Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2017

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Monday 24th April 2017 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2017 was laid in Parliament on 20 April. I am very grateful to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for its very valuable advice. The council’s recommendations have prompted the order before you today.

This order relates to three groups of substances. The first is the synthetic opiate known as U-47700; the second consists of 12 methylphenidate-related new psychoactive substances; and the third is etizolam and 15 additional designer benzodiazepines. The effect of this order is to insert these 29 drugs into Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act. This will make it an offence to possess, produce, import, export, supply, or offer to supply these drugs without a Home Office licence.

U-47700 is a synthetic opiate which was originally developed as a research chemical but has found no legitimate use. It is reportedly 7.5 times more potent than morphine. The order will insert U-47700 into Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Act as a class A drug, due to its high addiction potential.

On methylphenidate-related new psychoactive substances, the injecting of ethylphenidate, an amphetamine-type stimulant, was considered a public health issue in Edinburgh in 2015. Following ACMD advice, ethylphenidate and six similar substances were placed under a temporary class drug order. This temporary class drug order was relaid in 2016 for a further year, and the ACMD has now advised that these substances, plus an additional five related substances, be controlled under the Act. The order will insert these methylphenidate-related NPS into Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Act as class B substances.

On etizolam and designer benzodiazepines—saying these things correctly is always a test for a Minister at the Dispatch Box—the abuse of benzodiazepines has been well known, and as such, many of these are controlled under the Act. The ACMD had become aware of increasing reports of the harms caused by designer benzodiazepines—those which are not licensed medicines in the UK but imported specifically for their psychoactive effects. Of particular concern was etizolam, which is related to a number of deaths in Scotland. The order will insert etizolam and the further 15 designer benzodiazepines into Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Act as class C substances.

Etizolam has been identified by some countries, including Italy, as having some therapeutic benefits, so the Government have asked the ACMD to keep its scheduling under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 under close review. There are no legitimate or recognised uses of any of the other substances before your Lordships today beyond potential research. For these reasons, my honourable friend the Minister for Vulnerability, Safeguarding and Countering Extremism accepted the advisory council’s advice that these substances should be subject to the order before you today. It is intended that two further related statutory instruments will be made to come into force at the same time as the order to add these substances to the appropriate schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 and to the Misuse of Drugs (Designation) Order 2001.

This order, if made, will provide enforcement agencies with the requisite powers to restrict the supply and use of these harmful substances in this country. It will also provide a clear message to the public that the Government consider these substances to be a danger to society. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I am supportive of the order before us this afternoon. I will not be attempting to pronounce any of the names in it. I have carefully read the order and the Explanatory Memorandum and am content to agree it. The Explanatory Memorandum is very helpful, particularly section 7, which sets out the policy background.

It is worth noting that the drugs are being permanently listed as controlled substances in each of the classifications today—namely, class A, class B and class C—on the advice of the independent experts who make up the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. This is being done following a review they carried out, and they are the experts in these matters. It is also worth noting—again, this is in section 7—that in each of these classifications these drugs have led to the loss of life. I suspect that those affected are more likely to be younger people, and of course that is devastating for their families. Losing anyone at any age is terrible, but in circumstances where that could have been avoided it is all the more heartbreaking.

In conclusion, I am content to approve the order and, with the other measures that are in force with the police, the NHS and the community drug projects, I hope that it will go some way towards ensuring that the people responsible for bringing these substances on to the street are caught and punished, and that their operations are shut down. Then the people taking these substances can get the help they need to get off them and deal with the problems they have in their lives. I am very happy to support the order.

[The Earl of Sandwich (CB)]

My Lords, I have to declare an interest in that my son suffered from benzodiazepines for several years and has only recently, mercifully, recovered from them. Therefore, I have been very well aware of this word.

I am delighted to hear the Minister say that the department is much more aware of the harmful effects of these legally prescribed drugs. However, is she also aware that a proposal has been put forward to the department on providing the minimum help of a helpline for people who are afflicted? This has been put on the table and, if she is not aware of it, she might be able to write to me about it.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am most grateful to the noble Earl and the noble Lord for their very constructive comments, and I am very glad to hear that the noble Earl’s son is now in recovery. On his point about a helpline, a number of tools are certainly available to people through websites. I am trying to think of the name of the website—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

FRANK.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That is it. FRANK is an aid to guide people—particularly young people—away from drugs and the consequences of their use. Helplines are available. I do not know the answer regarding the one to which the noble Earl referred but I can get him some information.

On that note, I thank noble Lords for their comments.

Immigration Act 2016 (Consequential Amendments) (Biometrics and Legal Aid) Regulations 2017

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Monday 24th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, the regulations before us are not in themselves controversial. As the Minister outlined, they make relatively minor changes in respect of provisions contained in the Immigration Act 2016, the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and LASPO. I have read the regulations and the Explanatory Notes and am content that the Government have the required powers. As I said, these are relatively minor changes. No concerns have been raised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours raised an interesting point. I look forward to the Minister responding to it. Paragraph 7 in the Explanatory Notes is particularly helpful as it sets out the policy background and why these regulations are needed. Therefore, I will detain the House no longer. I am content with the regulations.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the two noble Lords who have spoken. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that these statutory instruments make consequential amendments to legislation. Legislation is constantly kept under review. As regards widening the scope of the measure, I cannot predict the decisions of a future Government, who may, of course, not be a Conservative Government. However, I am sure that a future Government will consider that measure when keeping legislation under review. At the moment, we have no plans to extend the current practice. Section 141 does not limit the number of digits from which fingerprints may be taken. However, officials who decide to take fingerprints must ensure that their actions are proportionate to the reasons why they are taking them.

Criminal Finances Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 3rd April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness foxed me when she asked that question the first time and she is still foxing me. I shall write to her before Report because I really do not know the answer.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, and I am pleased that the Minister understands the spirit and intention behind our amendment. The comments of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, are points well made. They have vast legal experience and if I bring the issue back at all on Report, I shall take on board their comments and wise legal advice and draft my amendment accordingly. I certainly thank all noble Lords for their contribution today, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Criminal Finances Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has merit and widens the Bill so that assets which can be used as currency can be included for the purposes of the forfeiture of cash. In some parts of the world, mobile phone credits are traded as cash and it would not be impossible to see situations where large quantities of these credits could be traded, hold the proceeds of crime and be used as currency. There will be other items that will be used in similar circumstances in the future.

However, I am not persuaded by Amendment 84 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I understand the arguments about what is included in this broad definition but believe that what is shown in the Bill as “listed assets” is better. However, I would want the regulations which may amend subsection (1) to use the affirmative procedure because it is important that we have a discussion about it at that time.

Amendments 85, 89, and 106 add the words “reasonable grounds for suspecting”. Those are proportionate clarifications which the Minister should adopt. I am not convinced that Amendment 87 is necessary. I see the point which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is seeking to address but hope that the Government will confirm that the words “safely stored” will cover this point and that valuable goods will be stored appropriately.

I am not persuaded of the merits of Amendment 102, although I do support Amendments 103 and 104 in the name of the noble Baroness. If the court is satisfied that the person has suffered a loss then they should be compensated for that loss and it is important that regulations made under this section are not used to restrict the payment of compensation. Amendment 105 is also a sensible addition, unless the Minister says very clearly today that a person’s reasonable living expenses include them providing for their dependants. Amendment 106, bringing in the term “reasonable grounds”, in respect of forfeiture is also a welcome provision.

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

I thank noble Lords for their contributions, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, for his kind words. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has—as always—scrutinised the provisions in some detail and I am grateful to her for the points she raised. Her Amendments 81 and 84 seek to broaden the scope of the seizure and forfeiture powers at Clauses 13 and 14 so that they can essentially be used to seize any items deemed to be the proceeds of crime. However, these will create a number of issues. The test that the property “may be used as currency” is legally ambiguous and untested, and it could complicate the use of these powers. The effect of Amendment 81 would also be to include a wide range of property in the cash forfeiture procedure which is not easily severable, as would be required for these provisions.

The noble Baroness referred to bitcoin at the beginning of her speech. There are difficulties in defining what we would seize. While we would not include this in the Bill, we are continuing to work with law enforcement agencies to determine how we should approach this issue more generally, and specifically to determine whether there is a gap in law enforcement capability that requires legislative change.

In respect of the noble Baroness’s Amendment 84, I am sure she would agree that we must take a proportionate approach to ensure that there is clarity regarding what can and cannot be seized. The items listed in the Bill are there based on clear justification that they may be used to move or hide the proceeds of crime, and we drew on the advice of law enforcement practitioners in developing this list. Her amendments would move away from the principle of clarity, eroding the careful circumscription that the Bill provides for these provisions. We can add to the list when the need arises, subject to parliamentary approval. As we have demonstrated through our amendments during the Bill’s passage, we will do so where a clear case arises. This gives us and the police the flexibility and balance we need while ensuring that this is not a sweeping seizure power. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to emphasise how seriously the Government take these issues, particularly the need for stringent safeguards on the use of such powers. I trust that she will feel inclined not to press these amendments.

I turn to the other amendments tabled by the noble Baroness. Amendment 85 seeks to insert the principle of “reasonable grounds for suspicion” into the definition of a listed asset. However, this appears to insert this test in the wrong place in the Bill. We consider that the inclusion of the “reasonable grounds to suspect” test in the sections relating to the operation of the seizure powers is more appropriate, and this approach mirrors the existing provisions for the recovery of cash.

Amendment 86 seeks to require the Secretary of State to take the actions relating to the issuing of the code of practice for searches for listed items before it is issued. The provision in the Bill is consistent with existing wording in the Proceeds of Crime Act relating to codes of conduct. I assure the noble Baroness that all the relevant actions will be taken before a code is issued.

Amendment 87 seeks to require that items seized under these provisions should be stored in appropriate conditions. The agency seizing such property is liable for its storage, and would be liable for damage to such property if due care were not taken. Therefore, we believe that the agency responsible would take such action in any case.

Amendment 102 seeks to remove the provision allowing the release of the listed item if the victim was deprived of it through unlawful conduct. The provision is one of three principles that the court must consider when the victim applies to the court for the item to be returned. The removal of this provision would remove the requirement on the victim to show that they had lost the property through unlawful means. This is an important test that the court must satisfy itself on, and which already applies to the well-established system for the forfeiture of cash, and we believe that it should be retained.

Amendment 104 seeks to prevent the Secretary of State restricting the payment of compensation through regulation. The intention behind the power in the Bill is to ensure that the appropriate agency can be held responsible for any compensation that may be paid. It allows the Secretary of State to add to the list of those who are liable for paying compensation where appropriate. The provision already exists for cash forfeiture, and I see no reason not to replicate it here. It should be noted that the circumstances in which compensation would be payable are set out elsewhere in new Section 303W, and that the Secretary of State’s power does not extend to amending these provisions.

The noble Baroness asked why exceptional circumstances are required. This is modelled on the cash provisions. The seizure power applies to a limited number of assets. It is not anticipated that, in normal circumstances, seizure would result in loss being sustained. The items are not likely to change in value during the timeframe for seizure.

I turn to provisions relating to Clause 15. Amendment 105 seeks to extend the exclusions to an account-freezing order to include the living expenses of a person’s dependants. The provision for exclusions relates to the actions on the account and the owner’s ability to use the contents of the account to meet reasonable living expenses. I fully appreciate that there may be dependants of the account owner who would be adversely affected if no provision were made for the account to be used to meet their living expenses. That is why we have included this provision. The living expenses will be determined by a court and, if there are dependants, the court will take them into consideration.

Amendment 106 would include a provision that, where forfeiture is sought on the grounds that it will be used for unlawful conduct, the officer must have reasonable grounds for suspicion that this is the case. The existing provisions already require the officer to be satisfied that the property may be recoverable or may be used for unlawful conduct, and we do not want to lower that threshold.

I thank noble Lords for their patience. I hope that I have addressed the issues that the noble Baroness raised and that she will be happy to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

When I spoke about listed assets, on page 44 of the Bill, I said I preferred what was in the Bill to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I mentioned regulations being made by the affirmative procedure. Of course, it does not say that here, so I am assuming that they are not—that they will be made by the negative procedure or in some other way. Perhaps the Minister could write to me on this.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am looking for a yes or a no, but I do not think that I will get it, so I will write to the noble Lord.

Criminal Finances Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, the Bill was welcomed by all sides of the House at Second Reading. Unexplained wealth orders are a device to give law enforcement agencies powers to require a person suspected of involvement in or association with serious criminality to explain the origin or source of assets which appear disproportionate to their income.

Amendment 1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, seeks to insert the words, “beyond reasonable doubt” after the word “satisfied”, when requiring a person to comply with an order. This raises an important point, but I am not convinced that introducing this higher test is needed here. It would make it more difficult for law enforcement agencies to get permission to seek the source of the wealth which has led them to suspect that the person’s lawfully obtained income would be insufficient for the purposes of obtaining their assets. I agree with the remarks made about this amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who said that the higher evidential test would not be welcome in this regard. I also agree with the comments made by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and Lord Phillips. I also agree with the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Blair of Boughton, on the investigatory role—the test and procedure would be difficult there as well.

Amendments 2 and 7, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, give a better definition in relation to a person’s connection to a property, and the Government should reflect carefully on this during the passage of the Bill and possibly bring an amendment forward on Report.

Amendment 5, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, would provide an additional power to require a person to answer questions under oath. Again, that seems a reasonable additional power to take, which could be used at the discretion of the court. I very much take the point that the noble Lord made about the William Hill defence in terms of how one acquires assets and wealth. We need to look at that important point.

On Amendments 8 and 9, I thought that the £100,000 value in respect of a property was about right, that the £50,000 figure proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, was too low, and that the figure proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was far too high. However, having sought advice from law enforcement agencies, I understand the motivation behind the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, and I am content that the figure she proposes may well be right.

There is a whole series of government amendments in this group which I am content with, as they seek to prevent a person subject to one of these orders seeking to circumvent it through complicated financial means and transactions.

This has been a very useful debate, with some well-informed contributions that posed a number of questions for the noble Baroness. I am sure that she will reflect on those as we may want to come back to some of those points on Report.

The noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, made important points about property and the problems associated with it. I think that we shall debate an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, in the next group which concerns property.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this excellent debate. We have had some very good contributions from noble Lords from around the Committee on the significant new powers of the unexplained wealth order. I will do my best to respond to all the points that were made. I apologise in advance if I take some time to do so.

As noble Lords will know, the measures in this Bill are largely focused on serious and organised crime, but it also provides important new powers to tackle terrorist financing. Last week’s horrific attack reminds us all of the very real nature of this threat. I would like to take a moment to pause and think about the families of those who have been killed and those who still lie injured in hospital. I again pay tribute to the men and women of the police and other law enforcement and intelligence agencies who are so committed to keeping us safe—to PC Keith Palmer, but also to his many colleagues who work in Parliament and across the country. We must ensure that they have the powers they need to investigate and disrupt terrorists and terrorist groups. The powers in Part 2 of the Bill, which we will come to later, will do just that.

I return to the amendments in this group on unexplained wealth orders—or UWOs. The UK is a world leader in the fight against global corruption and the UWO is a substantial new power that will assist UK law enforcement agencies to do so. I welcome the continued cross-party support for these measures. I remind noble Lords that a UWO is a court order that requires a person to provide information which shows that they obtained identified property legitimately. If the person provides information in response to a UWO, the enforcement authority can then decide whether to investigate further, take recovery action under POCA or, if they are satisfied, take no further action. If the person does not comply with a UWO, either by not responding or not responding fully to the terms of the order, the property identified in the order is presumed to be recoverable under any subsequent civil recovery proceedings.

There are a number of government amendments in this group and I turn to them first. These are, by and large, technical changes to the provisions to help them function most effectively, but I will highlight a few for the benefit of noble Lords. As regards trusts, we have tabled government Amendments 3, 4, 6, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 30 to 32, 36, 38 to 40, 52, 53, 174 and 175. Perhaps the biggest addition to the provisions made by the government amendments are the measures to ensure that a UWO can be served in situations where property of interest is held in trust or involves corporate structures. This, I believe, picks up some of the concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Faulks. The amendments will also allow subsequent UWOs to be obtained on additional individuals such as trustees in complex cases where this is necessary. The amendments are not a silver bullet in cases where trusts and corporate entities are involved. However, they are a significant improvement and will close a potential gap.

UWO thresholds are addressed by government Amendments 8 and 33, which would reduce the threshold for a UWO to be obtained from £100,000 to £50,000. Noble Lords rightly questioned how we settled on the balance. It followed representations from authorities in Scotland—including from the SNP during Commons consideration of the Bill—and Northern Ireland. It reflects the fact that the higher threshold could disadvantage law enforcement agencies in certain parts of the country where financial returns may not be as high or may be spread more evenly across criminal groups, and where property, in particular, has a lower value.

The threshold, however, is still an important safeguard, together with the other qualifying criteria that must be met before a UWO can be made by the court. It remains our view that the orders should be used in the most complex cases, where obtaining evidence has proved difficult, and this will be reflected in the supporting guidance.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, tabled a related amendment to push the threshold up rather than down. She helped us to reflect on the balance that must be struck in circumscribing the new power. However, based on our consultation with law enforcement agencies, I suggest that her proposed threshold of £500,000 would be prohibitive. It would stop the agencies using this power in significant cases involving serious and organised crime, and noble Lords have been clear that they want to see the most effective use of UWOs. I hope that the noble Baroness will be satisfied that our approach strikes the appropriate balance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, raised the issue of whistleblowing in her contribution at Second Reading and now proposes this new clause today with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. As we have heard, it would establish an office of the whistleblower. The purpose would be to offer much-needed protection to whistleblowers who expose criminality, corruption, fraud and other illegal activity. The price that whistleblowers often pay for alerting the authorities to illegal and criminal activity is to lose their jobs and have their careers ruined and destroyed.

