this because we have seen the benefit of the Government’s reply to the amendment in the document they issued in August. Of course, this was one of the amendments that was withdrawn at the last stages of Committee.
As we have heard, these powers seek to replicate provisions already in the Bill relating to community right to build orders. The amendment seeks to remove enfranchisement rights in respect of dwellings owned by CLTs, and enfranchisement rights give leaseholders the right to acquire freeholds in certain circumstances—legislation, as the noble Lord referred to, that was started by the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, but I think those opportunities have been greatly extended since.
As I understand it, the gist of the Government’s position appears to be that CLTs do not necessarily have the same level of community engagement as bodies do under the community right to build provisions, which are proposed by the community, supported by the community, subject to a community referendum. However, where the CLT does satisfy the level of community engagement, it will be able to apply for a community right to build order and thereby obtain the benefit of disapplication of enfranchisement rights. But I am bound say, therefore, that I am not sure why, where there are circumstances that permit this, they could not be described in the prescribed circumstances that the noble Lord is seeking in his amendment. Proposed subsection (1) says,
“regulations may make provisions for securing that in prescribed circumstances, an enfranchisement right”—
et cetera. So why could what the noble Lord describes not be encompassed in that way?
I think that the noble Lord makes a good point about referendums in relation to community right to build orders. In circumstances where there is clearly a very high degree of support for a project, why indeed put the project through the process, cost and challenges that this entails? It does appear that one way or another there is a route to the result that the noble Lord is seeking, which is all well and good, and I agree that we should not be seeking to remove enfranchisement rights lightly—these are important rights. I think that he has described fully why they should be removed in these sorts of circumstances.
I therefore support the thrust of the noble Lord’s amendment. I believe that they should not be forced through the community right to build process just to achieve the outcome here and that it could be dealt with by regulations that, as his amendment suggests, fully cover the situation.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, enfranchisement rights are an established and significant right, and removing them must not be undertaken lightly. We expect to use the community right to build powers to ensure that the enfranchisement rights are only removed where the proposal is by the community, for the community and has the backing of the community through a community referendum, as identified by the noble Lord, Lord Best.
I understand that the regulation-making power provided for by the amendment is expected to be used to disapply enfranchisement rights simply where a CLT is the landlord of the property. There is, however, no requirement for a CLT to be made up of members of the community and there is no requirement for a community referendum. This means that a CLT development may not be proposed or supported by the community. I am afraid that the removal of these significant rights cannot be justified. The design of the community right to build will allow the majority of CLTs to apply for a community right to build order. As such, they will be able to benefit from the disapplication of enfranchisement rights under a community right to build order, again as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Best. With these reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord is willing to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, my amendment is quite simple and seeks to place an obligation on the Homes and Communities Agency to produce certain information in its annual report. All the information, I understand, is available, some I accept is already published at least every year, and in some cases at least every six months. Having said that, I do not accept that this would be an unmanageable burden or that it is unnecessary or inappropriate to require the agency to produce such information in its annual report. I would contend that this is just the sort of information that the HCA should be including in their annual report. It is also valuable in the review document for the organisation that they clearly detail the number of new properties they have delivered on, what the level of rents are and who they are serving.
This amendment was tabled in Committee but not taken. If the noble Earl is not minded to accept it, in what other ways will the Government ensure that this important information gets out there? While it is one thing to say that the information is already out there, if you are not sure where it is, how it is collected or where it is located in the first place—or whether it is in a number of different places—then getting all the information, making comparisons and being able to comment with an informed mind becomes much more difficult. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord described his amendment as simple; experience shows that simple amendments can sometimes be the most dangerous. The information that this amendment would require to be included within the annual report is either reported on already or is available to members of the public, should they request it. For example, information on the total number of homes delivered each year is provided in the HCA’s official statistics, which are published every six months. The HCA also collects information on the number of habitable rooms per property and reports this to my department. No doubt if other types of information became desirable to collect, they would be collected without the need for any legislation.
I do not believe that it is necessary to prescribe in statute that these specific information requirements are included in the HCA’s annual report when the information is either already being collected and reported on or can be made available through existing channels. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his response. Again, we are not going to agree on this. I am very worried that sometimes if the information is out there but you cannot find it or do not know where it is, there is an issue. People should be able to use and comment on it. Having said that, in this case I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Localism Bill
Earl Attlee Excerpts(14 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have added our name to the clause stand part debate that was spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, in particular. Along with the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord Reay, and, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, we stand by the long-standing and fundamental principle that planning permission may not be bought or sold—a principle that was reinforced by, I think, the Nolan committee in 1997.
