Lord Beecham
Main Page: Lord Beecham (Labour - Life peer)Housing and Planning Bill
Lord Beecham Excerpts
Lord Beecham
“(c) plots on which gypsies, travellers and travelling showpeople can have both residential accommodation and space for the storage of equipment.”
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, Section 225 of the Housing Act 2004 requires housing authorities to carry out an assessment of the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers who reside in or resort to their area, and Section 226 allows the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the carrying out of this responsibility. An order was subsequently made in 2007 about implementing the provisions of the 2004 Act.
The Bill seeks to change the situation. There are two ways of looking at its provisions in respect of Gypsy and Traveller sites. Either they will absolve councils of their responsibility for planning to meet the needs of these groups for sites, which will make a difference to the position laid down in the 2004 in terms of what will happen on the ground; or, as the impact assessment suggests, it will not. If the latter is indeed the case, the only reason for the Government to include Clause 115 in the Bill is to throw a bone to councils and some communities that wish to make as little provision as possible, preferably none, by implying that the Government are responding to opposition to such provision, which unfortunately is fairly widespread. Such would be the sort of clients who might be disposed to engage the assistance of an organisation called Planning Direct. This organisation’s comments on the relevant clause distastefully boast of a 100% success rate in stopping Traveller sites for parish councils, for which in its publication it helpfully supplies contact details. If the Bill makes or is intended to make little or no difference, why does it include the provision in the first place?
Another organisation, Planning Resource, which describes itself as providing independent intelligence for planning professionals, reports divided opinions among planners. The strategic planning convenor for the Planning Officers Society believes that it will have little impact, but also believes that there is some real concern over councils misinterpreting the rules and that the change is,
“almost like handing local authorities, which are reluctant to plan for travellers, an excuse not to do it”.
Others, in fairness, take a more positive view of the change, but Marc Willers QC declared that he has,
“no doubt that site provision will reduce and that the shortage of accommodation for Gypsies and travellers will increase if the requirement to assess their needs is subsumed into a more general housing needs assessment and the guidance on assessing their needs is swept away”—
that is to say, the problems will increase when an assessment of their needs is no longer required.
The all-party parliamentary group for Gypsies and Travellers echoes those concerns, describing the combination of the new Planning Policy for Traveller Sites, published last August, and the Bill as making for a “complex, confusing system”. It adds that the Traveller site planning policy leaves open questions as to the assessment of,
“the needs of Gypsies and Travellers within and outside the new planning definition”.
Moreover, most authorities will have completed their general housing needs assessment in any event and may not have included Gypsies and Travellers. It points to the potentially paradoxical outcome that the uncertainty may lead to more unauthorised encampments. The all-party group commended Leeds City Council, which conducted a full assessment of needs several years ago and provided a number of new pitches, thereby saving as much as £2,000 a week on services that it would otherwise have had to provide.
Concern over the provision is widespread. The Catholic Association for Racial Justice is deeply concerned about the latest planning policy for sites which it says is making it much harder for Gypsies and Travellers to obtain planning permission to live even on their own land. It concludes:
“The impact of these … changes could be very undermining for Gypsy and Traveller communities, increasing their already serious disadvantage and marginalisation”.
The chair of the Greater London Authority housing committee, Tom Copley, wrote in December to the Minister, Brandon Lewis, reporting that his committee had written to the Mayor of London in January 2015 with five recommendations that he thought would be undermined by the Bill. The committee considered that the Gypsy and Traveller community could be further marginalised by its provisions and that its suggestions for toleration sites would be undermined by removing the requirement for assessments of need. He called on the Minister to reconsider the changes. Can the Minister say whether her honourable friend Mr Lewis did so? Did he reply to the letter—and, if so, in what terms?
At the heart of the problem is the glossary appended to the planning guidance as to the definition of Gypsies and Travellers which lists three issues, among other unspecified matters, in determining whether people are Gypsies and Travellers: namely,
“whether they previously led a nomadic habit of life … the reasons for ceasing their nomadic habit … whether there is an intention of”,
renewing it,
“how soon, and in what circumstances”—
matters which noble Lords may think are rather difficult to establish.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, I made it clear at the beginning that this is to do with simplifying the legislation.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, by the standards of Committee stage on the Bill, this has been a relatively short debate, and I will not prolong it too much. But I find myself slightly puzzled at the position that we end up in.
First, I thank those who participated. Most have supported the amendments. One of the most telling phrases was that of the right reverend Prelate, who said that the provisions in the Bill failed to capture the nuances of the needs of Gypsies and Travellers. I think that that is right. I particularly welcomed the participation of my noble friend Lady Whitaker, who is a tireless campaigner for the groups that are the subject of this amendment.