The noble Baroness is right to highlight that we need to do more to offer protection and compensation to people who come forward and alert the authorities to the illegal activity. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, supported action and I agree. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that setting up an office may not be the right way to go about that. What is definitely needed is further protection in statute and regulation. It may not need an office to be established. I will be interested to hear the response from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, to this amendment. I entirely accept that it is a probing amendment and I think that we should take the opportunity that this Bill affords us to do something to address the issue of whistleblowers and the precarious position that they can find themselves in, which the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has highlighted to the House today. I accept that whistleblowing goes across a variety of sectors, but we are dealing with the financial services sector and this would be a good place to start.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing us to debate this important issue. Whistleblowers play a valuable role in society by bringing wrongdoing to light that could otherwise go unchallenged. Individuals should be able to report malpractice in the workplace without fear of reprisal; and employers should be prepared to work with staff to resolve concerns, particularly by means of effective internal procedures.

The Employment Rights Act 1996, as amended by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 and subsequently, provides employment protection for workers in all sectors who have blown the whistle. It enables them to seek redress if they are dismissed or suffer detriment at the hands of the employer because they have made a “protected disclosure” about wrongdoing that they have witnessed at work. To qualify for the protections, a worker must generally make their disclosure either to their employer or the relevant “prescribed person”. “Prescribed persons”’ are typically regulatory bodies for the sector in which the whistleblower works or the type of wrongdoing involved.

I assure noble Lords that, over recent years, the Government have taken steps to support a cultural change in relation to whistleblowing in all sectors, including financial services. A number of statutory and non-statutory improvements have been made. This includes guidance for whistleblowers on how in practice to make disclosures while preserving their employment protections; and guidance for employers including a non-statutory code of practice which we will review this year. We have fulfilled the commitment to keep the prescribed persons list up to date with annual reviews, and we now have guidance in place for prescribed persons. The next update will require prescribed persons to report annually on the number of whistleblowing disclosures they have received and broadly the action that resulted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I agree with the Minister that the office is not the right way forward, but is she saying that everything is fine?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am saying that the Government looked at this in 2014, certainly in terms of the financial incentives, and there are various mechanisms in the different sectors for whistleblowers to come forward. The ultimate sanction for employers is unlimited compensation, depending on the type of wrongs that that employer engages in.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I am sorry to come back on this, but I take it that the Government do not think that anything further needs to be done on this at the moment.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The Government are never complacent in any area of law they introduce; I would never say that everything is perfect.

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

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Beecham]

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

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I accept entirely that different areas have different needs and may want to tackle this issue in different ways. The point I was making is that the Government have not made it clear where we are going. That is not to say that different areas cannot tackle this issue in different ways; of course they can; they have different needs. However, the Government have never set out clearly in a document where they are going with this, which is why the situation is confusing. The West Midlands is a similar conurbation to others, with similar problems and similar areas, but the deal that was arrived at and the powers that were transferred are vastly different from those in other similar areas. Why? That information is missing. There is no difficulty with having different arrangements, but we need to know how the Government have arrived at the present position.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As the noble Lord, Lord Smith, mentioned, we left it up to local areas to say what their version of public service reform looked like—what did public service efficiency look like going forward and what was their plan for growth? Therefore, that might look slightly different in different areas, which is why I explained it in the way I did. However, there will be similarities: transport is a huge issue in Greater Manchester and the solution to that will be huge in terms of growth, as it will be for other areas.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Codes C, D and H) Order 2016

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Thursday 19th January 2017 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, this order, laid in draft before the House on 22 November 2016, will bring into effect three revised codes of practice issued under Section 66 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which I shall call PACE from now on: Code C, which concerns the detention, treatment and questioning of persons detained under PACE; Code H, which concerns the detention, treatment and questioning of persons detained under terrorism provisions; and Code D, which concerns the identification of suspects by witnesses and biometric data, for example, fingerprints, DNA and photographs. I will briefly describe what the PACE codes are, how these revised codes come before us today and outline the changes they introduce.

For England and Wales, the statutory provisions of PACE set out the core framework of police powers to detect and investigate crime, and require the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice. The eight accompanying codes of practice, A to F, do not create powers but provide rules and procedures for the police to follow when exercising their powers. Together, PACE and the codes establish important safeguards for individuals, which are designed to strike a balance between the need for police to have powers to tackle crime on the one hand and the need for safeguards for suspects and other members of the public on the other. In order to maintain this balance, we regularly update the codes—for example, as we change primary legislation—in the light of new decisions by the courts and to promote developments in operational policing practice.

The three codes before us today were published in draft format in March 2016 for statutory consultation in accordance with Section 67 of PACE. The consultation, which was also open to the public, ran for eight weeks, and the bodies that the Secretary of State is required to consult in accordance with Section 67(4) of PACE, and others, were invited to comment. These others included the Crown Prosecution Service, Liberty—I see the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, here today—Justice and the Youth Justice Board. The drafts, together with an invitation to the public at large to respond, were also published on GOV.UK. A total of 18 responses were received, which is normal for this type of consultation.

In accordance with Section 67 of PACE, the revised codes were laid before this House and in another place together with the draft order and Explanatory Memorandum. Yesterday, the order was approved in Committee in another place, and subject to the order being approved by this House, the three codes will come into force 21 days after the date the order is signed.

The main revision to PACE Code C is to expressly permit the use of live-link communications technology for interpreters. The changes enable interpretation services to be provided by interpreters based at remote locations and allow access to be shared by forces throughout England and Wales. This will avoid interpreters having to travel to individual police stations, and improve the availability of interpreters for all languages. By reducing delays in the investigation, it will enable a more streamlined and cost-effective approach to the administration of justice. The revisions include safeguards for suspects to ensure, as far as practicable, that the fairness of proceedings are not prejudiced by the interpreter not being physically present with the suspect. The provisions therefore require the interpreter’s physical presence unless specified conditions are satisfied and allow live-link interpretation.

Revisions to Code C also reflect the amendment to PACE made by the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 that defines a “juvenile” for the purpose of detention under PACE as someone under the age of 18, rather than under the age of 17. This resulted from a government review of the way in which 17 year-olds were treated under PACE and the codes. The review concluded that the age at which a person should be treated as an adult under PACE should be raised from 17 to 18. This accords with the age-related jurisdiction of youth courts and other criminal justice legislation applicable to children.

New provisions also support Section 38(6) of PACE, which requires juveniles who are not released on bail after being charged to be moved to local authority accommodation pending appearance at court. The revisions point out that the certificate given to the court in accordance with Section 38(7) must show why the juvenile was kept at a police station and require these cases to be monitored and supervised by an inspector or above. Separate measures in the Policing and Crime Bill ensure that outstanding provisions of PACE that continue to treat 17 year-olds as adults are amended.

New provisions in Code C permit an appropriate adult to be removed from interview if they prevent proper questioning. When a suspect who is a juvenile or a vulnerable adult is interviewed, the code requires that an independent adult, known as an “appropriate adult”, be called to help. Their job is to help ensure that the suspect understands what is happening and why, and that they are able to exercise their rights and entitlements under PACE and the codes. These new provisions are necessary to ensure consistency with the existing provisions, which have been in Code H since 2006, and they are modelled on paragraph 6.9 of Code C concerning the removal of a solicitor from an interview if they prevent proper questioning. Before an appropriate adult can be removed, an additional safeguard in both codes requires the inspector or superintendent who is called on to determine whether they should be excluded to remind the adult about their role and advise them of the concerns about their behaviour. That advice, if accepted, would then enable the appropriate adult to remain.

The changes to Code C are mirrored in Code H, as applicable, for persons detained under terrorism provisions. This ensures consistency in the provisions that are common to both codes.

In Code D, eye-witness and witness identification procedures are updated to take account of significant changes and developments in case law and police practice, and to address operational concerns raised by the police. Revised video identification provisions clarify and confirm the identification officer’s discretion to use “historic” images of the suspect; to regulate the presence of solicitors at witness viewings; and to direct others—police officers and police civilian staff—to implement any arrangements for identification procedures. The investigating officer’s responsibility concerning the viewing of CCTV and similar images by a witness other than an eye-witness is also clarified.

Other revisions to Code D reflect amendments made by the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to PACE concerning the retention of fingerprints, DNA profiles and samples. Revisions to all three codes also highlight the need to check all sources of relevant information in order to establish a detainee’s identity; enable officers to use electronic pocket books and other devices in order to make records required by the Codes; clarify those who are not eligible to act as the appropriate adult for children under 18 and for mentally vulnerable adults; and highlight the requirement under Section 31 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to separate children from adult detainees in police stations and other places of detention by including a link to College of Policing guidance on this matter.

Minor typographical and grammatical corrections have been made, and out-of-date references updated.

The revisions strike a balance between the need to safeguard the rights of suspects while supporting the operational flexibility of the police to investigate crime. They are being introduced to bring codes C, D and H in line with current legislation and to support operational police practice. The revised codes provide invaluable guidance to both police and the public on how the police should use their powers fairly, efficiently and effectively. I commend the order and urge noble Lords to support it.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation of the effect of the order before the House this afternoon. I say at the outset that the Opposition support the order, and that we must always carefully consider these matters and strive to strike the right balance between giving the police and other law enforcement agencies the tools, guidance and procedures to do their job effectively and keep citizens safe, when we are balancing the rights of citizens and ensuring that the rights of suspects and witnesses are protected. This is very much my thinking in how I approach the order and similar matters when they come before this House.

I have a number of questions to ask the Minister and hope that she will be able to answer me today—but, if she cannot, I will of course be very happy for her to write me. I turn first to Code C and the ability to permit the use of live-link communication technology for interpreters. This will allow for interpreters to be based at remote locations and for their services to be used by a number of police forces without the need for travel. I can see how this will help the police by speeding up their investigations. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether this facility will be used only in respect of suspects, or will the police be making use of it in respect of witnesses? Is that the intention of the change? Is it envisaged by the department that this will become the norm; will it be used on only limited occasions; or is it somewhere between the two? How will the test of fairness to the suspect be assessed, and what role will there be for the suspect’s solicitor in making representations on the appropriateness of the use of remote translation services?

I move on to the provision to enable an appropriate adult be removed from an interview if they prevent the proper questioning of a subject. An appropriate adult is used when a juvenile or vulnerable adult is being interviewed. They have a specific role: to help the person understand what is happening and to protect their rights under law and the relevant codes. These individuals do a very important job in the justice system, but their role is not to prevent the questioning of suspects. However, there can be cases where there is a very fine line between what could be deemed fair practice and action that could be determined as breaching somebody’s rights. Will there be a role for the suspect’s solicitor in the process of determining whether an appropriate adult should be removed? What would happen if it was viewed that an appropriate adult should be present but, for whatever reason, it was thought that the appropriate adult present at the time had overstepped the line and needed to be removed? Would the interview be suspended until such time as another person could be identified to fulfil that role?

In respect of the electronic pocket books for use by police officers, can the noble Baroness say a little more about the trials that have taken place? It is important that police officers have access to technology that makes their jobs and the application of the law easier and allows for the efficient administration of justice to be done in a timely manner, but we must always be confident that the appropriate safeguards are in place. Very clever people invent, develop and create all sorts of devices, and where they can be used to fight crime, that is welcome—but we must be satisfied that there is no possibility that these devices can be tampered with to produce an inaccurate or untrue picture of what has happened.

There is also the question of the development of technology, which does not stand still. Because something cannot be done at the moment does not mean that it cannot be done in future. How does the noble Baroness plan to ensure that technological developments do not get ahead of the procedures before the House today and the practices of the police and other law enforcement agencies?

In respect of the changes to Code D that alter the way in which witness identification is undertaken, the change effectively deletes the old annexes A and E. We need a bit more evidence for why that is necessary, so I hope that the Minister will give a full explanation when she responds. With those questions, I say again that we are happy to support the order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank noble Lords for their questions. Perhaps I can deal with the question of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, first while it is fresh in my mind. The usual safeguards for young children in detention would be employed to ensure that a young person did not get away.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about the use of live link and whether it would become the norm or used only on limited occasions. The police will use the live-link technology only in certain circumstances judged on a case-by-case basis, taking account of the representation given to the suspect by an appropriate adult and a solicitor. The noble Lord also asked whether the facility would be used only in relation to suspects. I can answer in the affirmative yes, not for the witnesses. He asked about safeguards being ensured and the role of the solicitor. Solicitors must be asked if they wish to make representations to be considered by the police. If there is any doubt the inspector must authorise.

If the noble Lord would like me to go through the conditions, I will do so. Before interview, the suspect’s solicitor, where legal advice is requested, and an appropriate adult for any juvenile or vulnerable adult, must be asked about their views on live-link interpretation. The representations for the interpreter to be present may be made at any time before and during the interview. If there is any doubt about the suspect’s ability to adequately cope with the live-link arrangements during the interview, the physical presence of the interpreter will be required, unless an inspector, having considered the circumstances—in particular, the availability of an interpreter, representations from the suspect’s solicitor, the appropriate adult’s impact on the suspect and the evidential implications—authorises live-link interpretation.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

It is very kind of the Minister to give way. She said that it would not be the case for witnesses, but could she explain why? At an interview, the witness and the suspect might both need interpreters, so I understand that you might want to bring the live link in to speed things up. If you have a witness with the same language problems—I think that the Minister can see the point that I am making.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I understand the noble Lord’s point, but at the moment it is just for suspects. It may well be that we will consider future codes that will extend it to witnesses—but not at this time.

The noble Lord also asked about the use of electronic pocket books and recording devices—and he took a very pragmatic approach to the need to move on with technology. He made the point about what happens if there are errors. I suppose that that is a risk in any method of recording. It is not good practice to have errors, but we are human. The likelihood is just as risky in electronic recording as it is in written recording.

In fact, the PACE codes apply only to suspects—and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who should have taken this question, is nodding. I do not know why I did not think of that. Those codes apply only to suspects and not to witnesses.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I made the point about technological developments. I am conscious that we might not be able to do something today but that people are very clever and invent all sorts of things in future—so how are we going to keep up to speed with those sorts of changes? What does the department do?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The code talks about electronic recording devices. I would imagine that within the code that in some way attempts to keep up with technology.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 12th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I very much support all the amendments in this group. We have made tremendous progress in recent years in seeking to redress the effects of homophobic legislation. Terrible injustices were suffered, and previous changes to the law and the amendments are intended to go some way to correct that and make amends. They have my full support and that of my party.

Of course, we need to go further in Northern Ireland, but this is an important step. I want to see the day when LGBT people living in Northern Ireland have exactly the same rights, protections and freedoms as LGBT people living in England, Scotland and Wales. We are a United Kingdom, albeit with devolved institutions, but LGBT people should have the right to get married in Northern Ireland; that must be urgently addressed by the Northern Ireland Assembly and the ministerial team led by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Stormont. It is wrong to keep using the petition of concern procedure to block progress in this matter. The UK Government must play their role in championing the rights of LGBT people in Northern Ireland by raising this issue at ministerial and official level. It is not enough for the Government to say that it is a matter for the devolved institution.

During Committee on the Bill on 9 November, I made clear my support for a range of amendments proposed by several Lords. I was clear that welcome progress was being made, but that the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Cashman were in my view the best ones before your Lordships’ House. They were not accepted by the Government, but discussions have taken place outside the Chamber, and the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Cashman and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, are very welcome. I thank the noble Baroness very much for listening and working with my noble friend on them.

I pay warm tribute to my noble friend Lord Cashman. We have been friends for many years. It is his tireless campaigning with others, including the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, that has got us to this point today, and we should be very grateful to them all.

Although it is not on the subject of the amendments, I will make one final point on equality in Northern Ireland in respect of women’s equality. The Northern Ireland Assembly, Ministers, led by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and the political parties must get together to deliver equality for women living in Northern Ireland, so that they enjoy the same rights as women living in England, Scotland and Wales. Again, the UK Government have to play their role by raising that at ministerial level. Although that is a matter for another day, it is an important issue to which we must return. In conclusion, I confirm my full support for the amendments.

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

My Lords, I am so pleased to be able warmly to support the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and my noble friend, Lord Lexden. I also acknowledge the spirit of very positive co-operation that has led to the amendments. I recognise that they will continue to strengthen the efforts made by this Government to tackle the historical wrongs suffered by gay and bisexual men in England and Wales—and now Northern Ireland—who were criminalised over a long period for something that something that society today regards as normal sexual activity.

I shall deal first with Amendments 181D, 181E and 181F, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. As he explained, they will enable the Secretary of State to extend, by regulations, the list of offences eligible for a disregard under the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The regulation-making power enables the necessary modifications to be made to Chapter 4 of Part 5 of the 2012 Act, and provides for corresponding provision for pardons to that contained in Clauses 148 and 149 of the Bill.

In Committee the noble Lord made the case for other offences being included in the disregard process, in particular the offence of solicitation by men which is in Section 32 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. As I indicated at that time, the Government are broadly sympathetic to this, but we need more time to work through the implications of adding offences to the disregard scheme, and in particular the conditions that need to be satisfied before a conviction could be disregarded. In recognition of the fact that we should not rush that consideration, Amendment 181D enables the Home Secretary to add other abolished offences to the disregard scheme by regulations, subject to the affirmative procedure. It is important that, in taking this forward, we are able to distinguish between activities that are now no longer illegal and those that are still illegal. This amendment also gives us scope to consider what other offences may be appropriate for inclusion, so it is to be welcomed as a signal of our continued commitment to address these historical wrongs.