I can see that the amendment was an attempt to be helpful and potentially addresses one area of the concern that primacy has been given to financial considerations. However, it still raises the issue of why it is specifically mentioned and highlighted, even with the qualification, when other material considerations are not. Why does it not stand or fall like any other material consideration, subject to whatever case law produces and to guidance? I would support that proposition as well. I was very struck by the force of the arguments that came to us when this clause was introduced, as it was introduced very late in the day in the other place and there was no opportunity to debate it extensively. My understanding is that the test for planning obligations includes that it must be,
“relevant to planning … necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms … directly related to the proposed development … fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development … reasonable in all other respects”.
I take the opportunity to refer to some correspondence from the Permanent Secretary at CLG—in this case with Nick Raynsford MP, although I think other MPs had a similar exchange. In relation to what was then new Clause 15, the Permanent Secretary stated:
“The Department’s policy position is that local finance considerations should be taken into account in the determination of planning applications, but only where they are material to the decision in hand. That is, where they relate to the use and development of land, and to the planning merits of the application in question. The Minister does not agree that the clause would cut across the fundamental role of planning in protecting the public interest, and it is not our intention to indicate that local finance considerations will always be material, that any specific weight should be given to them, or that they are any more important than other material considerations”.
This begs the question: why do we need this clause? What is it doing in relation to the new homes bonus that is so important to the Government, particularly given all the anger and concern that it has raised?
I am not sure that I would share in its entirety the encouragement of the noble Lord, Lord Best, for the new homes bonus. One can see that it is an important part of government policy, but after year 1 it will be funded by scraping off the top of the grants that local authorities get. The redistribution of those moneys is not particularly helpful. It also acts against regeneration because it is done on a net basis. Therefore, if you knock down existing properties to build new ones, nothing will flow from it.
Perhaps the Minister could give us an example of when receipt of a new homes bonus would not be a material consideration. The new homes bonus is always computed by reference to the development; that is how it is generated. Because it is calculated in this way, will the Minister give us some instances, to support the Government’s proposition, of when it would not be a material consideration? That would help us. It would be good to hear from the Minister why the Government feel that it is so important that this must be included in a new clause. What is it about the new homes bonus that would otherwise be a problem if the clause were removed?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. My first and pleasant duty is to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, to the opposition Front Bench. We did business the other day on his interesting question about Thameslink. Because it was topical, it required me to work pretty fast.
The Government are committed to increasing housing supply to meet housing needs and to supporting growth to boost recovery. Along with planning system reforms, we need better incentives for communities to support and accept new development. The noble Lord, Lord Best, touched on that in his valuable contribution. However, it is vital that we provide clarity on how such incentives relate to the statutory planning system. This is not a new phenomenon, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee pointed out. Voluntary agreements between landowners and local planning authorities to provide things needed as a result of development have been in use since 1932. Nowadays, Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 makes provisions for planning obligations. The use of planning obligations is regulated by statutory and policy tests. A developer cannot be made to sign up to a planning obligation, but planning permission can be refused if, without one, a particular development would be unacceptable in planning terms.
Community infrastructure levy powers introduced in 2010 allow local planning authorities to collect and pool mandatory developer contributions, based on charges per square metre of new buildings. While planning obligations must relate to the planning merits of the specific development that they relate to, community infrastructure levy funds can be used to support development across a wider area. The new homes bonus is even more flexible, as local authorities can spend it as they see fit. The Government’s hope is that the community infrastructure levy and the new homes bonus will encourage and support more ambitious development planning, by increasing the resources available for local authorities to spend in their areas over and above what they can reasonably seek as planning obligations.
However, they are both new on the scene and questions have been raised over how such measures relate to the statutory planning application system; in particular, can they ever legitimately be taken into account in decisions on planning applications? The Government are therefore keen to clarify the legal position on this. Clause 124 provides this clarity by amending Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act to clarify that such considerations should be taken into account in relation to planning applications but only where they are material to the particular application being considered.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I think we have now had “imminently”, “soon”, and “very soon”. Can the Minister perhaps rank those concepts for us and be a trifle more specific?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, when I originally drafted my response to my noble friend, I put down the word “shortly”, but the note came from the Box that it should be “imminently”. Once I was told that something would happen “shortly” and we got the statutory instrument 10 years later. However, I can assure noble Lords that the NPPF will come much more rapidly.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked me for some illustrations and I have a few matters to draw to your Lordships’ attention. The first is the test for whether a consideration is material. Case law has established that to be material to the determination of a planning application, any consideration must relate to the development and use of the land, and to the planning merits of that application.
These are long-established principles. For example, back in 1970, in Stringer v Minister of Housing and Local Government, the classic statement was made that,
“any consideration which relates to the use and development of land is capable of being a planning consideration. Whether a particular consideration falling within that broad class is material in any given case will depend upon the circumstances”.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked for examples of where NHB or CIL is or is not material. Take a scenario where NHB and CIL funds pooled by an authority will help fund a new parkway station on the local commuter route. In determining an application for a major housing development on a site within the catchment of the proposed station, it would be perfectly reasonable for the local planning authority to have regard to—as a material consideration—the fact that the development would generate revenues which would contribute to the new parkway station that would serve that development.