I was, however, slightly puzzled by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I very much welcomed the rare degree of agreement between us, which we did occasionally experience in his ministerial past, but the notion that somehow it was the system that created the problem in his constituency where, as he put it, a particular group took possession of land and developed it, strikes me as a little odd. This is not the Wild West. Presumably they did not just walk on to somebody else’s land and erect fencing around it. They must have acquired the land and they must, presumably, have got planning permission for building on it. The implication was that they had developed it and sold it and moved on. The noble Lord is shaking his head. Perhaps I have misunderstood him.
Lord Lansley
To be clear, yes, they acquired it, but at agricultural values. Then the utilities were provided because the utility companies were required to do so. Then, of course, they subsequently made retrospective planning applications. Often in particular circumstances, when they were refused planning permission, they based the essence of their argument to the inspectors that they had a housing need as Travellers in the area, that the local authority was not providing collectively for all the housing needs of Travellers, and that therefore their particular application should be granted.
Lord Beecham
Then that is a failure of the planning system, not of the particular requirements of this group. However, let us go back a little. Section 8 of the 1985 Housing Act required every local housing authority to,
“consider housing conditions in their district and the needs of the district with respect to the provision of further housing accommodation”.
That clause was effectively amended by the 2004 Act. It was amended because insufficient provision was being made for this group and because very often it was not made because of pressure from people who feared or, at any rate, opposed provision for the categories of would-be residents that we were talking about.
If the 2004 Act was in response to the failure by then of authorities to make provision—and that clearly is the case—what sort of message does it send to remove that duty under the 2004 Act and then say, “Well, it’s all right because they have a duty to consider everything”? They had that duty under the 1985 Act and it was clearly not being fulfilled.
There is a special case here and I hope that the Minister will, with his colleagues, think again about a clause which in my view is specifically designed to buy off support for those who do not want to see provision being made for this vulnerable group. At this stage, I will not test the opinion of the House, but it is a matter to which we may well return on Report, unless the Government reconsider. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, as this is my first proper intervention in today's proceedings, notwithstanding the questions I asked in the previous debate, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests and also declare that I am a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham.
I should also say in this opening contribution, as I have voiced in previous debates, that our proper consideration of this Bill and all its clauses and schedules is made all the more difficult because of the poor handling of the Bill through Parliament by the Government. I do not feel that it is going to be any better today. It is a scandal how poorly prepared the Government are. At every session we are either highlighting new problems or discovering new issues that will make the implementation of the measures in the Bill even more difficult to deliver.
This Bill should have been proposed in the Queen’s Speech in May this year, having had proper pre-legislative scrutiny in this Session of Parliament. I should further add that running three days of Committee in a row next week is not, in my opinion, ensuring that we get the best out of these debates. It makes preparation for debates difficult and the scrutiny process very difficult.
With today’s Committee day and then three days next week—and, I understand, proposals for two of the first three days when we return after Easter being reserved for Report, it means that, including today’s debate, the main business in six of the next seven days in your Lordships’ House will be the Housing and Planning Bill. It is not a good way to proceed; not a good way to make legislation; not a good way to treat Parliament; not a good way to treat local authorities which are trying to understand what is happening and interject with their views; not a good way to treat the voluntary sector which is trying to keep up with what is going on and give its views; and not a good way for the Government to be seen to be taking on board the views expressed to them, and hopefully responding to them. It is all unsatisfactory and all of the Government’s own making.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I agree entirely. It is not good for the Minister or indeed for all Members of your Lordships’ House; there are many Members who have been here all the time for these debates.
Amendment 83 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham is quite simple in its intention and, hopefully, will cause the Government no problems at all. That said, I often think that my amendments will help the Government and improve the legislation and should be of no concern at all, but so far I have not been able to persuade them of that fact. Still, we carry on in the hope that on Report the issues and concerns that we have raised will be responded to, because, although we do not like the Bill, we fully understand our role as a revising Chamber in seeking to improve the Bill before it becomes an Act of Parliament.
The amendment seeks to add, in an additional clause, that those with an entry on the database of rogue landlords and letting agents cannot be granted an HMO licence. A house in multiple occupation is a property rented by at least three people who are not from one family but who share facilities such as the bathroom and the kitchen. A licence is required if the property is rented out to five or more people who are from more than one family, the property is at least three storeys high and tenants share facilities such as the toilet, the bathroom or the kitchen. It is important that people identified as rogue landlords should be specifically unable to rent out properties as houses in multiple occupation and should be prevented from obtaining a licence to rent out such properties. My amendment is clear, straightforward and simple. I look forward to the Government’s response, and I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I suspect that this will be another very brief discussion. Schedule 9 amends the Housing Act 2004 to provide that any financial penalty should be an alternative to prosecuting a rogue landlord for an offence. The Explanatory Notes give no justification for this change, and, given what we know about some of the appalling conditions that rogue landlords create or tolerate, I see no reason why they should be immune from a criminal prosecution.