As my noble friend Lord Lexden explained, the amendments in his name introduce a comparable disregard scheme in Northern Ireland to match that already in operation in England and Wales. They also introduce the same approach to statutory pardons as that contained in Clauses 148 to 150 of the Bill.

As I indicated in Committee, as these provisions relate to transferred matters in Northern Ireland, it is right that this House should respect the usual convention that the UK Parliament legislates in respect of such matters only with the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am pleased to say that the Assembly adopted the necessary legislative consent Motion on 28 November.

My noble friend Lord Lexden pointed out the important difference in the Northern Ireland disregard scheme; I thank him for explaining it to the House so that I shall not have to go through it again. I am pleased that we have been able to work fruitfully with the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and with my noble friend, and I commend their amendments to the House.

My noble friend Lord Lexden pointed out an apparent contrast in the approach taken in Clause 148 as between civilian and service offences. That clause confers posthumous pardons for convictions for buggery and certain other abolished offences tried in the civilian courts, which date back to the Henry VIII statute of 1533—whereas posthumous pardons for convictions for the equivalent offences under service law reach back only to 1866. My noble friend said that it was in fact the Navy Act 1661 which first criminalised buggery in the Armed Forces. While the intention behind Clause 148(4) is to capture only relevant service offences that could have been prosecuted in either civilian or service courts, my noble friend may have alighted on a very valid point. I therefore undertake to consider this matter further with a view to bringing back a suitable amendment at Third Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was debated in Committee. It is fair to say that it did not get a warm welcome from the Minister in responding to the debate. I was surprised to learn that the Government had no data at all on the number of people affected by the law before it was abolished. Clearly, the amendment is not going to be accepted by the Government tonight, but the noble Lord is right to keep raising the issue and I hope that it will keep being raised. It is only by doing so that we can explore what options are available to us, what happened in the past and whether it was right and whether, with hindsight, the offence should have been removed from the statute books many years before it actually was, as it was used in a way that discriminated against black people.

I hope that, when the Minister responds to this short debate, she can focus particularly on the amendment. In her response in Committee, the focus was as much on the previous debate, so I hope that it can focus particularly on the points voiced before us here today.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for explaining the amendment, which was of course also tabled in Committee, seeking to confer a pardon on persons, living and deceased, who were convicted under that part of Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 which was repealed by Section 8 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.

Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 was originally a wide-ranging provision, and some of it is still in force today. The part with which the noble Lord’s amendment is concerned is the offence of being a suspected person, frequenting, in effect, any public place,

“with intent to commit felony”,

or, as it became, an arrestable offence. The noble Lord has illustrated from his own experience, and the Home Affairs Select Committee identified in 1980, that this so-called “sus” offence was used in a discriminatory and unfair way, particularly in relation to young black men. However, as the noble Lord has also acknowledged, not every conviction under this provision, certainly not going all the way back to 1824, was wrong or unfair. In fact, the Home Affairs Select Committee concluded:

“The most powerful argument against ‘sus’ is that it is a fundamentally unsatisfactory offence in principle”.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 7th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 173, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, adds to the general duties of licensing authorities a duty of securing accessibility for disabled persons. The noble Baroness raises an important issue; we debated the matter under another amendment, which sought to add in the provisions of the Equality Act in Committee.

It is right to say that people running licensed premises should do much more to ensure that the premises are accessible by disabled people, so that they can go out with their friends and family and enjoy themselves on those premises. It is right that disabled people are able to get access to those premises. When the Minister responds to the debate we may hear that there are general duties under the Equality Act 2010 in force already and that adding a specific amendment does not add anything to the statutory requirements already in force, as noble Lords have said. I hope that we can get a very careful explanation of why that is the case. The Government have a general duty to ensure that the law is properly applied, so I hope that they will use this opportunity to say clearly how they can ensure that that actually happens.

The problem often is whether licensed premises owners fully understand what their obligations are—or, if they do understand, whether they do anything to make those reasonable adjustments. We need to have a very careful explanation from the Minister in response to the debate, because we have the whole issue of the guidance, what review mechanisms are in place, and how the Government are going to ensure that the mainstream access to buildings to which the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, referred actually happens.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Thomas of Winchester, not only for their powerful speeches in this debate but for taking the time to speak with me over the past few weeks on the subject of this amendment. I also commend my noble friend Lord Shinkwin for the sheer quality of his speech and everyone who has spoken in this debate for their persistence in seeking to secure the rights of disabled people.

I am very sympathetic to the issues that have been raised on this matter. Licensed premises such as pubs, restaurants, theatres and cinemas are places where many of us choose to socialise and are therefore an important part of our daily lives. Too many of these venues are difficult for disabled people to access. The same is true of other, non-licensed businesses, too. The issue before us is whether we should use the regulatory framework provided for in the Licensing Act 2003 as a mechanism to enforce the provisions of a quite separate piece of legislation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and others have answered this question in the affirmative, arguing that it should not be left to disabled people denied access to licensed premises to have to fight on their own to secure their rights. The contrary argument, which I set out in Committee, is that this amendment is seeking to skew the regulatory regime in the 2003 Act and use it for a purpose for which it was never intended. The amendment potentially puts us on to a slippery slope. If we can use the 2003 Act to enforce the obligations placed on businesses by other enactments, where does this stop? Are licensing authorities then to be charged with, for example, ensuring that pubs and restaurants are paying the minimum wage or complying with other aspects of employment law?

While it could be argued that the particular challenges faced by disabled people make this amendment a special case, we should not seek to downplay the fact that there will be a cost to business. I accept that the amendment does not place any new direct obligations on licensed premises as a class of business, as they are already subject to the requirement to make reasonable adjustments. However, if we are expecting licensing authorities to act as an enforcement agency in this regard, there will unavoidably be a cost to them in discharging this new function. As the cost of the licensing system properly falls on licensees rather than the council tax payer, consequently any increase in costs for licensing authorities will need to be passed on through increased licensing fees. We must take this into account when considering the amendment.

I have heard the powerful voices expressed in the debate here today. I cannot ignore the strength of feeling in your Lordships’ House. I believe that there is scope for compromise around possible amendments to the Licensing Act, which would work with the grain of the existing licensing regime. I cannot say more at this stage, as there is further work to do to scope such a possible compromise, but nor can I give the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, any undertaking today that I will be able to bring forward a government amendment at Third Reading. I hope, however, that the noble Baroness will agree to move forward on the basis of the preliminary discussions that we have had earlier this afternoon and, if not, perhaps we should come to a decision on her amendment today.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 30th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, these matters were discussed in Committee. I am very supportive of Amendments 46 and 47. As we have heard, designated bodies will get the power to make super-complaints to Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, and these complaints can be made where, in the opinion of the designated body, a feature of policing may be harming the public and needs looking at. It is based on a system that works in the private sector and this is the first time it will be used in the public sector. Only designated bodies will be able to make super-complaints, and the process for designating these bodies will be set out in regulations.

When the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, responds to this debate, it would be helpful if she said something about the timescale for the consultation processes, and when she expects these regulations to be laid before Parliament and come into force. I should also say that I am happy for the negative procedure to be used in respect of the regulations; perhaps the noble Baroness could bring that fact to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Hyde of Ashton, who is of the opinion that I would never agree to the negative procedure being used for regulations in this House.

The proposals in this section of the Bill are a welcome move and will be a positive benefit to organisations and individuals that have legitimate concerns to raise. We are supportive of them and of these amendments.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for the opportunity to address the misunderstanding over Amendment 47, which was previously tabled in Committee. However, I am again going to have to disappoint the noble Lord as the Government cannot support either of these amendments. The Bill provides for the delegation of the ability to authorise those who can be designated bodies for the purposes of the new super-complaints system.

I welcome the noble Lord’s suggestions of who should perform this function but I do not agree that this task can be performed by bodies that might themselves want to raise super-complaints, or by multiple agencies. For the system to have legitimacy, we need to avoid a conflict of interest in this role. That is why the Bill creates this distinct role, as we do not consider it appropriate that HM Inspectorate of Constabulary designates the bodies that can come to it with super-complaints.

All three bodies put forward by the noble Lord could potentially add significant value as designated bodies, should they wish to apply. It would be a shame if, for example, Citizens Advice were precluded from raising issues through the super-complaints system. In the interests of a smooth and speedy process, I suggest that this role should be undertaken by an individual or single body, not by a committee.

The critical point here is that the criteria for designation are clear and unambiguous so that authorisation is a simple and objective process. That is why we will consult widely on the criteria in due course, and I encourage all those who have an interest to feed in their views. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about timing: it will be in the coming months.

Having consulted to establish clear criteria, we believe it is unnecessary to subsequently consult on any list of bodies deemed to have met the criteria, as required by the noble Lord’s Amendment 46. This risks slowing the whole system down, delaying designation and further delaying the point at which bodies can submit super-complaints to HMIC.

I reiterate the Government’s commitment to consulting widely on the criteria. As part of that process, we would welcome the input of noble Lords on bodies or organisations that may be suitable for designation or for the role as the authorised person. I hope the noble Lord, having considered the Government’s arguments, will feel free to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend is right that it would theoretically be possible to use the power to enable a firearm in that way. However, the power is subject to the affirmative procedure, as he has said, so it would require the unlikely agreement of the Home Secretary, both Houses of Parliament and at least one chief constable to decide that a staff member or volunteer should be given a gun. I leave it to my noble friend, with his vast experience, to judge whether that would be likely to happen. I take the point that he was making but I want to point out the hoops that would have to be jumped through for that to be achieved.

The noble Lord, Lord Blair, talked about the order-making power for defensive weapons. There is no such thing in the Firearms Act as a “defensive weapon”. It is not the nature of the weapon that is important but how it is used; a baton or a truncheon could be used offensively while a pistol could be used defensively. The consultation was clear that only police officers should use pistols or Tasers, and we think the Bill delivers that.

I shall finish with a quote from Chief Constable David Jones, the national policing lead for Citizens in Policing. He says:

“This is a very positive development … The proposals will open up new opportunities for people to use statutory powers who would like to be part of the volunteering police family but who are unable to commit to the rigorous and intensive selection and training requirements associated with the special constabulary. The proposals will empower Chief Constables to have a much more flexible resource platform … Chief Officers are best positioned to decide how to police their local area most effectively through the empowerment of their workforce, through their understanding and knowledge of the needs of their local communities”.

As I have said at previous stages of the Bill, no chief officer has yet made a decision to designate their staff with the power to carry and use a defensive spray. However, we believe that if a chief officer, using their professional judgment and experience, were to reach the view that it was necessary to issue such sprays to their PCSOs, after they have been well-trained in their use, they should be able to do so irrespective of whether those PCSOs are employees of the force or volunteers. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, to withdraw his amendment and perhaps to address the question that I first put to him.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. A number of points have been raised. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that my concern all along has been the placing of these weapons in the hands of people without sufficient training.

I agree very much with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Blair. We have to be very careful about the extension of these powers. As we have heard, so far no chief constable has empowered their present PCSOs to have these powers. The power is there already for PCSOs to be designated but no one has decided to do that yet.

The Government have not made a convincing case for the further extension of these powers. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, this is a broad power that we are now taking on board. I concur with his remarks about the fantastic contribution made by volunteers to the police service.

In response to the Minister, Clause 37 grants the extension of powers to police civilian staff and police volunteers. This extension is to those other staff who are not PCSOs but are volunteers or other designated staff. I do not see why, if they have not yet been tested on designated PCSOs, they should be extended at this stage. On that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, in moving Amendment 108A, has made a compelling case. No one wants anybody to be on pre-charge bail any longer than is absolutely necessary. Her amendments seek to take account of the realities on the ground in local police forces, and the Government should accept them and the flexibility that they offer to police forces. She gave detailed figures to support her argument, and my noble friends Lord Bach and Lord Harris of Haringey spoke about the realities on the ground and the risk of a significant burden on police forces.

We should of course set the number of days that an individual can be on pre-charge bail before the matter is reconsidered at a maximum that is necessary, reasonable and proportionate. There should not be a target date, which in the majority of cases will not be met. The noble Baroness suggests in her Amendment 109 that 56 rather than 28 days is a more realistic target to work towards. There appears to be little to be gained from bringing people back only to be rebailed because the inquiries have not been completed—often, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Blair, and my noble friend Lord Harris, because other agencies have not completed their work on behalf of the police within 28 days.

Amendment 115, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, would place a duty on the Secretary of State to commission, two years after the passing of this Bill, a report on the impact of the 28 days. That strikes me as a very wise thing to do and I hope that the Government will accept it. We want to ensure that Parliament and Government are informed with proper data before coming to a decision.

Amendment 116 in this group, which has not yet been referred to, is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford. It responds to the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, who is not in his place at the moment. The Government listened to that case and I welcome the fact that they have put forward an amendment today.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I hope that what I say will assuage some of the concerns expressed by noble Lords—through Amendments 109, 113 and 114—about the proposed 28-day period of bail being too short.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, pointed to research conducted by Professor Hucklesby and Professor Zander to justify extending the initial period of pre-charge bail from 28 to 56 days. I point out from the outset that, as part of our reforms, there is a presumption that a suspect who has been arrested will be released without bail—that is, there is a presumption against bail. As the noble Lord, Lord Blair, rightly said, even though he does not agree with the Government’s position, bail has been overused and not used correctly. Over time, there has been a sloppy use of bail, if I may paraphrase what he said. Therefore, in a sense, we start from that position.

In reaching our view, we took full account of the research findings referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. As I said in Committee, the 28-day period set out in the Bill was not arrived at by chance; we carefully considered the initial period of bail, taking into account the research in drawing up our proposals. We acknowledge that the research concludes that many cases will not be dealt with within 28 days. That is why the system allows for extensions in such cases, but only where such extensions can be justified. We consider that the involvement of superintendents at this stage would enable them to review the cases under investigation within their force and to chase any cases where required. I stress again that a central feature of these reforms is that there is a presumption that a suspect who has been arrested will be released without bail—where there is no bail, no 28-day or any other limit is in operation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I am conscious of the late hour and that the next business should be coming on, so I will be very brief. From our Benches, we certainly endorse the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, who, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has spoken in great detail on it. I do not intend to speak for much longer than that—but what is being highlighted here is very important. I will make one point: the amendment is not suggesting that all young people need is CAMHS; they need a holistic approach, so that their mental health needs can be properly assessed. It is not quite as stark as the noble Viscount or the noble Earl suggested. We certainly support the amendment on these Benches and I will leave it at that.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I applaud the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on her intention to ensure that children who have been abused have the proper provision following that abuse, mainly because they are often traumatised by their experiences. I share her desire to ensure that such children receive the support they need, including for their mental and physical health, but I must reiterate my strong belief that the overriding determinant of referral for health services must be clinical need.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 16th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for raising the important issue of the protection of complainants of rape and sexual offences from being questioned about their sexual history. It is vital that victims have confidence to report crimes as terrible as rape and in the criminal justice system’s process of bringing offenders to justice. Our message to those who are willing, but currently worried about reporting such offences, is that they are encouraged to do so. As my noble friend Lord Hailsham says, Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 provides that questions about a complainant’s sexual history are not allowed in rape and sexual offences trials. This is except where a strict set of criteria are met, so they are rare. The legislative bar on adducing evidence of a complainant’s sexual history is high and decided by judges on a case-by-case basis. The case that has prompted concerns about how the protective bar is operating has made no change to that.

We are aware of the recent concern about the admissibility of a complainant’s previous sexual history, and wider perceptions about the law. We accept that the concern should be looked at and we intend to deal with it. We have committed to looking at how the law is working in practice and will do so as expeditiously as possible, to understand whether any further action needs to be taken.

The noble Lord also asked whether anything has followed on from the 2006 Home Office study. The evaluation in 2006 made recommendations to ensure that the intention of the legislation would be fulfilled. There was no finding of a need to change the legislation substantially at that point.

With that brief explanation, I hope the noble Lord feels happy to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Can the Minister be clear from the Dispatch Box as to whether she has announced the review?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we have carefully considered the concerns that have been raised about the provision and we will then determine how best to look at how it is working in practice before deciding whether any further action needs to be taken. We are going to do it as soon as possible.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To be clear—is that a review?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Yes.

Immigration Act

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I refer noble Lords to my registered interests. I further declare that the local authority that I am a member of has taken some of the children from Calais in recent weeks. I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question in the other place given earlier today.

We are dealing with children who are alone and in the most vulnerable of situations, and it is regrettable that a broad provision is being tightly restricted in a way that goes against the spirit of what Parliament agreed. Why are the Government restricting the eligibility of children over the age of 12 to those from two countries only, whereas for those under 12 that does not apply? Whether they are aged 11 or 13, the one thing they have in common is that they are children at great risk of harm. However, with this policy, if you happen to be 13 and are not Syrian or Sudanese, the UK is going to turn its back on you. How is that in the best interests of the child? Could the Minister please tell the House?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it will perhaps be helpful if I repeat the criteria on which these children will be considered. We will be considering: all those children aged 12 or under, not just certain children from certain countries; all children referred to us by the French authorities who are assessed as being at high-risk of sexual exploitation; and those nationalities most likely to qualify for refugee status in the UK aged 15 or under.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard - part one): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, when the Minister introduces Amendment 203K, which is about extending the period for considering an application for the renewal of a certificate, can she say whether this is being proposed because there are problems generally or in particular forces? In other words, are there just a few difficulties or is this a widespread issue, in that the police do not find eight weeks sufficient? I raise this because of the concern that 16 weeks might easily become the norm, given the opportunity to extend.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for outlining his amendments. As he suggests, I will first explain the government amendments in this group.