Of course, matters relating to NHB and CIL will not be material in relation to every development. Using the same example, what if the new development was particularly aimed at the retirement market? The development would, as with executive homes, result in NHB and CIL funds which would contribute to providing the station. This would still be a reasonable use of the funds. However, the provision of the station would not be material to the determination of this application, because it would not relate to the planning merits of the development proposed. Equally, the provision of this station would not be material to the determination of an application for a similar sized executive housing development which would be in the same local planning authority’s area, but on a site far removed from the station, and whose occupants would not use that new facility—so it would not be relevant to the application. What I hope I am illustrating here is that local planning authorities will only be able to take matters relating to NHB and CIL into account where they fairly and reasonably relate to the planning issues that are relevant to the particular application they are considering.
These are, of course, only very simple examples. For most planning applications there will be a wide range of matters that might be material: local planning authorities will need to judge, with the law as their guide, which matters are material to the case in hand. They will then need to decide how to apportion weight between all of those matters that are material. Just because something is or is not material does not mean that it will always have a decisive bearing on the decision to be made.
Turning to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Greaves, ably moved by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I thank the noble Lords most genuinely for this helpful suggestion. Despite its humble purpose, Clause 124 has clearly caused some to worry that it might in some way oblige decision-makers to give more weight to local finance considerations—but only where material—than to other material considerations, such as amenity or the environment. My noble friend’s suggestion is without doubt intended to provide reassurance on this point and it fully reflects the Government’s intention to leave the apportioning of weight to the discretion of the decision-maker. The Government are confident that the current clause achieves this on its own. However, there is merit in looking again at the wording to ensure that it does not inadvertently place local finance matters in any particular place in the pecking order of material considerations. My noble friend’s suggestion will be of great assistance as we continue to reflect on whether this clause best reflects our intentions. In the light of this, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, before the noble Baroness does so, may I just draw out the Minister a bit on one example? A local development plan has provision for 5,000 houses but is strapped for cash. It sees the opportunity for a cash incentive—which is what the new homes bonus is—because it needs to use some resources elsewhere in its provision of services. It therefore grants planning permission for 8,000 units, motivated by that cash incentive. Would that, all other things being equal, be a non-material consideration? Would it put in jeopardy the approval, because of the difference between that and the development plan?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord poses a good question that will help to illustrate the situation. He describes a situation where the planning application is for more houses than are provided for in the local development plan. The extra money arising from the NHB and the CIL from those houses can be taken into consideration if it is used in relation to those extra houses. If the money is going to enhance a railway station that would support those extra houses, it can be taken into consideration, but if it is to support perhaps a swimming pool on the other side of town, it cannot be taken into consideration because it is not relevant to the application.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Parminter’s opposition to the clause standing part reflects not just the concern of her organisation but the concern felt outside the House about the provision. Of course I will withdraw the amendment and I am grateful to the Minister for his agreement that the matter will be looked at again.
I shall comment on one or two of the points that he has made. On his example of the parkway station, the reaction around me was, “But that would enable development, and moreover it seems to be suggesting that economic growth is more important than the provision of extra housing”. It may be an interesting example but it has not quite yet convinced us.
The Government put the clause in the Bill in order not to allow uncertainty to linger. However, guidance can be produced quite quickly. It can be issued on the day that the Act comes into force or it can precede it. Although I understand that the Government wanted to reassure people, there are other mechanisms for doing so.
The Minister said that it was important to provide clarity. I hope that I have helped at any rate to suggest that the clause does quite the opposite—instead of clarity it provides more confusion and concern. We will ensure that my noble friend Lord Greaves is aware of the praise for his amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Earl Attlee
If the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, wants to weary the patience of the Committee, he is perfectly entitled to move Amendment 168.
Amendment 168
Railways: Thameslink Rolling Stock Contract
Earl Attlee Excerpts(14 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will review their decision to award the Thameslink rolling stock contract to Siemens.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the competition for the Thameslink trains was designed and launched in 2008 in accordance with EU treaty obligations and UK public procurement regulations. I am satisfied that the proper process as originally advised to the bidders has been complied with. Both bids have been treated equitably and fairly in the process. The Siemens bid demonstrated that it offered better value for money against the published criteria and consequently the Government will not be reviewing the decision.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the noble Earl for his response. When the Prime Minister and his colleagues came to Derby recently we heard lots about supporting engineering and manufacturing and creating jobs, but there is a wide gap between the words and the deeds. Why were the credit ratings of the two companies such a determining factor? This decision means that the last train maker in the UK—a maker of quality products and inward investor to this country—and the 1,500 people who will lose their jobs, whose families live in and around Derby, never stood a chance. That is a disgrace.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, it is not for me to comment on the ability of bidders to raise the finance. However, the model selected by the previous Administration is a good one and we support it. It is important to remember that the Siemens bid will also create employment in the UK, although I have to accept that it will not be as much.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, on Tuesday, the Conservative MP for Mid Derbyshire said:
“Over the months … we have been waiting for the decision, I personally lobbied the Secretary of State for Transport … Unfortunately, he told me every … time that I was not to worry because Bombardier was fine … as the company had lots of orders and would have no problem going forward. That is clearly not the case, so he misread the situation. I hope that he feels somewhat apologetic about the decision”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/7/11; col. 10WH.]