It is perfectly legitimate that a financial penalty should be imposed, but it is a matter of good sense to ensure that totally unacceptable behaviour is treated as a crime, in the hope of deterring others from committing the same offence and behaving disgracefully towards their tenants, rather than their simply being able to pay a financial penalty without any publicity. The deterrent effect of prosecution ought to be invoked.
Indeed, even leaving aside deterrence, conduct of the kind that we regularly read about is simply appalling, and society’s rejection of such an approach by landlords should be made clear by retaining the possibility of prosecuting them. In the absence of any explanation of why the change should be made, I hope that the House will express a view and the Government will reconsider this strange provision. I beg to move.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, Amendment 84, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, would make a change to Clause 117 so that a local housing authority could impose a civil penalty in addition to, rather than as an alternative to, prosecuting a landlord. The Bill as drafted provides local housing authorities with a choice on whether they want to go down the civil penalty route or the prosecution route, depending on the seriousness of the offence. We have looked at this carefully and come to the conclusion that it would be disproportionate to use both regimes in relation to the same conduct.
Local authorities will benefit from other measures proposed in the Bill. For instance, they can apply for a rent repayment order where the rent has been paid from housing benefit or universal credit where certain housing offences have been committed, as set out in Part 2 of the Bill. This is in addition to the powers already available through the Housing Act 2004 whereby magistrates can impose unlimited fines on conviction for the most serious housing offences. I hope that after this brief explanation the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I can certainly offer a reply to the noble Lord. I hope that with the explanation that I have given, and in answering the questions, the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I confess that I am not at all satisfied with the Minister’s reply. We are seeing a change in the law to put a financial penalty as an alternative to prosecution. As my noble friend rightly said, we are talking about some appalling examples, which would make the likes of Rachman blush, if he were still around, of abuse of tenants and appalling housing conditions. What is effectively being said in the legislation is: you can buy out of the consequences of that appalling behaviour by an unspecified fine—unspecified in the Bill; I appreciate that there is scope.
The behaviour is worse, in many respects, than many of the offences that are routinely dealt with in the courts in terms of the impact on citizens. It is simply not good enough to allow rogue landlords to escape with a financial penalty but without the stigma of being convicted of a criminal offence. I urge the noble Lord to consult again his ministerial colleagues, because I agree with my noble friend that we should seek on Report to reverse the current position. It will not take long, but my goodness it is important. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
I thank the noble Viscount for giving way. I entirely endorse the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley. I sympathise with the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, who is temporarily not in her place, although I have some difficulties with the wording. Amendment 84E would insert a clause about sinking funds which states:
“The buyer of a leasehold … is required to make periodic deposits”.
She refers again to the buyer of a leasehold in proposed new subsection (4), but of course the leaseholder need not have purchased—
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Perhaps I could clarify for the noble Lord that we are speaking to Amendments 84BA, 84D and 84G.
Lord Beecham
I apologise to the Committee. The group that I have includes the noble Baroness’s amendments. But if the groups were changed only this morning, perhaps I should withdraw my apology and confirm merely that I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Young, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lord Young for their amendments. I welcome the consideration of issues around the operation of leasehold, which I know are of interest to many in the House.
Amendment 84BA seeks a right for a leaseholder to obtain an order restricting a landlord’s ability to recover the costs of appearing before a court or tribunal as an administration charge. My noble friend Lord Young has raised an important issue, which others have also expressed concern about today, including the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. As the Committee will be aware, legislation already allows tribunals and courts to make this type of order where a landlord is seeking recovery of costs through a service charge. I should like to consider this further and I hope, with that assurance, that my noble friend will agree to withdraw his amendment.
I will now address changes proposed in Amendment 84D, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said. As noble Lords will know, the Crown is not bound by legislation except where that is specifically provided for. The underlying exceptions to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 apply to Crown land, which for the purposes of those Acts is defined as including the Crown Estate, the Duchy of Lancaster, the Duchy of Cornwall and the interests of any government department. There are no plans to change the exemptions set out in statute.
However, the Crown authorities covered by this exemption have committed, through a voluntary undertaking renegotiated in 2001, that the Crown would, as landlord and subject to specified exemptions described in the undertaking, agree to the enfranchisement or extension of residential long leases under the same qualifications and terms which apply by virtue of the 1967 Act and the 1993 Act. These specified exemptions include property that stands on land held inalienably by the Crown, and where there are security considerations. They also include where properties, or the areas in which they are situated, have a long historic or particular association with the Crown.