Amendments 203J and 203K respond to amendments tabled by Geoffrey Clifton-Brown at Commons Report stage. They seek to make two improvements in the operation of the licensing arrangements under the Firearms Act of 1968. Amendment 203J would remove some of the unnecessary administrative requirements that currently apply to the possession of expanding ammunition.

Expanding ammunition is designed to expand predictably on impact and was prohibited initially in relation to pistols in 1992. In 1997 the ban was extended to all such ammunition, even though it is in universal use for pest control and is required for deer-stalking under the Deer Act and Deer (Scotland) Act.

The current legislation does allow for expanding ammunition to be possessed, in order to carry out specific activities such as the lawful shooting of deer, estate management, the humane killing of animals or the shooting of animals for the protection of other animals or humans. However, the legislation also requires that the individual possess a suitably conditioned firearm certificate for these activities.

The amendment would allow for the possession, purchase, acquisition, sale or transfer of expanding ammunition for rifles where the individual is in possession of a valid firearm certificate or a visitors firearm permit. The effect is—and I hope this goes some way toward answering the noble Baroness’s question—that the police will no longer have to include additional conditions on a certificate or permit, thereby removing some of the administrative burden that the current regime places on them.

Amendment 203K is intended to address the issues that currently arise with an application for the renewal of a firearms certificate that has been made prior to the expiry of the certificate but has not been determined by the police in time. Police forces have developed two different approaches in these cases. The first is to allow the applicant to remain in possession of the firearm, shotgun or ammunition, which means the applicant is in breach of Section 1 or Section 2 of the 1968 Act until the application has been processed. The second is to issue a temporary permit using the power in Section 7 of the Act.

I am sure noble Lords will agree that it is not appropriate for certificate holders to be at risk of arrest and prosecution for an offence under Section 1 or Section 2 because the police have failed to process applications in time. Equally, it is not appropriate for the police to issue temporary permits to individuals whose substantive applications may subsequently be refused. The issuing of such permits also places an increased administrative burden on the police.

Amendment 203K will bring greater clarity in such circumstances by automatically extending the validity of firearm and shotgun certificates past their expiry date for a limited period of up to eight weeks. This will apply only where an application for renewal has been received by the police at least eight weeks prior to the date of expiry of the certificate.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked whether the problems were widespread or localised to particular forces. There were different levels of performance across different forces, and performance varies across some forces, meaning that some are better that others—so this is force-led.

Amendments 234A and 234B are consequential amendments to the extent clause.

I trust the Committee will agree that the two new clauses make sensible changes to the firearms regime and in doing so reduce the administrative burdens on the police without compromising public safety.

As my noble friend explained, his amendments relate to Clause 114, which strengthens the controls on deactivated firearms and thereby enhances public protection. I was pleased to meet my noble friend to discuss his concerns about this clause and I know that he has had a useful follow-up meeting, as he explained, with officials and one of the proof houses.

My noble friend has pointed to some of the difficulties that have been identified with the EU deactivation standards. The UK has some of the toughest gun laws in the world and some of the most robust deactivation standards in Europe. The need for consistent, robust deactivation across member states has been the driving force for EU implementing regulation.

While the new EU deactivation specifications have been introduced, we have recognised that we need to strengthen deactivation measures for certain firearms. We now require additional measures that will align the EU standards with the exacting standards for deactivated weapons already in place in the UK. We have agreed this position with the European Commission. Moreover, the Commission has set up a small group of technical experts to help interpret and, if necessary, revise the standards, and the UK is represented on this group.

Some noble Lords may argue that, following the referendum result, we should drop this provision from the Bill. However, on leaving the EU we will still want to ensure that individuals comply with the relevant deactivation standards that we have in place. To that end, I am ready to explore future-proofing the definition of a defectively deactivated weapon as used in the clause.

I hope I have been able to reassure my noble friend that the offence in Clause 114 is necessary to strengthen our firearms controls, and that, having aired this important issue, he will be content to withdraw his amendment and support Clause 114 standing part of the Bill—and the Government’s amendments in this group.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I should have said in my earlier contribution that of course we fully support the government amendments in this group. However, I saw that they will cover only England, Scotland and Wales, and not Northern Ireland. Is that because Northern Ireland already has other provisions? The other parts of the Bill will of course cover all parts of the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I did know the answer to that but I have forgotten it. Rather than give the noble Lord the wrong answer, I will double-check that and write to him and the Committee in due course.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard - part two): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, we have moved on to another part of the Bill. I should declare that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I do not serve on the licensing committee of Lewisham Council; I have enough to do on the planning committee. However, many years ago, I was a member of the licensing committee of Southwark Council. In those days, we considered only music and dance licences. One still had to apply to the magistrates’ court for a late-night alcohol licence. That has all changed and these matters are now under the control of the licensing committee.

This has been an interesting debate on four important amendments, all of which I support. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and other noble Lords made very valid points in respect of licensing authorities’ compliance with the provisions of the Equality Act. This is an issue of enforcement, rather than advice and guidance. Being able to remind licence holders of their duty is not good enough because it has not worked as effectively as it should. We should force licensed premises to be able to be used by disabled people.

My noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe spoke about the need for a duty to promote health and well-being. Local authorities have such general duties but for there to be a specific requirement in respect of licensed premises is a new initiative. He made important points about the changes to availability of alcohol and consumption patterns. They have certainly changed. My noble friend was clear and we can all think back on how many pubs have closed while alcohol is more available in convenience stores and supermarkets. Things have changed in the past 20 years. He also made important points on the duty of authorities to look after young people and protect them from harm.

As regards the promotion of cultural activity and inclusion, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has an impressive record in this House of standing up for live music and other cultural activities. He is right to stand up for grass-roots music venues, which have launched many a career in the entertainment industry. I agree with the noble Lord that music and other activities should be helped and supported where possible through the licensing system, rather than just regulated. I recall a debate on a different subject in the Moses Room, when we talked about a range of regulations that sometimes affect people going about their lawful business and allowing them to busk and so on. Decisions on this are being taken by officials of local authorities, rather than elected members, which is worrying. It is a slightly different but similar point. I also agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said about the industry.

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

My Lords, Amendments 210, 211 and 214A in this group seek to add to the list of licensing objectives under the Licensing Act 2003. In answer to my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s question, there are currently four such objectives. These are: the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and the protection of children from harm. The promotion of the licensing objectives is of paramount importance when authorities make licensing decisions, and each one carries equal weight.

Amendment 210 seeks to add,

“compliance with the provisions of the Equality Act 2010”,

to the list of licensing objectives. As we have heard, the amendment flows from a recommendation made by the Equality Act 2010 and the Disability Committee, which reported in March. I was pleased to be able to respond in our debate on that. All four noble Baronesses who put their name to this amendment served on that committee.

The committee recommended that the Licensing Act 2003 be amended to make failure to comply with the Equality Act 2010 a ground for refusing a licence. In their response published in July, the Government argued that, as employers and businesses were already under a duty to comply with the statutory obligations imposed by the Equality Act not to discriminate against staff or customers, the Act offered sufficient protection. Accordingly, it would be inappropriate for the 2003 Act to duplicate the requirements of the 2010 Act, just as it would be inappropriate to make express reference to other legislation—such as the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 or the Noise Act 1996—all of which places requirements and responsibilities on licensing authorities and licensees.

Moreover, if we were to apply the logic of Amendment 122 more broadly, we should also be amending the Gambling Act, and indeed many other statutes, to place analogous obligations on those undertaking other forms of regulated activity. To single out the operators of businesses licensed under the 2003 Act could be taken as downgrading the obligations on all other businesses to similarly comply with the requirements of the Equality Act. I am sure that noble Lords would not wish to give that impression.

This is not to say that those running licensed premises should not be doing more to facilitate access by disabled people. Earlier this year the Minister for Disabled People held a round table event with disabled people and the hospitality industry to lead to a better understanding by service providers and businesses and a commitment from them to improve access and attitudes. Organisations represented at the round table made pledges to improve accessibility to their premises and improve their customer service for disabled people. For example, the British Beer and Pub Association pledged to update and promote its guidance on accessibility in pubs. This gives pubs advice on easy changes they can make to improve their service to disabled customers. These are very practical steps which will help to improve the day-to-day experiences of disabled people.

Amendment 211, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, seeks to add an additional licensing objective,

“to promote the health and wellbeing of the locality and local area”.

The Government are not unsympathetic to those who believe that there should be a greater role for public health within the licensing system, and we of course acknowledge the health harms attributable to alcohol. However, decisions under the Licensing Act have to be proportionate and made on a case-by-case basis. Unless it can be demonstrated that an application for a new licence is likely to undermine one or more of the licensing objectives, the licensing authority must grant the licence. The Government believe that any new licensing objective would need to be capable of standing alongside the existing objectives and function in the same way. Any new objective must therefore enable licensing authorities to determine whether it is appropriate to grant or refuse new applications, review licences and attach conditions or revoke licences.

Previous work has shown that it is difficult to establish direct causal links between alcohol-related health harms such as chronic liver disease and particular premises. Difficulties also remain with putting in place the necessary processes to enable the collection of such evidence—without which decisions based on health grounds would be unlikely to stand up to challenge. Work to date has established that the types of health data that are more readily accessible and most suited to use in a licensing context tend to relate to acute harms such as violent assaults and alcohol-related injuries. These harms, as well as most factors affecting well-being, such as crime levels and the welfare of children, can already be addressed through the existing licensing objectives, as demonstrated by the achievements of areas such as the Kensington area of Liverpool, Newcastle and Middlesbrough.

The Government will therefore continue working with Public Health England to facilitate access to local health data to inform decision-making within the current framework and to help public health teams play a role within licensing. Public Health England has also been testing a support package to assist with the development of local data collection and analysis based on lessons learned from the evidence-based work carried out in 2014-15. I assure the noble Lord that the Government continue to look at this matter seriously and will consider the findings of Public Health England.

Amendment 214A seeks to add,

“the promotion of cultural activity and inclusion”,

to the licensing objectives. This would require licensing authorities to consider the character of licensable activities, rather than purely protect against the potential harm caused by licensable activity. The existing licensing objectives seek to reduce harm that can be evidenced, and licence conditions which are intended to reduce the level of harm can be easily understood—for example, a requirement to restrict noise levels to prevent public nuisance.

It would be difficult to replicate this for “cultural activity and inclusion”, since this is quite a subjective matter and may be interpreted in different ways. For example, would a festival of Hindi films or Irish dance be considered good or bad in terms of cultural activity and inclusion? Making this a licensing objective could place licensing authorities in a censorious position, whereby licensees organising events might be obliged to explain what additional cultural value their entertainment might generate, and the licensing authorities would be required to evaluate that information.

The final amendment in this group, Amendment 212, seeks to add child protection bodies to the list of statutory consultees for statements of licensing policy. Each licensing authority is required to publish a statement of licensing policy and to revise it at least every five years. The statement sets out the general approach to making licensing decisions and managing the evening and night-time economy in the area.

Section 5(3) of the 2003 Act sets out a list of organisations and individuals who must be consulted when the statement is reviewed. The list includes the police, the fire and rescue authority and the public health body, but it is not intended to be exhaustive and therefore does not include all the responsible authorities. The 2003 Act does not prevent licensing authorities from consulting other bodies or persons as they see appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 214C, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, reduces the legal alcohol limits in England and Wales to match the limits introduced by the Scottish Government on 5 December 2014.

My noble friend Lord Harris made a particularly powerful point in respect of deaths caused through drink-driving. I am very supportive of this amendment, as I think we need tough laws on drinking and driving that are effectively enforced.

I also think that it would be quite good to have the same limit across the whole of Great Britain, and ideally the whole of the United Kingdom. This would make it much easier to understand for everyone concerned. I am also not against having a lower limit for commercial drivers and novices.

There is clear evidence that a reduction in the drink-drive limits would save lives. No one has said that is not the case. We have the highest limits in Europe. Only Malta has the same drink-drive limit we have in this country. The limit introduced by the Scottish Government is the same one that is in force in Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Switzerland. So the case is powerful. In none of these countries is there a problem with the limit being effective.

The second amendment in the group, again in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and my noble friend Lord Brooke, seeks to create a lower limit for novice and professional drivers. Again, I think that this is something we should consider. Many countries have this. That is certainly the case in many of the countries I read out, including Ireland and North Ireland. I think that it is important, if you are a professional or a novice driver, to have a lower limit.

I passed my driving test 36 years ago. I remember getting my first car—you are let loose and you are in there on your own. If you think about it, you are not very experienced at that point. Therefore it would be a good to enforce a lower limit. The fact is that our limits are comparatively high. I hope the Minister will respond to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. It is very good, and I hope that we will get a positive response from the Government. If not, I hope that the noble Baroness will bring it back on Report. I assure her that if she wants to test the opinion of the House at that point, we will support her.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I know that these amendments relate to concerns around the Government’s approach to drink-driving limits, particularly in light of changes in the law in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and, more recently, with a proposed change in Malta to lower the drink-drive limit. First, I emphasise that tackling drink-driving is a priority for the Government and that, together with the police, we continue to take robust enforcement action against this reckless behaviour.

Other countries may have a lower alcohol limit, but they do not necessarily have a better record on reducing drink-drive casualties. While it is difficult to make direct comparisons, some stark contrasts clearly exist between ourselves and our European neighbours. Estonia, for example, with a population of 1.3 million, has a limit of 20 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood and carries out 10 times more breath tests than we do in Great Britain. Yet 160 people died there in 2014 as a result of drink-driving. That rate is 30 times greater per head than in Britain. Closer to home, we can look at France. With a similar population to us, it suffers nearly four times the drink-drive fatalities that we do. Even taking into account those cases that fall between its limit and ours, we perform significantly better.

In many of these countries a first drink-drive offence gets you a fine and some penalty points. Indeed, in Northern Ireland they intend to bring in a fixed penalty notice regime. They will hand out penalty points to those offenders found to be over the new limit but under the old one. There is no appetite amongst the public or road safety groups in England and Wales to reduce the penalties and not disqualify offenders who flout the law. Nor would we wish to create in the minds of potential offenders the thought that they might get only a fine and penalty points and so encourage them to drink and drive.

In England and Wales, the success we have had in tackling drink-driving has been down to the severe penalties, rigorously enforced and backed up with hard-hitting campaigns, which now make this behaviour utterly socially unacceptable. Our roads continue to be amongst the safest in the world because we crack down on those who break the law. Last year we made it a requirement for those convicted of drink-driving offences to undertake medical tests to ensure they are not still dependent on alcohol before they are allowed to drive again.

The same legislation, the Deregulation Act 2015, also made an important change to drink-driving laws by removing the so-called “statutory option”, which allowed drivers who provided a breath test that was slightly in excess of the prescribed limit to demand a blood or urine test back at the station. By removing this provision, individuals have been denied the chance to sober up and so drop below the prescribed limit while waiting for a blood or urine sample to be taken.

Yes, there is always more to be done, but harmonisation with other countries with a poorer record of tackling drink-driving is not a reason in itself to lower the limit.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

In this debate no one has said that we want to lower the penalties—just to lower the limits. We have a good record in this country, and I give credit to our police service for that. The noble Baroness’s amendment is asking only to reduce the limits. She did not talk about penalties or enforcement, and, of course, as my noble friend Lord Harris said, if we looked at the number of deaths caused under the limit enforced now and above the proposed limit, we could save more lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The Minister said that the statistics on what is happening in Scotland will be available shortly. Is she telling the Committee that the UK Government will evaluate them when they become available?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the UK Government will look at them with great interest. There may be compelling evidence that comes out of them. Basically, the Government will look at them when they come out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this has been an important debate and I am pleased to be able to respond on behalf of the Opposition.

I can support all the amendments in this group as far as they go, although some go further than others. I was particularly pleased to see the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, which extend posthumous pardons to Northern Ireland. However, further rights need to be won for LGBT people and women in Northern Ireland, as well as on the mainland. We must return to them at a later date.

I join my noble friend Lord Cashman in paying tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Lexden and Lord Sharkey, for their tireless campaigning. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Cashman for his tireless campaigning to deliver equality for LGBT people. There has been tremendous progress in the past 20 years in particular, and my noble friend has been there, standing up, making the case and challenging prejudice, hate and injustice. We are all grateful to him. The most comprehensive amendments in the group are those in the name of my noble friend and they have my full support. I very much agree with him that granting a pardon to any person convicted of or cautioned for a now-abolished offence, providing they meet certain conditions, and regardless of whether they are living or dead, is the way to proceed. His amendments go further in that they extend pardons to those convicted or cautioned under Section 32 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or the Vagrancy Act.

My noble friend made it clear that nothing in his amendments would grant a pardon to any person convicted or cautioned for soliciting. Nor would the amendments grant a pardon to anyone convicted or cautioned in respect of conduct involving a person under the age of 16. My noble friend gave an important illustration of the effect of Section 32 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, and I agree that it is important to right this wrong for both those who are living and those who are dead. Treat them equally. This is the right thing to do. No one would be pardoned for anything that is still an offence. I hope your Lordships’ House will accept my noble friend’s amendments.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am pleased to be able, on behalf of the Government, to warmly welcome Amendments 214E, 214F, 214G, 239A and 246, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, on bringing them forward, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, who spoke so movingly.