That statement by the Conservative MP gives the game away. If the Secretary of State will not review the decision, what will he now do in negotiations with Siemens as the preferred bidder to maximise the number of additional jobs that it creates in this country to compensate for the thousands of jobs that will be lost in Derby and elsewhere in the rail supply chain as a result of the complacency and misjudgment which have now been revealed by one of his own MPs to have been behind the Secretary of State’s decision?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, any job losses are highly regrettable. However, Bombardier has previously advised the department that it expected to make redundancies at this time regardless of the outcome of the Thameslink procurement order as Bombardier’s Derby factory is currently operating at peak capacity and several of these orders come to an end later this year. Noble Lords will know that there are several other rolling stock procurement contracts in the offing.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, as I am sure the Minister will agree, it is crucial that we keep in this country the engineering skills to design and build trains. Are there any planned negotiations with Siemens and Hitachi to bring those kinds of jobs to the UK? In the case of Bombardier, has he considered extending some of its existing contracts, for example to provide electrical units to the train sets it has already built, and that are much needed on the Great Western, Northern and Southern lines and would help preserve that skill base in this country?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, on the last point, I am not sighted on that, but I will write to the noble Baroness if I have anything to add. There is an issue about the capacity for Bombardier to design rolling stock in the UK, but it is a matter for that company whether or not it maintains a capacity.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, are the Government aware that under the EU treaties there is no enforceable sanction against a country that refuses to pay a Brussels fine? So, why do we not behave like the French and award the Thameslink contract to Bombardier? Do the Government further agree that there would not even be the slightest risk, alas, that we would be ejected from the EU if we failed to pay any eventual fine? So, why do we not just go ahead and do it?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the United Kingdom has never been fined in respect of an EU infraction and Her Majesty’s Government have no intention of allowing that to happen. I hope that the noble Lord fully accepts the benefits of competition. It would be most peculiar to keep accepting bids that were not competitive.
Lord Broers
Does the Minister agree with me that this is just a symptom of a long-term problem whereby we have failed to co-ordinate our R&D expenditures, our government procurement and our encouragement of industry to put itself in a competitive position? We really must co-ordinate these things across the board so that our bid is clearly the strongest. I declare my interest as chairman of the Transport Knowledge Transfer Network of the Technology Strategy Board, which is trying to do these things but with precious little resource.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an extremely good point. Another point concerns the need to schedule work such as rolling stock and other projects in order to avoid a situation of feast and famine. The McNulty report addresses that issue.
Equality Act 2010 (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011
Earl Attlee Excerpts(14 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13 May be approved.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 27 June
Localism Bill
Earl Attlee Excerpts(14 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we should thank the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Lucas, for identifying and raising this issue this evening. Clearly, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, we must cherish and support the legislation which enables the identification, reclamation and maintenance of town and village greens. However, there is clearly a problem here. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asks: is there a problem? Yes. Does it need sorting out? Yes, it does.
I am not sure that we necessarily have the way forward encapsulated within the amendments before us. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has made some interesting suggestions and I will be interested in the Minister’s response. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, offers the prospect of being able to identify and establish a town or village green only through a neighbourhood plan. That seems potentially too restrictive: if you do not have a neighbourhood plan in place, what happens? They will not necessarily be universal.
I side with those who say that a misuse of this legislation is taking place. I accept that it may not be widespread, but it does need sorting out. I look to the Minister to see what solutions he offers.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to respond to these amendments and the balanced way in which the arguments have been presented to the Committee. Of course, I speak for Her Majesty’s Government and not one particular department.
I know that the system for registering new town or village greens is a matter of rising significance to those of us interested in development sites, as well as to local authorities in their role as commons registration authorities. As I shall explain, it is also a matter of considerable interest to this Government.
We recognise the value of the town or village green registration system in safeguarding traditional open spaces in local communities. Government surveys show an increasing trend in applications during the past decade, although not all of these applications are granted. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, suggested that problems were not widespread, although he agreed that they could be serious. Around 200 applications are made every year to register land in England as greens. The volume of applications, the character of application sites, the controversy which such applications often attract, the cost of the determination process on parties affected and the impact of a successful registration on the landowner are all matters of serious and increasing concern. We are well aware of the difficulties that some registration applications can cause where an application is made in response to advance plans for the development of a site. However, we also appreciate the importance that local communities can place on an open space as well as new development. We understand that there must be confidence that the relevant decision-making processes are working coherently in the interests of the community as a whole and not just in those of a minority.