As the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, explained, these amendments broadly do two things. First, they confer an automatic pardon on deceased individuals convicted of certain consensual gay sexual offences that would not be offences today. Secondly, they confer a pardon on those persons still living who have a conviction for such an offence that has been disregarded under the terms of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. It is important to note that for the pardon to apply, the conduct in question must have been consensual and involved another person aged 16 or over, which is the current age of consent. The conduct must also not involve an offence of sexual activity in a public lavatory, which is still illegal today.

This historic step is momentous in righting wrongs suffered by thousands of gay and bisexual men. It is a tragedy that people were criminalised over a shamefully long time for something that society regards today as normal sexual activity. It is time to right the wrongs of the past and I am pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, in putting forward these amendments.

It is important that we link the pardons for the living to the disregard process so that the necessary checks can be carried out to identify whether the individual in question engaged in activity that constitutes an offence today. Since the disregard scheme under the Protection of Freedoms Act came into force, eight disregard applications that concerned non-consensual activity have been rejected. It is therefore crucial that a pardon for the living should only follow a successful disregard application. This mitigates the risk of individuals claiming to be cleared of offences that are still crimes today. It takes into account and protects the rights of victims and ensures that children and vulnerable people are safeguarded from potential risks. This is extremely important and an objective with which I am sure noble Lords would agree. It is for these reasons that the Government cannot commend to the Committee Amendment 214S in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman.

The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Lexden seek to make corresponding provision for Northern Ireland. The Committee will be aware of the established convention that the UK Parliament legislates on devolved matters in Northern Ireland only with the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Subject to observing that convention, the Government are ready to look favourably at amendments at a later stage of the Bill along the lines proposed by my noble friend.

I understand that on Monday of this week, the Ministry of Justice tabled an amendment to a legislative consent Motion before the Northern Ireland Assembly seeking its consent to the UK Parliament legislating on this matter. If the proposed legislative consent Motion can make sufficient progress over the next two to three weeks, I would anticipate that the Government will be able to work with my noble friend to come to an agreement before the Bill leaves this House. I should add that the Scottish Government have separately announced their intention to bring forward legislation in the Scottish Parliament.

I turn to Amendment 214R, which is again in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. The amendment seeks to extend the disregard scheme to include convictions for the soliciting offence in the now-repealed Section 32 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. Under the current disregard scheme, for the now-repealed offences of buggery and gross indecency between men, it is a relatively straightforward matter to establish whether the relevant statutory conditions are met; namely that the other person involved in the conduct consented and was aged 16 or over, and the conduct would not now constitute the offence of sexual activity in a public lavatory. In contrast, the soliciting offence in Section 32 of the 1956 Act covered a broad range of behaviours and, as such, it is not a straightforward matter to formulate additional conditions to ensure that behaviour which would still constitute an offence today cannot be the subject of a disregard. It is likely that any such conditions would entail more than simply establishing facts—for example, whether the other person was aged 16 or over—and require a shift to making judgments as to whether an activity would be captured by a range of different offences today. This creates some practical challenges in accessing records in sufficient detail to make that judgment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has explained, Amendment 214Q seeks to confer a pardon on persons living and deceased who were convicted under Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824. The noble Lord has explained that Section 4 was used to persecute young black men and this amendment deals with a separate matter to the one that we have just debated. It is, however, also the case that Section 4 was used to prosecute some gay and bisexual men, so there is a read-across to the earlier debate.

In relation to consensual activity between men over the age of consent, Section 101 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 makes it clear that the disregard scheme covers not only the offences of buggery and gross indecency but attempts to commit such an offence, and an attempt to commit such an offence includes conduct covered by Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824. Someone with such a conviction may also apply for that conviction to be disregarded and, if successful, will also receive a pardon under the terms of the new clauses in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey.

As to other conduct unrelated to homosexuality, the Government do not believe that it is appropriate to introduce a pardon for those convicted of an offence just because that offence has now been repealed and the behaviour in question is no longer regarded as criminal. Pardoning is exceptional by nature. The persecution of gay and bisexual men through the criminal law was a clear historical wrong that we should undoubtedly right through a pardon. There is a special and compelling moral case to try to redress wrongs done to gay and bisexual men in the context of the Government’s commitment to equality. The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, would, like the pardon for Alan Turing, remove a real and particular stigma that is suffered by the living and still attaches to the recently deceased.

The circumstances the noble Lord has described are quite different and, without looking at the facts of individual cases, it is impossible to know whether the conduct in question would still be an offence today.

In terms of the numbers, I was looking for inspiration but we have no data, I am afraid. On that note, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Does the Minister mean that she has no data here or no data at all?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

No data at all, my Lords.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard - part two): House of Lords
Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

I think the noble Earl raises an interesting point—I feel that I have learned something. I am not convinced that the amendment should be in the Bill; it is the sort of thing that should be sorted out in guidance or in a letter to the various police forces. If the noble Earl is right, it should be sorted out quite simply.

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

My Lords, I begin by declaring that I am not the owner of a tank-carrying vehicle and I therefore hope that I speak from a neutral point of view.

I am grateful to my noble friend for his explanation about abnormal loads and, in particular, the electronic service delivery for abnormal loads, or ESDAL. It is a government-funded portal built for this purpose and free to use. However, some hauliers prefer to use other methods of transmission, as he pointed out, such as fax, email, hard copy or proprietary software.

The decision on which methods to accept lies with individual chief constables. As my noble friend is aware, the provisions for use of abnormal loads are laid out in the Road Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) (General) Order 2003, to which he referred. Schedule 5 to the order, which deals with notices to police states:

“The Notice must be in a form acceptable to the recipient and should be agreed by both parties.”

Commercial software owners and hauliers may argue that a chief constable is not complying with the 2003 order if he or she limits the methods for accepting the notification and the haulier does not agree. However, the order makes it clear that the form of notification must be acceptable to the recipient and there is very good reason for that requirement. Obliging chief constables to accept notification in all the forms proposed in the amendment could have negative practical and resource implications for the police. Moreover, as a matter of principle, it would not be appropriate to intervene in operational matters in this way.

I also suggest to my noble friend that this is not an appropriate matter for primary legislation, given that the Secretary of State already has the power to amend the detailed provisions laid out in Schedule 5 to the 2003 order.

Notices to road and bridge authorities are covered separately in Schedule 9 to the 2003 order. Again, it does not specify the form the notice should or could take, but states that it must be acceptable to the authority to which it is to be given and should be agreed by both parties. So a bridge or highway authority would not be obliged to accept email notification generated by ESDAL if it was not reasonably acceptable to it.

My noble friend asks about the consequences of an operator notifying a police force by a means which is not accepted by the recipient. It is a condition of an operator obtaining authority to transport an abnormal load that it notifies the police in accordance with Schedule 5. If it provides notification in a form which it has been informed is not acceptable to the recipient, it would be difficult for it to claim to have met the conditions set out in the 2003 order.

If an operator has not met these conditions, it will not be authorised to use on the road a vehicle that does not,

“comply in all respects with the standard construction and use requirements”.

On that basis, if it were to proceed with an abnormal load movement on a road, it would be committing an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988. I know that my noble friend will have hoped for a rather different response, but I hope that, having had this opportunity to debate this issue, he will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before the noble Baroness sits down—and I should say that I am not the owner of a tank either—I do not see why it can be said that an electronic means of communication in the 21st century is an unreasonable way of giving this type of notice. Something like this cannot be beyond the wit of man to sort out. If we are just going to rely on the post it really is not a very efficient way of doing things.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

What I have said is that the order specifies that the notice must be in a form that is acceptable to the recipient. If the recipient—Merseyside Police, for example—insists that it is an online application, then that is the form in which it is acceptable. But it should be agreed by both parties—in other words, it is not “must” but “should”.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Are we saying that it would be acceptable if they insisted on receiving only a letter? That seems ridiculous in the 21st century.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

No, an online application may be acceptable, an email may be acceptable, pigeon post may be acceptable—but it has to be acceptable to the recipient.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard - part one): House of Lords
Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 181 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, would insert a new clause into the Bill concerning the procedures to be followed where a suspect is released without charge or informed after being questioned under caution that no further action will be taken against them. In considering the noble Lord’s amendment, I wanted to listen carefully to his reasoning for this proposed new clause, and I think that he has made a compelling case today. The noble Lords, Lord Dear and Lord Paddick, have extensive experience as senior police officers and the House should also take note of their support. I am not sure whether this should be addressed through an amendment to the Bill—I accept that point. There may be some other mechanism to address it, but the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has made a compelling case and I thank him for that.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, Amendment 181, tabled by my noble friend Lord Marlesford would require a custody officer to do two things once a decision has been made that no further action is to be taken against a suspect because the test for mounting a prosecution, set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, has not been met. First, the custody officer would need to notify the person in writing that no further action is to be taken. Secondly, the written notice must use the phrase “lack of evidence” to describe the reasoning behind the decision.

The Government agree with my noble friend that written notification should be given in all cases. We consulted on this in late 2014 and Clauses 65 and 66 would require a written notification to be given to any person arrested on suspicion of a criminal offence, where the police or Crown Prosecution Service subsequently decide not to charge. This applies whether or not the person is on bail following the reforms set out in Part 4 of the Bill. My noble friend’s amendment would go one stage further and require the written notification of no further action in those cases where a person is interviewed under caution on suspicion of an offence but not arrested. We know from anecdotal evidence that, since the amendment of PACE Code G in 2012, more cases are being dealt with by the police without arresting the suspect, which may have created a gap in police practice that my noble friend’s amendment identifies. In order to give this issue appropriate consideration, I would like to take it away and consider it further before Report.

The second limb of my noble friend’s amendment would require that the written notice and any other record used the phrase “lack of evidence”, rather than the customary “insufficient evidence” used at present. It may assist the Committee if I remind noble Lords of the evidential test required by the Code for Crown Prosecutors. Paragraph 4.4 of the code states:

“Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge. They must consider what the defence case may be, and how it is likely to affect the prospects of conviction. A case which does not pass the evidential stage must not proceed, no matter how serious or sensitive it may be”.

The absence of “sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction” could easily be characterised as a “lack of evidence” or as the presence of “insufficient evidence”. We could debate for some time the precise difference between the two phrases, which must be very small.

Noble Lords have said that there has been some comment in the media, in the light of recent high-profile cases, that the dropping of cases due to “insufficient evidence” could leave an outside observer thinking that there must have been something there. This reflects the reality of policing: that there has to be sufficient evidence to justify an arrest—that is, reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has been committed. However, the investigative process in such cases will often end up with insufficient evidence, or, to use my noble friend’s phrase, a “lack of evidence”, that could still mean there was some evidence, but not sufficient to charge.

The Code for Crown Prosecutors is issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions under Section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The current version, dating from January 2013, is the seventh edition of the code, and every version since 1986 has stated essentially the same requirement for,

“sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction”.

I say to my noble friend and other noble Lords that “insufficient evidence” seems to reflect the wording of the code test rather better and that it is the opinion of the Crown Prosecution Service that the current phrasing has been used for more than 30 years and works well in practice.

While I recognise that the amendment would not change the test itself, to change the way that decisions made under the code are communicated, even to the small degree proposed by my noble friend, could create confusion, as there would be a tendency to ask which test should now be applied and whether it means the same thing. It could also invite doubt in the minds of prosecutors, judges, defence lawyers and others as to the reliability of decisions made against different tests.

I also point out to noble Lords that there are two tests in the Code for Crown Prosecutors that must be met before charges are brought. It is perfectly possible for there to be sufficient evidence to meet the first test, but for it none the less to be contrary to the public interest to charge, for example, where a case is to be disposed of out of court by way of a conditional caution.

While Clauses 65 and 66 set a requirement to notify a suspect that they will not be charged, that notice would need to be given in both scenarios; that is, where there was insufficient evidence and where the evidence was sufficient but charges were not in the public interest. However, under my noble friend’s amendment, a suspect would need to be told in all cases that they were not being charged due to a lack of evidence, even though there must be sufficient evidence to charge to get to the point of considering the public interest test.

I can say to my noble friend that the Government are sympathetic to his aim of giving greater certainty to those who are investigated but against whom charges are not brought. We are minded to achieve this by non-statutory means so that prosecutors retain the necessary flexibility in cases where a decision is taken on public interest grounds.

On the issue of written notification of a decision not to charge, the Government consider that Clauses 65 and 66 already require such notification in all cases where an arrest has taken place. However, I would like to give further consideration to the issue of those interviewed under caution without being arrested. I hope that my noble friend will recognise that the precise wording of that notification is an issue best dealt with by non-statutory means and that, having heard my statement, he will be content to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, this group of amendments would greatly reduce the effect of the Government’s reforms to pre-charge bail by increasing the length of the initial period of bail from 28 to 56 days. As I have said, the purpose of these reforms is to end up with fewer people on bail for shorter periods of time, and thereby significantly enhance the human rights protections of those who have not even been charged with an offence, let alone convicted. As such, requiring each and every person granted bail to be given bail for eight whole weeks would significantly dilute the reforms—reforms that the Liberal Democrats supported strongly when they were proposed by the coalition Government.

The noble Lord said that the intention behind these amendments is to reduce the administrative burden on the police in operating the reformed pre-charge bail system. Although I do not deny that the new system will cause additional work for the police compared to the current position, this is inevitable given that we are reforming a system currently lacking appropriate safeguards. I would also say that the Government do not look at the extra work required as an administrative burden; we see it as requiring an appropriate level of intrusive supervision to ensure that pre-charge bail is used appropriately and that investigations are progressed diligently and swiftly. That goes to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, about people having to return time and again to police stations.

I would also say that the figure of 28 days set out in the Bill was not arrived at by chance; we considered carefully the initial period of bail in drawing up our proposals, seeking to balance the administrative burden on the police with the need to put an end to the practice of people being bailed for months or even years at a time with no external scrutiny.

When we consulted publicly in December 2014 on the proposals, with the full agreement of the Liberal Democrats, who formed part of the coalition Government at the time, we received some 300 responses, two-thirds of which favoured the tightening of pre-charge bail and introduction of judicial oversight. Of the 135 respondents who expressed a preference, 58% favoured the model set out in the Bill, with an initial bail period of 28 days, extendable to three months by a senior officer. There was also strong support for an initial bail period of 28 days from groups as disparate as the Society of Editors, the Birmingham Law Society and the Magistrates’ Association. The Committee might also be interested to know that the Howard League for Penal Reform, a well-respected group of campaigners in this area, argued that pre-charge bail should be limited to a single period of 14 days without conditions.

I also draw the Committee’s attention to the bail principles published by the College of Policing in October 2013, which stated that:

“In the first instance, unless there are exceptional circumstances, the bail period should be no more than 28 days”.

With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, there is clearly backing for the human rights improvements that would be brought about by a 28-day initial bail period from across the spectrum of public and professional opinion.

I also point out that, as set out in the impact assessment accompanying the Bill, almost one-third of bail cases—29%—are currently resolved within 28 days. We cannot therefore see how it would be either sensible or appropriate in those cases for the police to have a choice of either keeping those individuals on bail for a further four weeks or having to issue paperwork to terminate suspects’ bail and call them in for charging.

I also draw the Committee’s attention to the other major change these reforms will make: that there will be a presumption in favour of release without bail, with bail being used only where it is both necessary and proportionate. This change in particular will allow the police to release many suspects without the administrative overhead that bail entails. It would also remove much of the stigma and inconvenience of bail from those released in this way. Because of this change, the police resources tied up administering straightforward cases will be freed up to concentrate on those cases where bail is truly necessary.

I have set out why the Government consider that the 28-day initial bail period is an appropriate first period, during which a significant proportion of cases will be resolved. The Government consider it crucial that the unfairness of keeping a person under investigation in “legal limbo” is addressed, as it cannot be right that they can spend months or even years on pre-charge bail with no judicial oversight, as happens at present.

As set out in the coalition Government’s response to the consultation, published in March 2015, the negative effects for individuals on bail and their families include emotional or mental trauma and financial implications. I also draw to your Lordships’ attention to the fact that, at the end of the coalition, in their 2015 general election manifesto, the Liberal Democrats included a proposal to place limits on the duration and conditions of pre-charge bail. Therefore, it strikes me as odd to hear the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asking to extend the initial bail period from 28 to 56 days. I recognise his laudable aim to reduce the administrative burden on the police, but extending the initial period to 56 days will, as I have said, either leave a large number of suspects on bail for no reason or require the police to do further work to call them in. For that reason, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, can she comment on some of the academic research around this, which both I and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, referred to? I think that we are all in agreement that no one wants anybody to go on bail for a day longer than absolutely necessary but it seems a bit odd that, if all the services that the police need to investigate their cases are taking more than 28 days—maybe up to six weeks—we have bail for 28 days. They could bring people back into the police station just to send them away again because the necessary information is not available.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I draw the noble Lord’s attention to the comments that I made about the presumption against pre-charge bail, which I think is compelling in the Government’s attempt to reform the system. There will be presumption in favour of release without bail—in other words, do not bail someone unless there is a good reason to put them on bail, which in many ways would free up the system. Bail should be used only where it is both necessary and proportionate. The fact that almost one-third of people are released within 28 days anyway is, I think, compelling evidence for the arguments that the Government are making.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 187A is very opportune and I hope that the Government will be pleased to see it. It stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser and would insert a new clause in the Bill with regard to pre-charge bail. The new clause would place a requirement on police and crime plans to include an annual assessment of the capability of the police to investigate crimes within the 28-day period. Proposed new subsection (2) in the amendment states that the assessment must consider the points as listed, which are,

“changes to the number of suspects released without bail … resource constraints … safeguarding requirements … and … issues around multi agency work”.