The natural environment White Paper announced that we will consult on proposals for a new green areas designation that will give local people an opportunity to protect green spaces which have significant importance to their local communities. We are considering what changes to the greens registration system are required in connection with the new designation as a response to the Penfold review, which recommended changes to the registration system to ease non-planning impediments to development.
Amendment 148ZZBB in the name of my noble friend Lady Byford would give the Government powers to achieve a sharper focus in the criteria for registering greens. I have some sympathy with the purpose of the amendment, which could help to address some of the cases where applications have been used as a last resort only to delay development, such as my noble friend has described to us. The noble Lord, Lord Best, asked a question about rural housing. We share the concerns of my noble friend Lady Byford and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that the green registration applications can have an unfortunate deterrent effect on the provision of land for rural affordable housing. We are actively looking at whether amendments to the registration criteria are needed. We shall want to hold discussions with those with an interest in our proposals before concluding on the nature of any legislative changes. Legislative changes may be necessary. My noble friend Lord Greaves is right: the registration of a green is indeed a matter of fact. The criteria against which registrations are considered are set in law. There is no discretion. Local communities have no say in whether registering land as a green is desirable or not.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, we support the thrust of these amendments. Certainly I agree that CIL must not be used to fill revenue holes in the budgets of local authorities. A specific assurance on that from the Minister would be entirely appropriate.
When we debated this last week, our concern was about the interaction of CIL, Section 106 and affordable housing. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, the Minister indicated possible flexibility in future after consultation. We welcome that. We also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that if part of CIL is to be paid to a neighbourhood forum, for example, it must be linked to infrastructure. We would prefer the decision to be made by the local authority rather than dictated according to an arrangement of the Secretary of State.
The definition of infrastructure for these purposes in paragraph 12 of the CLG book, Community Infrastructure Levy: an Overview, published in May this year, states, surprisingly:
“The Planning Act 2008 provides a wide definition of the infrastructure which can be funded by the levy, including transport, flood defences, schools, hospitals, and other health and social care facilities. This definition allows the levy to be used to fund a very broad range of facilities such as play areas, parks and green spaces, cultural and sports facilities, district heating schemes and police stations and other community safety facilities. This gives local communities flexibility to choose what infrastructure they need to deliver their development plan”.
There is already quite wide discretion in the rules.
I particularly support the point about potential double charging when a development has already entered into Section 106 obligations, some of which may be very long-term. Like my noble friend Lord Berkeley, we had discussions with Gatwick. However, this is not just an airport or a Gatwick issue.
I am not sure how best to resolve this issue. Part of the solution may relate to how and at what point CIL is charged. I understand that what triggers it is the commencement of development that has been the subject of some form of planning permission. Therefore, in a situation in which Section 106 obligations are already in place from prior development, I do not see how under the rules that could trigger a new CIL charge. However, any new development might, so Section 106 and CIL could still be paid at the same time. The potential for double charging is an issue, and I look forward to the Minister's response on that. However, the thrust of this is exactly right and we support it.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, Amendment 148ZZBBBA, moved by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, seeks to limit spending on the ongoing costs of providing infrastructure to those items that were originally funded by the levy. New developments may create additional demands on existing infrastructure as well as demands for new infrastructure. The amendment would prevent local authorities from using levy receipts to address the intensification of demand on existing infrastructure, despite the fact that this could be exactly what is needed to support a new development.
My noble friend’s Amendment 148ZZC seeks an exemption from the levy for any development that makes a contribution to existing infrastructure through Section 106 planning obligations. This is not appropriate as the two instruments are concerned with different aspects of development. Through the levy, most new development would contribute towards the cost of meeting the cumulative demands that development of an area places on infrastructure. Conversely, planning obligations are concerned only with the site-specific matters necessary to make a particular development acceptable in planning terms.
Local infrastructure may or may not be part of the planning obligation. Where it is any part of a planning obligation, it must satisfy the statutory tests that ensure that they are necessary to make the development acceptable, are directly related to the development and are fairly related in scale and kind. We do not believe that it is appropriate to exempt development that is subject to a planning obligation from making a contribution to the more general infrastructure demands that it places on the area. In addition, the existing legislation already prevents developers being charged twice for the same item of infrastructure through both instruments. That answers the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I will check to make sure that it also answers the concern of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. I am not absolutely certain that it does, but I will check, and I am sure we will return to this at a later stage.
Lord Berkeley
The port down the Thames—London Gateway—committed probably £100 million to upgrade the junctions on the roads and the motorway leading to the M25 to cope with additional traffic reported to be coming from its development. I understood the Minister to say that that is exactly what the CIL might be required to do. I see that as double taxation.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I think that I will come to a point later in my speech that should deal with the noble Lord’s concerns.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin also proposes Amendment 148ZZD, the effect of which would be that where regulations require the charging authority to pass funds to another body, it would retain ultimate control over how those resources are used by confining spending to matters it determines appropriate.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
It is a question not of control but of what the funds can be spent on. That is what I am asking. If it is going to pass the resources to somebody else, it is with the purpose of giving the somebody else the opportunity to spend them. What I have argued is that it must be infrastructure, whether initial or ongoing. Will my noble friend not accept that?