This list is not exhaustive but all these sorts of things could come into play if the police were able to deal with people on bail within the 28-day period. An annual assessment is a valuable tool in helping to ensure that targets are met and in identifying problems.

The second amendment in this group would give a power to the Secretary of State to make by regulation a requirement for agencies,

“to cooperate promptly with police”.

As we said in a previous debate, in seeking to meet the 28-day target, the police need to be confident that other agencies are working to deliver information to them. The amendment would give the Secretary of State the power to require agencies by regulation to assist the police within the 28-day limit. I beg to move.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has explained, these amendments seek to test the ability of police forces to complete investigations within the initial 28-day pre-charge bail time limit.

Amendment 187ZA would require police and crime commissioners to make an annual assessment of their force’s capability of investigating crimes within this initial pre-charge bail time limit. The Government consider that requiring such an annual assessment will only add an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on PCCs and forces. First, the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 requires PCCs to produce new police and crime plans only in the year of an election, so the amendment does not build on an existing process; it requires PCCs to produce something entirely new.

The Government acknowledge that the reforms to pre-charge bail will create a new system and that forces will need to build capacity at first and incorporate changes within their business processes. However, the changes will encourage and enable police forces to resolve cases within a time limit, resulting in a more efficient system for the long term.

Although bail will be limited initially to a period of 28 days, it is important to remember that the Bill’s provisions will enable an extension to a total of three months, which can be authorised by a senior police officer in complex cases. Furthermore, the police will also be able to apply to the courts for an extension beyond three months, which will have to be approved by a magistrate. While the police will, of course, aim to resolve cases in fewer than 28 days, they will be able to extend the bail period where it is necessary to do so. The requirement for senior scrutiny of extensions will avoid the issue of the past, where bail has been extended for months, or even years, without scrutiny outside the investigation team.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, in her response to Amendment 187ZA she talked about external scrutiny of the police. Can she say a bit more about that? Is she saying that she expects that external scrutiny to look specifically at the issues here in a broad-brush review? If so, where will they get the data from? I assume that they will be collected by the police.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there will be a number of sources of data within the police, and the annual monitoring by HMIC’s PEEL inspection programme, which considers all the police’s effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy, will form part of that external scrutiny.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The noble Baroness can check this and come back to me, but I would expect then that the data would actually be collected.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As the noble Lord says, I will go away and give him more detail on that, either before Report or on Report.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Baroness for that response, and at this time I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 195, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and also in the name of my noble friend Lord Rosser and others, would ensure that child victims of sexual abuse receive the mental health support that they need and would address the fundamental problem that, as things stand, victims too often have poor access to the support that they need. The Bill makes welcome provisions in the area of mental health—including by ending the detention under the Mental Health Act 1983 of young people in police cells—but it could go further, in particular, in recognising the mental health needs of children who have been victims of child sexual exploitation.

NSPCC research shows that children who have been abused are more likely to experience depression, anxiety and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder as well as self-harming and suicide. The cases of 30 children supported by the Children’s Society were analysed in its report Old Enough to Know Better?—a third of the cases noted that the young people needed mental health services because of concerns about their well-being, including self-harming episodes, suicide attempts or even episodes of psychosis that required in-patient admissions. The remaining cases also referred to the young people feeling low, depressed, anxious, fearful, or having flashbacks of their abuse. I think that the Government should accept this amendment from the noble Baroness this evening.

Amendment 221 in this group is in the name of my noble friend Lord Rosser. It would place in the Bill a duty for police forces to disclose information about children who are victims of sexual exploitation or other forms of abuse to the relevant health service commissioners. This is an important requirement to ensure that victims of exploitation can have access to the health services that they need.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for their explanation of the amendments. We appreciate that their intention is to ensure that the proper provision is made for vulnerable or traumatised children. We absolutely agree that we must ensure that such children never fall through the gaps between services, but I put it to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that the overriding determinant of referral for health services must be clinical need. Not all children and young people who have been abused or exploited will develop a mental health problem, and intervening unnecessarily or inappropriately can in itself be harmful.

All that said, it is essential that healthcare practitioners who work with abused children and young people should have the capacity and capability to provide evidence-based treatment where needed. This will be addressed through the emerging workforce strategy, which is being put in place to deliver the key proposals in the Department of Health report on children’s mental health. The Department of Health is also introducing routine procedures so that sensitive inquiries are made to establish whether a child undergoing a mental health assessment has experienced neglect, violence or abuse. This will be an important step towards establishing a child’s or young person’s need for support. The important thing is that children and young people get the right care at the right time, based on their needs, not on a non-clinician’s view of their potential needs based on their experiences.

On amendment 221, it is worth adding that individuals, including children where appropriate, need to consent to receive treatment. Where a person indicates that they would like to avail themselves of any referral, consent can be sought for relevant personal details to be passed to the health provider, which is the proper course of action. It would be likely to be inappropriate, and in breach of data protection, automatically to pass on personal details and potentially sensitive information, even to a health provider. It may be helpful for noble Lords to know that NHS England published a Commissioning Framework for Adult and Paediatric Sexual Assault Referral Centres (SARC) Services in August 2015, which outlines the core services in SARCs and referral pathways to other services. They are now being rolled out throughout England.

On the basis of my remarks, I hope that the noble Baroness feels content to withdraw her amendment.

EU: Unaccompanied Migrant Children (EUC Report)

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the European Union Committee for producing its report on unaccompanied migrant children in the EU, and thank all noble Lords who have spoken so powerfully in this debate.

The Government recognise the plight of unaccompanied migrant children in Europe and we are addressing this on a number of fronts. We take our commitments towards these unaccompanied migrant children extremely seriously. We have already made significant progress in speeding up the transfer of children who already have close family members in the UK. The Government began work on this under the Immigration Act immediately after the Bill gained Royal Assent. Since Royal Assent and before 1 October, we have transferred more than 50 children—commonly known as the “Dubs children”—under the criteria of the Immigration Act. Since 10 October we have transferred more than 300 children from Calais, including more than 60 girls.

I must make it clear, and I am sure noble Lords know, that we need the permission of sovereign member states to operate on their territory and we need to abide by their laws. We are focusing on France, Greece and Italy but we can operate only in ways agreed with those member states. It is important to make that clear at this point.

We are also working with local authorities to ensure that children are fully supported on arrival in the UK, and we are making progress on the national transfer scheme, including a commitment to increase funding. We encourage more local authorities to come forward. At this point, I pay tribute to the local authorities which have come forward. People have mentioned local authorities which have been so good, such as Hammersmith and Ealing—what was the other one?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

There is Lewisham.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Lewisham, yes. Because people were mentioning London, I thought that I would pick out some really good ones there. There is also Kent, of course, which should really be thanked for its efforts. Accompanying what local authorities are doing, we have substantially increased their levels of funding to provide care for these unaccompanied children. The daily rates have increased by more than 20% and we have made an additional £60,000 available for each region to co-ordinate its efforts.

The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, talked about the wider commitment regarding the 20,000 refugees from the Syrian region. We have had pledges from local authorities which will enable us to meet that commitment. So far, we have had nearly 3,000 people from that total of 20,000, so we fully expect to meet that commitment by 2020. The children accepted under Dublin III or the wider Immigration Act criteria are in addition to, not subtracted from, that 20,000. In addition, the UK supports a number of unaccompanied children who arrive directly in the UK through our resettlement schemes and the refugee family reunion visa route.

As well as bringing children to the UK, we are supporting partners across Europe. The UK has established a £10 million refugee children fund for Europe particularly to support the needs of vulnerable refugee and migrant children arriving in Europe. The fund includes targeted support to meet the specific needs of unaccompanied and separated children. That support includes identifying children in need, providing safe places for children at risk, data management to trace children to their families and services such as counselling and legal advice. However, our overall approach must focus further upstream to reduce the incentives for refugees to put their lives at risk by making perilous journeys to Europe. We are and always have been clear about our moral responsibility to assist those who are suffering, including by providing support in conflict regions, development work upstream and protection to those who need it. The Government are fully committed to providing a wide-reaching response to the refugee crisis that protects children.

Perhaps I may move on to some specific questions from noble Lords. There were quite a few, so I hope I can get through them. I start with the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, who asked about speeding up the process. I think I have gone through that but she also talked about guardianship, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen. The Government believe that the addition of a guardian to the existing framework risks adding another level of unhelpful complexity to those arrangements. The statutory arrangements for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are that they are looked after by local authorities, in keeping with the arrangements for all children in the UK.

A number of points were made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and I think by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about whether our children will be treated the same as children who might come into our care from other countries, and vice versa. The answer is absolutely yes. Once children are in our care, it is the responsibility of local authorities and, indeed, the state to ensure that they are looked after as if they were our own children. Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are provided with a professional social worker and will also have an independent reviewing officer to oversee their care arrangements.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked about the latest figures from Calais. I think I provided them. There were more than 300 children. We are still working to transfer further children eligible to come to the UK. Over the next few weeks we expect several hundred more children to come to the UK. The noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord McConnell, also asked that question.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, alluded to the fact that the Government committed to publishing a safeguarding strategy by 1 May 2017 which will set out details on how unaccompanied and refugee children arriving in the UK should be safeguarded. I am glad the noble Lord mentioned the strategy so that I can say something about it. It is being published today and will cover both Dublin and Dubs. Best interests will be part of evaluating our process. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is always very clear about the best interests of the child being met. Whether the UK will participate in Dublin following Brexit will be a key part of the considerations as part of the process of leaving the EU.

We are working to identify children in Italy and Greece. We must remember that for Dubs we are identifying children who entered the EU before 20 March. We do not want to incentivise children to take perilous journeys. That has been clear all along. We are working closely with the Greek authorities, the UNHCR, the International Organization for Migration and NGOs operating in Greece to identify children. We are doing all we can, but we must remember that we are working on Greek territory and can work only with Greece’s full agreement. We have a full-time secondee based in Greece, plus a number of staff deployed as part of wider efforts on migration, and we have 58 experts under the EU-Turkey deal. We are working hard to overcome a number of challenges including varied lists of children; a number of separated rather than unaccompanied children; nationalities that would not normally qualify for refugee status; and the EU’s relocation scheme that may relocate some of the children. In Italy, we have offered to help process cases, but so far we are waiting for agreement.

The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, talked about the delay in the Government’s response to the report. I take this opportunity to apologise for the delay. The Government welcome the report and have fully considered it. I am sure noble Lords will agree that the visible progress we have made with transferring children to the UK demonstrates our commitment to the issue. We support the principle of family reunion, which the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, asked about, but the Government have no plans to change their policy on family reunion because there are several routes for families to be reunited without the need for children to travel to the UK illegally. The Government believe that the wrong kind of family reunion policy will lead to more children setting out unaccompanied on journeys that will put their lives at risk, and we do not want that. We have granted more than 22,000 visas under this policy over the past five years.

The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, asked about the wider refugee effort. We believe that the best way to help the majority of the many millions of displaced individuals across the globe is through practical and political action within the affected regions. As noble Lords will know, we have pledged £2.3 billion to the Syrian relief effort, which is double the amount originally pledged. Helping the people in Syria and the neighbouring countries in the region reduces the need for them to make perilous journeys to the EU. Our approach is to resettle the most vulnerable directly from the affected regions.

In terms of the Mediterranean response and Africa, the UK is providing £70 million to the Mediterranean migration crisis response, while nearly £9 million is allocated to the wider response in Africa and to research. The UK participates fully in vital life-saving and countermigration activities in the Mediterranean. To date, the UK assets of Operation Sophia and those operating in support of FRONTEX have saved more than 17,000 lives, I am very proud to say.

The noble Lord, Lord Soley, asked about best interests, which I dealt with in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. We absolutely think it is a primary consideration and we welcome EU efforts to ensure this principle is fully implemented in all member states. The Government also agree that children must be registered as quickly as possible in the first member state in which they arrive.

The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, asked about age assessments and support for over-18s. We use a number of determining factors for assessing age including credible and clear documentary evidence proving a claimed age, and physical appearance and demeanour, although I take the point about children being changed as they undergo extreme hardship and stress. The Merton-compliant age assessments which we use in this country are undertaken by a local authority and must be signed off by two social workers. As I explained to the House the other week, we do not use dental X-rays. The British Dental Association is opposed to using them, and has described them as “inaccurate, inappropriate and unethical”. In terms of support for over-18s, in July the rates for care leavers rose by 33%.

The noble Lord, Lord Judd, talked about expedited family reunions and the process from Greece and Italy. We have obviously prioritised in France given that the situation was particularly difficult, but we are working closely with the Greek authorities, UNHCR, the International Organization for Migration and NGOs operating in Greece, as I said earlier. He also asked about access to Dublin and Dubs across the EU. The Dublin regulation obviously applies across the EU, while Dubs is part of our own national law and is not EU law. However, we continue to ensure that the Dublin process of transferring cases into and out of the UK works effectively, while for Section 67 of the Immigration Act, we are focusing on France, Italy and Greece. The Act is clear that it must be refugee children. In responding to the migration crisis, we must remember that not all migrants are refugees.

In terms of Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme is supporting vulnerable children. In the year ending June 2016, almost 50% of those included were children.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, talked about minors in the camp. Ahead of the camp clearance, the French authorities gave their assurance that any migrants, including children, would be accommodated and supported if they were willing to claim asylum in France, and more than 5,000 migrants took up that offer. She talked about our relationship with the French. We continue to work closely with them. On managing the Calais camp clearance, we are prioritising the assessment and transfer of the youngest, as she asked, and those at high risk of sexual exploitation, which is only right and proper. She talked about the UN refugee convention. As a signatory to the 1951 convention, the UK has a long tradition of providing protection to those who need it most, and we fully consider all asylum claims lodged in the UK.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, talked about unaccompanied children. Of course we recognise the plight of, and terrible experiences suffered by, some of those unaccompanied migrant children in Europe, and we continue to work with the Italians and the Greeks to identify them. The noble Lord made a really important point about working with member states and the EU to protect children and ensure that they do not go missing, and we note the European Commission’s new proposal to lower the age of fingerprinting of children from 14 to six. The Government welcome that proposal in respect of safeguarding children.

I think that I have answered all the questions. If I have not, I will write to noble Lords. I thank noble Lords for the very good points that they have made in this debate and apologise for the late arrival of the response. As I said, I shall follow up in writing any points that I have not answered.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard - part two): House of Lords
Wednesday 26th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

Amendment 174, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, and my noble friend Lady Henig, is in the clause dealing with police ranks. It amends Clause 46 to require the rank of superintendent as well as that of constable to be retained. We heard from both the noble Baroness and my noble friend who put their names to the amendment about the important role that the officers holding this rank play. That was confirmed by the noble Lords, Lord Blair and Lord Paddick, in their contributions.

I very much agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, when she spoke about the holders of these ranks being senior officers taking senior operational roles. They are held by people with the ability to undertake those important strategic roles and it is accepted that they have departmental and functional responsibilities.

My noble friend Lady Henig also spoke about the importance of the role these officers play across the piece in all departments. I also recall the Sheehy report, and the abolition of chief superintendents being very controversial at the time. As my noble friend said, they were then quietly brought back a few years later. We have heard from a number of speakers who are former serving officers as well as Members of this House who served as chairs of police organisations, and know much more than I do about police operations. They have all reached the same conclusion, so I suggest that the Minister should reflect on what has been said. I hope that she will give a very warm response.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, for this amendment, which gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to our police superintendents. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about constables but I think he meant superintendents.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Yes.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It is late at night and I am just making sure we are on the same page. The noble Baroness, Lady Henig, called them the “filling in the sandwich”.

In the current policing structure, superintendents play an incredibly important role. They set strategy, they are responsible for day-to-day operational policy and in difficult situations they have to show leadership, manage serious risks and make critical decisions during ongoing operations. These are crucial functions that will continue to be a feature of senior ranks in policing. However, there is a lack of flexibility—a word we have used a lot tonight; the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, just used it—in the way that ranks are effectively stipulated in primary legislation. That is why Clause 46 will allow the College of Policing to recommend a new rank structure to the Home Secretary to be set out in regulations.

In June last year, the College of Policing published the findings of its leadership review, which included a recommendation to review the rank and grading structures in policing. In its report, the college said that flatter structures can enable organisations to be more responsive and communicate more effectively. The police-led review of the rank structure is being developed by the chief constable of Thames Valley Police, Francis Habgood, working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to ensure that proposals will be effective for all forces. The intention is to support policing based on greater levels of practitioner autonomy and expertise. Francis Habgood has developed a proposal for a five management level-model that will sit on top of the existing rank structure and will be based on competence, contribution and skills.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard - part one): House of Lords
Wednesday 26th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Rosser. I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I very much support the police. They do a fantastic job for us and put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe.

The noble Lord is right when he talks about the need for an appropriate relationship between the media and the police, and how important that is. Equally, as my noble friend Lord Rosser said, there are obviously times when things go wrong. Clearly what happened at Hillsborough was an absolute tragedy. Can you imagine losing a loved one on that day and then having to endure the abuse in the media which has clearly now been shown not to be true? We should pay tribute to the steely determination of the Hillsborough families to get justice for their loved ones. They not only lost them but saw their names dragged through the mud.