Earl Attlee
I am grateful to my noble friend. I hope that when I have finished my speech, he will be a little bit more satisfied.
We intend to use the powers of Clause 100 to require charging authorities to allocate a meaningful proportion of any revenue generated from development in an area to the parish or community council for that area. The local council will be free to determine how those funds are used to address the demands that the new development will place on its infrastructure. This amendment seeks to take control away from those local councils and the communities that are being asked to accept the new development and will significantly reduce the incentive effect of these changes.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin asked whether CIL can be passed to others on condition that it is spent on infrastructure. Where CIL is passed to another body, it must be spent on infrastructure to support the development of that area. I think I have repeated that answer.
Lord Greaves
Will my noble friend confirm that passing those resources to other bodies will occur only in the case of parish and town councils, and community councils in Wales, and that they will not be passed to neighbourhood forums or any other organisations?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, that is a slightly technical question for me, but I will write to the noble Lord on it, unless inspiration comes quickly.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked whether such resource will be used to meet local government shortfalls. We have clearly set out that the purpose of the levy is, and must continue to be, to support development. I can assure noble Lords that the money cannot be substituted for general local government spending.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin asked the Government to consider greater flexibility in the use of CIL. We will consider whether allowing spending on infrastructure and other matters could improve the levy’s ability to support development. We agree that infrastructure is vital to supporting new growth and development but we do not accept that it is necessarily all that is needed. We will reflect on that and return to it at a later stage.
Lord Berkeley
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, suggested that Section 106 might be being phased out. Is that correct?
Electricity Market Reform
Earl Attlee Excerpts(14 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Marland
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments. She rightly said that meeting the challenge is very difficult. The previous Government found it very difficult. I am happy to say that we have played our modest part by encouraging six new nuclear power stations, setting out a road map and introducing a series of measures that will regenerate the energy and electricity supply market—which, as I said earlier, has not happened for 20 years. We have inherited a legacy of inactivity. It is a major structural problem; it is not one that we welcome, but we in this Government intend to get our hands on it and deal with it.
I note the noble Baroness’s point about nuclear subsidy. I shall continue to remind her that we have always said there will be no subsidy for nuclear other than that available to wider technologies. The wider technologies obtain a subsidy and nuclear is now part of that.
On the noble Baroness’s comment about bills, it is fair to say that bills have risen and are going to rise. I go to my petrol pump and find it costs me £1.33 to fill my car—no, I am sorry, it costs me £1.33 per litre. That is more than £1.33 to fill the car—it is about £1,033. Bills are rising outside our control because we are reliant on fossil fuels and oil coming from different shores, rather than the wonderful security in which a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Lawson, were able to bathe—an oil supply from our own sources. When you invest in a new infrastructure which needs £110 billion there will be bill increases on the horizon. Do we want to do this? Of course we do not—we want to keep bills as low as possible and to reduce them—and the plans we have set out will enable us to recover that position and to not see the same exponential rises that we have had of late.
The noble Baroness referred to feed-in tariffs, doubtless with the solar photo voltaic debate that will take place on Thursday in mind. Do we think it right that the Government should prioritise billions of pounds to support an industry which is not necessarily climatically suited to this country? The Government have to make tough decisions; they have to establish value for money for the taxpayer when deciding where to allocate funds to support developing technologies. The current Government, of which I am proud to be part, do not consider that this technology requires the same degree of support. The industry is becoming mature and the cost of equipment is coming down dramatically and we have therefore taken a view on it.
The noble Baroness referred to RWE. I believe that RWE is less certain of its future in its home country than it is here. It has various jurisdictional issues in terms of the future of its own nuclear industry that present it with far-reaching problems beyond our shores.
The Government have committed to the green investment bank and we have allocated funds to it. You cannot just click your fingers and establish a funding bank overnight, but in 12 months we have got to grips with the issue and it is well on the path.
We have consulted on the issue of EPS but we have not changed fundamentally what we set out to do. It is important that we have standards for companies that do not comply with a reduced performance format. That is the long-stop part of regulation which will set a clear regulatory path of where people can perform in energy supply.
Clearly we need to take into consideration the energy-intensive industries and we are consulting with them at the moment. We will announce a package of support for them to encourage them towards lower carbon usage. They are major employers in the country and major international exporters. It is important that we recognise that in any regulation we introduce, and at the end of the year we will announce a package of measures to support that.
I hope that that explanation goes a long way towards answering a number of the excellent points made by the noble Baroness. I have a feeling that there will be some more excellent points in a moment.
Earl Attlee
I remind the House of the benefits of short questions in order to allow everyone who wants to get in an opportunity to do so.
Lord Boyd of Duncansby
My Lords, I want to ask one question, relating to the position of the devolved Administrations, particularly Scotland. The renewable obligations are executively devolved to Scotland and that has enabled the Scottish Executive—now the Scottish Government—to shape that as they wish. What role does the noble Lord anticipate that the Scottish Government will be able to play in the new feed-in tariffs with contracts for difference? What will be the relationship between the Scottish Government and the new institutions that he talked about?
Localism Bill
Earl Attlee Excerpts(14 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the purpose of the CIL is for owners or developers of land to contribute to the cost of providing infrastructure that supports the development of the area. Almost all development has some impact on the need for infrastructure, or benefits from it. It is fair that such development pays a share of the cost of providing that infrastructure. In setting a charge, local authorities must have regard to the actual and expected costs of infrastructure and its other sources of funding. They must also have regard to the economic viability of development, which includes the need to deliver affordable housing.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, proposes amendments to provide that affordable housing provision will not be prejudiced by any levy charges that an authority may set. As we explained in the other place and to the National Housing Federation, the existing legislation already provides appropriate safeguards to avoid negative implications for the delivery of affordable housing. The statutory guidance issued under Section 221 of the Local Planning Act 2008, to which local authorities are required to have regard, explicitly sets out that a charging authority must take development costs, particularly those for affordable housing, into account when setting a charge. The point of the levy is to support and not frustrate the delivery of a local development plan. The statutory guidance is specifically clear that an examiner should consider whether a local authority’s proposed charges would put their affordable housing target at risk. Where the independent examiner considers that it does, they should not approve the proposed charge.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked me about the Section 106 funding source for affordable housing. It does not follow that the imposition of a CIL charge will result in lower Section 106 contributions. In setting a charge, a council has to consider the impact on the economic viability, including affordable housing, and ensure that the levy does not put it at risk, which will include affordable housing funds. These amendments are clearly well intentioned. We agree that affordable housing is important and must not be harmed by the implementation of a levy. I can reassure noble Lords that the amendments are unnecessary, as appropriate safeguards already exist.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in his Amendments 148ZZZBE et cetera, seeks amendments that would in effect allow local authorities to implement a charge without first having to remedy any deficiency identified by the independent examination of their proposals. Local authorities are in the best position to know what level of charges will work in their area to support development and encourage growth, but we do not accept that they should have complete freedom to set any charges they like. Instead, we are maintaining proportionate safeguards to prevent unreasonable levy charges, which could put development at serious risk. Our proposals rebalance the relationship between the examiner and the local authority, to provide that it is the authority that has the final decision on how any deficiencies in their proposed charging schedule are addressed. However, we are clear that any changes made by the authority must be sufficient and necessary to remedy any non-compliance identified by the independent examination of the proposals.
Noble Lords also seek to remove powers that allow for regulations to make provision about the evidence that a local authority must or must not consider in setting a charge. Our experience of similar examination of local plan-making shows that the decisions of independent examiners vary. Councils have tended to give a great deal of weight to previous decisions, and that has sometimes led to restricted local flexibility and freedom. We want to ensure that that does not occur with the levy. The proposed power will enable the Government to respond in a robust and flexible way to practices which threaten to undermine the ability of councils successfully to introduce their local levy charges. Our proposals strike the right balance between ensuring that local authorities have real discretion to set charges in their area while retaining appropriate safeguards to ensure that proposals do not put development of the area at risk.
Amendment 148ZZBBA, tabled by my noble friend Lord Greaves, would widen the permitted use of levy receipts beyond infrastructure to matters that support the development of an area. My noble friend has raised an interesting point. We are clear that the point of the levy is to support growth and new development. Infrastructure is of course central to supporting new development and unlocking growth, but it is not the only matter necessary to enable and incentivise development. We want to reflect on whether continuing to limit spending solely to providing infrastructure restricts local authorities’ ability to support and enable development of the area. We want to consider whether widening permitted uses of the levy would make the instrument more effective and better placed effectively to promote, support and enable new development.
My noble friend Lord Greaves also proposes Amendment 148ZZBBB, which would do two things. First, it would alter the purpose of the levy so that it is focused on supporting communities rather than development. We have set out proposals to pass a proportion of the funds raised in an area to the parish council for that area and for those funds to be spent on infrastructure to support the development of that area. Control over the remainder of the funds is to be retained by the charging authority—normally the unitary, district or borough council—to provide the infrastructure needed to support the development of the larger area. The point is that the impact of the development and the infrastructure needed to support it are not confined to the geography of the community. Some will be, and our changes to direct a meaningful proportion of funds to the communities where development takes place will deal with that. Other matters, such as transport, span communities—and, indeed, charging authorities.