It is important that we get to the point where the Government can clarify that they will proceed with the second stage of Leveson. There are some nuances between the statement we had from the previous Prime Minister and what we had from this Dispatch Box more recently. That difference might just be a few words which mean nothing at all, but we need to be clear that this should go ahead and that the Government are determined that any prosecution dealing with this will proceed.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. I join the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in paying tribute to the victims of the Hillsborough disaster, which took place not far from where I live.

As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, explained, this amendment would require the Prime Minister to establish what is colloquially referred to as the Leveson 2 inquiry into the relationships between the police and the media. It is worth noting that the drafting of this amendment goes beyond the terms of reference of the Leveson inquiry. Part 1 examined the culture, practices and ethics of the media; if it goes ahead, Part 2 is to examine wrongdoing in the press and the police, including the failure of the first police investigations into phone hacking and the implications for police and press relations.

This amendment would, for example, extend the remit of Leveson 2 to cover how the police investigated any complaints about their dealings with people connected to the media, and to the conduct of the CPS where complaints led to criminal investigations. This is well outside the scope of the current inquiry terms of Leveson 2. The Government are of the view that it is not necessary to legislate to require Leveson 2 as it is already set up under the Inquiries Act 2005. As the noble Lord will be aware, there are still ongoing criminal cases relevant to the subject matter of the Leveson inquiry. I welcome the fact that subsection (3) of the proposed new clause recognises the importance of not prejudicing those outstanding criminal proceedings. We have always been clear that these cases, including any appeals, must conclude before we consider part 2 of the inquiry. Given this, and the fact that we already have an appropriate legal framework in the Inquiries Act, it is not an appropriate matter for further legislation. There is an established process in place for taking this matter forward. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am talking about the powers that volunteers may have in the round. There may be myriad different powers, not just the one that we are focusing on.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about policing on the cheap. I remember that when PCSOs were introduced, I said, “Oh, it’s only policing on the cheap”, but actually I have seen the really good benefit that they have brought. As my noble friend Lady Redfern says, they are not a replacement for the police force but a really valuable extra on the streets of Lincolnshire, providing crime fighting for the police.

On that very lengthy note, and thanking all noble Lords for their interventions, I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would like to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate—quite an extraordinary debate really, has it not? We talked about helpful PCSOs and the work they do helping communities; we got on to CS spray and other sprays. They may be issued with guns—we are not quite sure. We were then told that the Government also want to take a power in case things are invented in future. I am pleased I tabled the amendment: it has certainly dragged a few things out from the Government for us. I think we will have to come back to these issues on Report. I hope that the Government will look at our debate, because there are one or two loose ends hanging there.

The most important contribution came from the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Condon. Both of them have been very senior police officers, and if they are expressing concerns, the House should listen very carefully. It is important when we grant any new powers that we make sure that people are trained properly to use them. As we heard, these sprays can kill people, which is really serious. We must worry about putting anything in someone’s hands that can do that.

I also want to pay tribute to volunteer PCSOs, who do a fantastic job as the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, outlined. I will leave it there, but I am sure we will come back to these issues on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Hate Crime

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Tuesday 18th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it most certainly was not because we are all free to express our opinions. It is absolutely right that this country is a country in which we can express our opinions. The line lies where that expression incites people to commit hate crimes.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, racist and religious instances of abuse jumped 41% in the month after the UK voted to leave the EU. Does the Minister attribute that rise to some of the more unpleasant aspects of the EU debate? What further actions are the Government taking and what are the review mechanisms in place in government to ensure that we have the most effective, tough and up-to-date laws to tackle anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and all other forms of racist and religious abuse?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right: in the post-EU referendum period we did see a spike in hate crimes, particularly those that were racially motivated. I held a number of round tables with people of different religions in Manchester and met the Polish ambassador following the graffiti and hatred directed towards the Polish community in Hammersmith. It was very clear that it was a spike in crime motivated by people who used the EU referendum as an opportunity to vent their hate. I am very pleased that those figures have now calmed right down to almost normal levels. However, it teaches us a lesson that, in light of events that might cause such feelings, we need to quell them quickly.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2016

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Tuesday 18th October 2016 Grand Committee

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation of the order before us today and say at the outset that we fully support them and what the Government are trying to do. I see in my briefing note that synthetic cannabinoids are also known as Spice, which I will use as it is easier. There were 29 deaths from these drugs in 2011 and that figure rose to 67 in 2014. Spice can cause aggression and delusions and worsen mental conditions and clearly is a very dangerous substance. We must do what we can to get it off the streets.

Figures from the Centre for Social Justice show that officers from 32 police forces attended 3,807 incidents in 2014, up from 1,400 the previous year. The Prison Ombudsman reported that between June 2013 and January 2016 there were 58 fatalities where the prisoner was thought to be, or suspected of being, involved with the substances before their death.

I do not know whether the Minister has any evidence or any information regarding admissions to A&E departments. I am sure there will be a number of these and ones where these drugs were taken with other substances. As I said, I fully support the order but I have a number of other points and questions for the Minister. If she cannot answer them now I would be very happy for her to write to me.

These drugs are still covered by the Psychoactive Substances Act so why are we moving across to the Misuse of Drugs Act? There is also a possession offence with this Act. How is that going to be policed? It would also be helpful if the Minister could say something about how schools, colleges and universities deal with young people’s exposure to these drugs and more generally about the quality of drug and alcohol education provision. I understand that the drugs strategy is going to be published in the next few weeks. Can she say a bit more about that, particularly about education and prevention? Does she see an intelligence gap in our ability to police the levels of Spice in the UK, being imported into Britain and being stockpiled? I am conscious that she may not be able to answer these questions here, and I am content with the order.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, and I shall go through the various questions they have asked. The noble Lord, Lord Jones, mentioned the fact that no reference is made to Wales, but these orders apply to England and Wales. He asked about the last three substances mentioned in the order—telmisartan, viminol and zafirlukast. The noble Lord wants to intervene.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I said, a collaboration agreement could vastly improve the quality of a service, which is a good thing, but it may not save any money. However, the improvement of the quality of that service may be deemed to be very effective in that collaboration agreement. It obviously ties to both: it could increase the efficiency or it could increase the effectiveness. The happy outcome is that it might improve both. I hope that that is a decent explanation.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

I have just one point. Could it be more effective and less efficient or vice versa?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It could be.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Thursday 8th September 2016 Grand Committee

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Earl made a good point; I hope that I covered it when addressing the speeches of other noble Lords. There has to be proportionality in this. “Nuisance and annoyance” could be someone walking their dog, but clearly that would not be proportionate. I think that that is what the refreshed guidance will cover, and I will be pleased to hear from the noble Earl if he thinks that we have not struck the balance right. Indeed, one person’s nuisance is something that another person does not even notice. I thank him for his comments.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I was quite shocked by the list set out by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, but I am pleased that he brought it to our attention. The examples are absolutely ridiculous. It is important to get the guidance right because clearly one problem with PSPOs has been that they can come down to, “I don’t like that, so it has to be banned”. When the new guidance comes out, it will have to be very clear and state, “These things are not a nuisance”, with examples of what PSPOs can and cannot be used for.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will not pre-empt the guidance, which has not yet been written, but the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, brought up some ridiculous interpretations of the orders. We duly note what he said and the councils he mentioned and I am sure that those examples will be taken into account. It is always dangerous to get too prescriptive because that then allows wriggle room the other way. But we will firm up the guidance and refer back to noble Lords.

Assets of Community Value

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review and strengthen the law concerning assets of community value.

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

My Lords, in their 2015 manifesto this Government committed to strengthening the Community Right to Bid. We have spoken to stakeholders—from local authorities and community groups to property owners—listening to their reflections and experiences of how the Community Right to Bid is working in practice. Their views will allow us to develop options to strengthen the policy, as we set out in the manifesto commitment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham. Moving the definition of “assets of community value” from just land and property would enable the concept of community value to be extended further. For example, the loss of a rural bus route or the closure of a local newspaper are issues of real community concern. Will the noble Baroness agree to meet with me and campaigners to discuss the issue further and discuss anomalies in the implementation of the policy since its inception?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will certainly undertake to meet the noble Lord—I have seen a lot of him over the last few months—and conversations like that will inform the development of the policy.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I refer noble Lords to my declaration of interests and declare that I am a locally elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham.

We have discussed the neighbourhood right of appeal on a number of occasions in your Lordships’ House, and I was convinced that the limited right of appeal, which the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, has put forward on a number of occasions, was the right approach. However, despite that and numerous discussions, the Government have not been persuaded that this is the correct way forward. That is disappointing.

The government amendment agreed in the Commons makes some moves in the right direction but, as the noble Baroness told the House on 4 May, what is proposed here, set out on page 5 of the Marshalled List before us today, is what you would expect any good local planning authority or planning officer to do anyway. Therefore, I am under no illusion that what is before us from the Government is a particularly significant concession. As I said earlier, that is disappointing, and we should go a bit further.

When I look at this Bill, I often reflect back on the Localism Act. It appears that the government Benches are less keen on localism than they may have been a few years ago. In general, they talk about localism when they like what is going on, and when they do not like it, we have to do what they say. As I said, there is a bit of a hokey-cokey on localism from the government Benches. That is not the way to go, and it is disappointing. The noble Baroness has given us another possibility, and maybe we will have some good news from the Minister.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for her amendment and for the way she has worked with me throughout the passage of the Bill—she might think not to very great effect, but we have had extensive debates regarding a neighbourhood right to appeal, and I am pleased that we are able to return to this issue in quite a constructive manner. We all agree on the importance of neighbourhood plans and we wish to see the planning system working without unnecessary costs and delays. We also wish to see the planning system deliver sustainable development and the homes our communities need.

While I very much welcome the direction of travel of the amendment, which is focused on the call-in process, now is not the time to pursue the matter. This issue was not part of the original Bill and the other place has made clear its approval of the Government’s amendment in lieu. The Minister for Planning and Housing has made it very clear that he is willing to work with colleagues to return to this issue in due course. I hope that this is as encouraging to noble Lords as it was to certain Members of the other place—and particularly to organisations such as CPRE which have lobbied on this matter.

Although the Government cannot support this amendment, I understand the advantage of an approach that is based on the existing call-in system and the constructive manner in which it was laid. The Government are willing to look at this issue further, and I hope that provides the reassurance to the noble Baroness for her to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I was surprised that the Government rejected the Lords amendment in the other place last night and am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, has brought back another amendment to be considered today by your Lordships’ House.

Resistance to this measure is puzzling to say the least. Delivering zero-carbon homes is an important standard that we should strive to achieve. It helps reduce our carbon footprint and gives people living in the properties to be built cheaper fuel bills.

In previous debates, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, have relied a number of times on the opposition of the Federation of Master Builders despite there being numerous organisations that support the measure. The noble Viscount said that he would write to me giving a list of other organisations that support the Government’s position. I have not had that letter yet; perhaps the Minister could tell me when I will get it, because it would be useful to see who these other organisations are. It is also important to remember, as the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, reminded us, that the zero-carbon homes standard was agreed by the coalition Government in the last Parliament.

As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said—the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, also mentioned it—we do not want in a few years’ time to be required to undertake expensive retrofit measures when we could have done the work during the initial construction at a fraction of the cost.

The Government’s claims as to the initial costs are just not convincing. At no point during our consideration of this part of the Bill have I felt that the Government made a convincing or compelling case for why this measure should not be supported. If the noble Baroness wishes to test the opinion of the House, we will support her.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, just to say to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I will chase my noble friend. I think he might have gone to get the letter, actually.

It is helpful that the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, has revised the carbon compliance standard in her new amendment, but we still do not know the risks it may pose to the viability of home building in some parts of the country, or the impact it may have on the home building industry, particularly some small builders. We need a clear understanding of what is technically possible, viable and cost effective to make any changes to energy performance standards for new homes. That is why we are introducing a statutory duty on this Government to undertake a full and comprehensive review of energy standards based on cost effectiveness and the impact on housing supply. We will report back to this House on the outcome of the review within the next 12 months.

The other place has given its considerable support to this review based on cost effectiveness, and it is supported by the Home Builders Federation—the main trade body that represents home builders of all sizes. The Housing Minister in the other place also pointed out the following yesterday:

“We said in our manifesto that we will meet our climate change commitments and that we will do so by cutting emissions ‘as cost-effectively as possible’. The electorate voted for that and the review will help to ensure that we can deliver it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/5/16; col. 463.]

So before the other place considers any changes to energy performance standards, home builders and the electorate think that we first need to have an understanding of what is cost effective. Is it right that we should go against their views?

Finally, I remind the House that it is not prudent to set requirements such as this in primary legislation. If, in the light of consultation, any slight adjustment to requirements were needed, we would not be able to do so without further primary legislation. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I was surprised that the Government rejected this amendment when it went to the other place. Ensuring that we build homes and have sustainable drainage is a positive thing. When we discussed this matter the other day, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, sought to remove the automatic right of connection to ensure that the drainage system would be considered and resolved early on and not left to the end. It was suggested that the amendment was unnecessary or unworkable. I am not convinced that either is the case.

The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, proposed Motion E. This goes some way in the right direction. It commits the Government to,

“carry out a review concerning sustainable drainage in relation to the development of land in England”.

That is to be welcomed, but I am aware that a review is a review and it commits the Government to nothing beyond that. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked some pertinent questions about timescales—when the review will come before Parliament and what action will come out of it. When the Minister responds to the debate, it would be useful if she could cover these points.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I emphasise that we are committed to ensuring that developments are safe from flooding and that the delivery of SUDS—if I can call it that—forms part of our policy approach. Both the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, asked whether the review would be thorough, robust and look at evidence on the ground. The answer to all three is yes.

The Motion moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, would include a review of all development, the scope of which would be too broad. The amendment also refers to the non-statutory technical standards, which is for guidance only. I therefore cannot accept the amendment. I hope that noble Lords will accept that, while we join them in supporting the use of SUDS, it would not be appropriate to make changes at this point, until we have the evidence on which to base any changes.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, talks about a date of 31 April 2017. There is nothing in the government amendment. Can the Minister give the House any idea of timescale?

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Wednesday 4th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as this is my first contribution today to consideration of the Commons reasons and amendments to the Housing and Planning Bill, I draw noble Lords’ attention to my declaration of interests and further declare that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham. Generally, it is disappointing that we are back here today following the rejection by the other place yesterday of a number of amendments proposed by your Lordships’ House. There has been some movement in the Government’s position on the taper but they have not gone as far as we would have liked, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Best, got this one right. Nevertheless, we are pleased that there has been some movement. Recycling a proportion of the discount through a taper if the property is sold is a much better way of delivering this policy and I am pleased that the Government have accepted that.

On Motions B and B1, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, respectively, the latter amendment gives local authorities the ability to demonstrate the case for delivering other forms of low-cost home ownership to the Secretary of State along with their general duty to deliver starter homes. That is all the amendment does: it gives the local authority the ability to demonstrate the case. If that is not done to the Secretary of State’s satisfaction, approval will not be given. I cannot see why the Government want to resist that. Again, it is disappointing that the other place has not accepted Amendment 109 proposed by my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon, but there has been some movement, which is to be welcomed. Like my noble friend, I will be looking carefully at what emerges from future discussions, and we will press the Government further in that regard.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to this group of amendments. I welcome the debate on the starter homes amendments and rural issues; I hope it has been productive. I am trying telepathically to understand what the Minister in the other place meant last night by “proportionate” discount. As I understand it, as the discount is a percentage rather than a cash sum, it is proportionate to the total cost rather than fixed, which is probably fairer. That is my understanding of what he meant.

On Amendment 10B, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, I understand why it seems attractive to allow local authorities to meet their starter homes requirement with other products. However, in reality, the requirement for starter homes would become something entirely different. This change to the requirement would again undermine the Government’s ability to meet our manifesto commitment to 200,000 starter homes. We have been very clear on why we want a requirement for starter homes. This is a new product, designed to address a specific gap in the market for young, first-time buyers, as we have discussed on many occasions during the passage of the Bill. Starter homes will give young people the chance of full home ownership, allowing them to move onwards and upwards over time. We have a clear manifesto mandate to deliver this product, and that is why we are legislating for starter homes alone.

The starter home requirement will be straightforward and developers will understand it from the outset. It does not remove councils’ ability to deliver other affordable housing and home ownership products alongside starter homes, and we fully expect them to do so. Nor does it remove their local plan policy. The Government believe that shared ownership and other affordable home ownership products have an important role to play as part of a diverse and thriving housing market. They will help those who aspire to home ownership but cannot afford outright discounted purchase.

The spending review has committed £8 billion to deliver a further 400,000 new affordable housing starts. We have published a prospectus that invites housing associations and other providers such as developers to bid for £4.1 billion to deliver 135,000 shared ownership homes and £200 million to deliver 10,000 rent-to-buy homes. However, our legislation focuses on starter homes to ensure that it has the necessary attention to secure delivery.

I have listened carefully to the debate, and I hope that the amendments I have set out mean that there is no need to divide your Lordships’ House. With these reassurances, I ask that the amendment to the Motion be withdrawn.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Monday 25th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon and other noble Lords have made a compelling case for contributions to affordable housing from small-scale developments. As my noble friend said, rural communities are not just small-scale versions of urban areas; they are quite different. They have their own strengths and challenges that have to be met. We have to understand that and enable outcomes to be delivered that help rural areas to prosper.