Secondly, the amendment proposes to allow funds to be used for the building, improvement and renovation of housing. That is unnecessary, as existing primary legislation in the Planning Act 2008 already contains the power to allow for levy receipts to be spent on affordable housing. However, regulations currently prevent that. Allowing such spending is therefore not a matter for the Bill, but the treatment of affordable housing is relevant to the amendments sought. I can confirm that we will consult during the summer on making that change through regulations.
In Amendment 148ZZCB, my noble friend Lord Greaves seeks to remove the provision for regulation to set out the ongoing costs to be funded by the levy. The powers we propose mirror existing ones in the Planning Act 2008, which allow for regulations to set out the works, installations or other facilities to be funded by the levy. The existing powers are currently used to specify that the Mayor of London must use receipts to fund strategic transport infrastructure. London is unique in that the London boroughs may also levy charges in their area, but are free to spend the receipts on any infrastructure to support their areas. We have no plans to use the power to specify the ongoing costs to be funded, but we envisage that it is necessary to deal with similar exceptional circumstances.
Lord Berkeley
Can the noble Earl clarify what is covered by “future ongoing costs”? Is it maintenance of housing or maintenance of a road? It is a bit of an open-ended commitment. You can understand a capital cost but if it is maintenance for roads or housing forevermore, it seems a bit odd.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, perhaps it would be helpful if I first answered the question from my noble friend Lady Hamwee on whether ongoing means maintaining the infrastructure or excludes it. Clause 100 sets out that this includes maintenance and operation of infrastructure.
Amendment 148ZZBBC seeks to allow the levy to fund the provision of infrastructure on a continuous rather than ongoing basis. We do not believe that this amendment would have a material effect. Our changes clarify that levy receipts can be used to maintain the ongoing costs of providing infrastructure but such spending will still have to satisfy the requirement that it also supports development of the area. The reason for our change is that the current provisions are being construed as limiting spending only to the initial costs of providing infrastructure. This could prevent infrastructure that is wanted and needed from being provided where the funds necessary to maintain and run it are not available. This is a perverse outcome and we are making sure that councils have the flexibility to deliver what is needed to support development of their area.
My noble friend Lord Lucas seeks an amendment that would prevent regulations allowing levy receipts to be reserved for future ongoing costs. I have explained that our proposals are concerned with ensuring that local authorities have real flexibility to spend the funds on the matters that are needed to support development in their area. We believe that this amendment would constrain this flexibility and could result in inefficient and ineffective spending by requiring funds to be used now rather than retained for future strategic projects that are planned.
Amendment 148ZZCD, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and others, proposes to remove provisions that provide for regulations to place a duty on charging authorities to pass all or some of any community infrastructure levy received to other persons. Alongside the physical barriers to new development, growth can be slowed or restricted by local concerns about its impacts. We intend to use the powers conferred by Clause 100 to require charging authorities to pass a meaningful proportion of receipts raised from new development in an area to a parish, town or community council for that area where there is such a local council. The local council will be required to spend the funds to provide infrastructure to support the development of its area.
When communities understand that new development is directly contributing towards the cost of the demands that it places on the infrastructure of their area, and see that they will be given real control over how these resources are used to address those demands, they are more likely to accept and indeed support it. Our reforms to the levy will make it genuinely pro-growth. Addressing the demands that new developments place on infrastructure will enable development to happen and it will incentivise communities to accept it. Using receipts to invest in the local area will ensure that growth is supported and sustainable, which will in turn unlock new development and growth.
We want to reflect on the amendments proposed by my noble friends Lord Greaves and Lord Tope to allow the spending of the levy on matters other than infrastructure. It is essential that the levy operates in a way that helps drive growth as effectively as possible. We will carefully consider whether permitting spending on other matters can improve the instrument’s ability to support and enable development. As ever, I am very happy to discuss these matters privately between this stage and Report. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments at the appropriate point.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, that is quite a detailed point. It would probably be safer if I wrote to the noble Lord on that.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I would certainly like to take up my noble friend’s offer of conversations between now and Report. I think I heard three different answers to the question posed by my amendment, and I hope that I will end up with one answer by the time we get there.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for a full and indeed very positive, or broadly positive, reply. Certainly at this hour, I should like to read the record and perhaps revert to those who pressed this particular amendment on us to talk it through with them in detail. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for the thrust of his support. These issues around who else the levy should be paid to are certainly important ones, and I would be happy to be included in that correspondence if I may. It is also important that it is done by diktat of the Secretary of State rather than being the local authorities’ decision.
Can I just check: did I hear the Minister correctly when he said that he thinks it is right that the legislation provides for affordable housing to be included within infrastructure—the regulations currently preclude that? Did the Minister say that he was looking to consult on that later this year to change that rule, so affordable housing could be included? Was that what he said?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I think the noble Lord will have to read the Hansard, but what I said was quite clear and the words in my speech will make that clear. The short answer is yes.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
In which case, I am most grateful to the noble Earl.