Housing that is affordable is one of the greatest challenges we face. The proportion of homes used only at weekends or as holiday accommodation risks making our villages and small communities unsustainable. Housing has to be available in various tenures for people who want to live and work locally and keep communities alive: for teachers to run the village school; for people to run rural post offices, shops and pubs; for health workers to keep community health facilities open and for farmworkers to sustain the rural economy. Not all such people will be able to afford to buy their own home, so the provision of social housing is a must to keep communities alive. We have heard that only 8% of housing in rural areas is owned by housing associations and local authorities. My noble friend’s amendment would give a power to local authorities to require, where they decide they want to, an affordable housing contribution in cash or in kind, determined by the requirements of the local area. That is an excellent idea. It has localism at its heart and the Government should support it.

The amendment defines what is meant by a “rural area” and the parameters of the policy. I hope the Minister will have some positive words to say, as alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Best. However, if my noble friend is not satisfied, I hope she will test the opinion of the House, and I am sure that she will have support on these and other Benches. I hope that that will not be necessary today, that discussions can continue and that we can come back to this matter at Third Reading.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for raising an issue that I think is seen as important on all sides of this House. Her amendment would enable local planning authorities to require affordable housing contributions, in cash or kind, from small-scale developments and from developments in rural areas. I hope I can provide assurances of how we propose to use the power to support housing delivery and the fact that we recognise the issues faced by rural areas in particular.

During debate in Committee I explained that local authorities currently can set affordable housing policies in their local plans and use Section 106 agreements to secure affordable housing delivery and agree financial contributions in lieu of on-site affordable housing contributions.

We all agree on the importance of affordable housing, which is why the Government announced in the spending review investment of £8 billion to deliver 400,000 affordable housing starts by 2020-21. However, we know that, on particular types of site, the way in which affordable housing contributions are determined can delay development and affect housing delivery. Clause 143 will enable us to bring about a more consistent approach to how Section 106 agreements can be used in relation to affordable housing provision. This could include conditions on how planning obligations are sought for affordable housing. These can be varied by the type of site to which they apply.

We know that the details of any restrictions will require careful consideration to deliver benefits in enabling overall housing delivery while taking careful account of the need to deliver affordable housing. Measures implementing this power will be set out in regulations which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so noble Lords will have further opportunity for scrutiny.

It has been made clear in previous debates on this clause and others, including the debates on starter homes and high-value assets, that rural areas face distinct challenges. Concerns have been raised about the impact that the Bill could have on rural areas and we are committed to considering how rural exception sites are given discretion in any compulsory starter home requirement and how we can consider excluding them from high-value asset payments.

The power to make regulations in Clause 143 is a broad one and allows us to take into account the concerns raised. I am happy and willing to continue to work with the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Best, on what these regulations will contain. However, I cannot commit to bringing forward an amendment by Third Reading.

We recently heard from the Communities and Local Government Select Committee about the importance of monitoring the effect of this policy. By bringing forward any restrictions or conditions through regulations we can also ensure that they can be more easily reviewed so that they maximise the benefits for housing delivery more broadly.

I hope my reassurance and recognition of the particular issues faced by rural areas will enable the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Wednesday 20th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Andrews has showed the House her expertise in these matters and I fully support her amendment. I do not have any more to say than that.

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

My Lords, again I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, not only for eloquently outlining her amendment but for how she has contributed to this part of the Bill thus far. She outlined why she considers that this is an important opportunity to place a high-level obligation in the Bill to ensure that the brownfield register contributes to sustainable places. I fully agree that local authority decisions should consider sustainable development and good design but I hope I can outline why the amendment is not needed.

This clause will already require local planning authorities to have regard to the NPPF when, for example, making decisions about sites to include in local registers. As we discussed in Committee, the framework makes clear that sustainable development should be at the heart of both plan-making and decision-taking. I emphasise that placing a site on a register is not a permission to build—but I am sure that the noble Baroness knows that. The consideration of detailed issues, such as design, will not be feasible at the point that sites are entered on to the brownfield registers. That will come later. Applicants will be responsible for providing detailed information when they submit their applications for technical details consent. This will ensure that design is also considered before consent is granted in the same way as it would be for a planning application.

The noble Baroness raised the applicability of sustainable development objectives and the NPPF to new town development corporations. As she will be aware, we announced in the Budget our intention to legislate to better support the delivery of new locally led garden towns and villages. We want to ensure that they exemplify high design and sustainability standards. It is absolutely our intention that when we legislate we will ensure that sustainable development objectives and the outcomes set out in the NPPF apply with no less force to new town development corporations than they do to local planning authorities in general.

I also point out that it is the applicant and not local authorities who should bear the cost of providing detailed information in support of their application. Placing a stronger emphasis in the Bill could result in unnecessary burdens being transferred to local authorities. I emphasise that our proposals for the brownfield register or permission in principle do not change the protections in the NPPF in respect of sustainability or design.

I hope that I have been able to articulate our position and that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, although there has been the ability for fees to go up in line with inflation, there is a general acceptance of the anecdotal evidence from local planning authorities that their costs are not being met, but we have to marry that up with performance and efficiency.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I know that we are going to come back to this next week but, before the noble Baroness sits down, can she confirm that, when we have all these reviews, she does not envisage a situation where we end up with the local authority being able to charge one set of fees for a planning application, while a lot more could be paid to another provider who could also do it but at a more expensive cost? I think that it would be totally wrong to allow there to be two levels of fees—you could have the council charging a fee but allow some other provider to do the same job for a larger fee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for the manner in which he has engaged with me and Members of your Lordships’ House in addressing not just the basement development issue, but the associated problems and the misery of people’s lives being disrupted by such developments. He has certainly enlightened me as to some of the problems in London, in particular. The Government are very aware of them now, if they were not previously.

I take this opportunity to tell the noble Lord and your Lordships’ House that in the light of the concerns he has raised on this and many previous occasions, we will commit to carrying out a review of the planning law and regulations relating to basement developments. The noble Lord promised me that I would be splashed all over the Evening Standard for this, so I await his side of the deal—that is a metaphor.

We will publish a call for evidence for the review by the summer this year, and we hope we will receive responses from a range of authorities and stakeholders and, of course, from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, so we can take on his views and expertise.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s statement and congratulate my noble friend Lord Dubs, who has been doggedly pursuing this issue for some time now. He produced a Private Member’s Bill and pursued this matter here, and we have a very good conclusion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have spoken on both sides of the argument. My noble friend Lord True and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, spoke about safeguarding some of the economic well-being of their areas. My noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy demonstrated that this has been deeply beneficial to areas such as mine in Trafford, revitalising our local high streets and bringing office buildings back into use where once they stood empty. My noble friend Lady Scott talked about inappropriate use of permitted development rights for things such as building houses in industrial estates. As my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy said, we have Article 4 to implement in places where it is simply not appropriate to move from office to residential use.

As I outlined in Committee, the office to residential PDR is making a very important contribution to delivering the 1 million homes that we want by 2021, while making the best use of brownfield sites and reducing the pressure to build on greenfield land. Take-up of the temporary permitted development right has been very high, with more than 6,500 applications since April 2014, demonstrating the demand for such conversions. This has led to over 5,300 permissions for office to residential conversions.

Our data show that in 2014-15 we saw a 65% increase in the number of new homes created through change of use, and the office to residential permitted development right will have helped to deliver around 8,000 new homes. Data from the sector also indicate that the temporary right has delivered much-needed new homes to buy or rent, including in London and the south-east, where we continue to face a housing shortage. The British Council for Offices has estimated that, nationally, 7,600 dwellings have been delivered since May 2013. Evidence to date shows that the light-touch planning process has resulted in new homes being brought forward. The British Council for Offices notes that some of the developments would be unlikely to have come forward via a planning application and are therefore additional to the number of homes that would otherwise have been delivered.

I will now address the new clause proposed in my noble friend Lord True’s Amendment 116A, and speak first to subsection (c). I understand that the aim behind it is to compensate business tenants where property owners exercise their permitted development rights to change use from office to residential. However, this is not a planning issue.

The amendment is unnecessary as there are already adequate protections for business tenants under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. Under the general law, business tenants have security of tenure until their lease expires. On expiration, the tenant has important rights under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to have a new lease at the market rent, unless he has explicitly opted out of these rights at the beginning of the tenancy. Section 30 of the Act specifies certain circumstances in which the tenant is not entitled to a new tenancy. These include where the landlord is able to demonstrate an intention to undertake substantial works at the premises, which could be where approval is secured under the permitted development right. Under these circumstances, the tenant would be entitled to compensation from the landlord under Section 37 of the Act. The compensation is set at the rate of one times the rateable value of the premises, or twice the rateable value if the same business has been in occupation for more than 14 years.

I now turn to subsections (a) and (b). We consider that the introduction of the PDR for change of use from office to residential has resulted in new homes that would not have been brought forward under a planning permission. We consider that imposing such additional requirements on developers is likely to undermine the contribution the right makes to the delivery of new homes which are so badly needed.

In relation to subsection (a) of the proposed new clause, local authorities are already able to charge a fee for prior approval applications for change of use. The fee is set at a level which reflects the light-touch approach for processing these applications, as only certain specific issues require approval. I hope that this provides reassurance that appropriate safeguards are already in place and I invite my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.

On Amendment 116B, as I agreed in Committee, I have since met my noble friend Lord True and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, to discuss their concerns about the impact of the office-to-residential right. I have also listened carefully to the debates both in Committee and on Report on this issue and recognise the concerns expressed by my noble friend and the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Kerslake, about the loss of office space in some areas and the impact that it can have on local businesses.

I appreciate the strength of feeling in certain areas on this matter, but I cannot accept the amendment that would introduce this new clause into the Bill. The issues raised relate to specific areas, as I have already outlined. The amendment would apply nationally and would create uncertainty within the market. It would undermine the important role that the right plays in the supply of new homes. It would also have a negative effect on the growth of the development industry. The amendment is also unnecessary, as appropriate protections are already in place to meet local conditions.

The office market continues to evolve to meet the business community’s needs and respond to the right. Where it is necessary to protect the economic well-being of a specific area, local authorities can bring forward an Article 4 direction to remove the right and allow for consideration of a planning application. That is a fair and proportionate approach. But I recognise that my noble friend Lord True also has concerns about Article 4 directions. However, the process is straightforward and provides robust safeguards by allowing for local consultation on the scope of the direction before it comes into force.

I hope that this reassures noble Lords that while we understand their concerns about the impact of the right in specific parts of the country, there are appropriate existing safeguards. But while the Government’s position on this issue will not change and while I urge my noble friend not to press his amendment, I will undertake if he wishes to have further discussions on this matter. As always, I am very happy to meet him.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

On Amendment 116A, we see these developments all around here in Westminster, with offices now being converted into very expensive homes. Why would it not be right for a planning authority to get somewhere near its full costs on this?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am sorry. Could the noble Lord repeat that?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

On Amendment 116A(a), we can see all around here many developments where offices have been converted into very expensive properties. Why would it not be reasonable for a local authority—in this case, Westminster—to cover a larger proportion of its costs in fees, considering what these properties are now selling for very close to this Palace?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I think that it is because it is not a planning consideration, so the tenant would be entitled to compensation from the landlord rather than the local authority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Porter of Spalding]

You should never have me write anything, because you will not be able to read it.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank noble Lords for their comments and contributions. To respond to the noble Lord, I can confirm absolutely, for the avoidance of doubt, that planning authorities will not be able to charge one fee and private providers another. We do not intend to create two tiers within the planning system—it would be most undemocratic and unfair, generally.

The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, asked about the £450 million disparity that the LGA found between costs and fees. I need to make the point that there will be differences between the efficiency and effectiveness of local authorities in delivering planning services. Some show that performance can be improved and costs reduced, and more should follow their lead. Authorities have done a phenomenal job in sharing services for many of their functions but have not moved quickly enough in doing so for planning services. I said that to the noble Baroness either earlier today or on Monday—the days have merged into one.

Amendment 116BA, as I said on a previous amendment, allows local authorities to go beyond cost recovery. We are absolutely clear that these services and other discretionary services should not exceed the cost of providing the service. I have been through the argument previously that what cost recovery means in practice, in terms of fee levels, varies from local authority to local authority. We want a highly efficient service, and there are real challenges up-front in doing this for some local authorities, but we want better-performing planning departments for better performance in terms of planning outcomes. I talked earlier about our proposals for tackling resource pressures in planning departments. I hope that noble Lords will not mind that I do not go through these again, and that with those words the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for speaking in this short debate. My noble friend Lady Andrews highlighted the cuts that have fallen on local authority planning departments in recent years. I was pleased that the Minister was able to give us some reassurance on the issues. I am sure we will be discussing again on Monday the fees that can be charged by a local planning authority and those that can be charged by a private provider. That will be very welcome news for local government.

I thought I had written my amendment in such a way that it would not allow people to charge more than the costs involved, so clearly I am no better than the noble Lord, Lord Porter, at writing these amendments. Maybe we need to get together and we will get one right at some point. I certainly do not see my amendment as doing what the Minister says it does, so I am a bit disappointed in her response. I know it is late but I am going to test the opinion of the House.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Wednesday 20th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 107ZZB in this group, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Andrews, would delete Clause 136 from the Bill. The clause is concerned with permission in principle and was debated at some length in Committee in your Lordships’ House. Permission in principle is a major change in how we approve developments. It has, of course, been suggested that the supply of new homes is being held back due to the planning process and the failure to get planning applications approved. That is complete nonsense which has been cited by one or two noble Lords in debate on this issue in recent times.

I tabled a Question to the Government on this issue and received a reply from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, on 4 April. In her reply the noble Baroness confirmed that there were planning permissions for 658,000 homes in England where work was either not started or not completed. That is a large number of approvals. As a local councillor I have approved some of those applications over the last two years. In the area where I live I regularly note sites for which I have been party to approving an application for housing but nothing has happened. All that has happened on one site is that, a few days after the committee gave permission for housing, a “for sale” board went up saying, “for sale with full permission for housing and two shops”. That is all that has happened since we gave permission well over a year ago.

That is not the local planning authority dragging its feet or attempting to stifle development; no, there are other factors at play here which this clause does nothing about. It is about the value of land and the price it is rising at. It can also be about the ability to raise finance to undertake a development. It is not about a planning authority dragging its feet. We very much support building new homes, although we may seek to do it in a different way. We want to see brownfield sites brought back into use for housing and other ancillary and alternatives uses, but we have concerns about what will be built, in terms of design, space, energy efficiency and affordability. We want to see a range of tenures and the building of viable, long-term communities.

Government Amendment 106A confers additional powers on the Secretary of State. I draw the attention of the House to the 28th report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—in particular, the section concerning Amendment 106A which starts at the bottom of page 1 and carries on to page 2. The report concludes:

“Inadequate and incomplete provisions of proposed primary legislation cannot be excused on the basis that consultation has not taken place or that the Government wish to retain ‘flexibility to set out differing timeframes as they apply in different contexts’. The policy should have been finalised following appropriate consultation before, not after, the Bill was introduced.

We therefore consider that the delegation of power in the proposed new Section 59A(8) inserted by amendment 106A is inappropriate, and that the duration of permission in principle should instead be specified on the face of the Bill. An alternative approach, although we think that this is a less satisfactory option, would be to specify the maximum duration on the face of the Bill, coupled with an affirmative procedure power to provide for a shorter period”.

That is damning criticism by the committee and the Government should take heed of it.

To help matters along, I make the following offer to the Government. If the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, will withdraw the amendment today with a view to reflecting on the concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and bringing an amendment back at Third Reading that takes those concerns on board, then in the same spirit we will not test the opinion of the House on our Amendment 107 in the next group, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham. Instead, we will wait to see whether we can get an amendment that addresses the concerns raised in the report. It is for the Minister to decide what to do and I hope the noble Baroness will take up this offer made in the spirit of wanting to get this right.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. Let me clarify that the Government do want to get this right. We do not want PIP to be a disincentive to building homes or create risk in the system. I take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, says about the comments of the DPRRC. I am very willing not to move Amendment 106A for the time being, and to use the next few days to perhaps bring something back at Third Reading.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Monday 18th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The Minister says “earners”, but, of course, these incomes refer to households—the earners earn much less than that.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right; it does represent households. But he asked how the figures were derived and that is how I understand they were derived.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, raised a number of questions about the affirmative regulations that we will bring forward. Introducing a taper will reduce the money coming in. I have just had a note saying that the regulations we will bring forward will provide more detail in due course. The noble Baroness also asked, what is the updated estimate of savings from the policy in light of the taper? Introducing a taper will reduce the money coming in by about half compared to what was set out in the Budget. That is what I can say at this stage.

Amendment 75, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Kerslake, seeks to allow a local authority discretion to implement the policy where the costs of administering the policy are likely to be greater than the extra rental income raised. It also seeks to allow local authorities to retain the additional revenue raised from increased rental income. I am sympathetic to one half of this amendment and I can give a commitment that we are thinking through the impact of the policy in certain authority areas. I accept that there may be some areas where social rents and market rents are so close that it may not make sense for an authority to operate the policy. We will consider that evidence carefully and consider how to approach this in the regulations. We will not be allowing local authorities to retain any money raised, however. The money has been identified as a contribution to reducing the national deficit and, on that basis, it must come back to government. I reinforce our commitment to allow local authorities to retain reasonable administrative costs.

Government amendment 133 provides for the regulations to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which I am sure will be supported. I do not think that I need to say much more about this. I have given a commitment that the Government are in listening mode and want to take on board the views of noble Lords across a number of areas of detail. The affirmative regulations give us the chance to do this and I welcome the opportunity.

I hope that I have provided some reassurance and highlighted areas where we are thinking carefully about the way forward. Although we cannot accept a voluntary approach, we will work with noble Lords to consider the impact in some local authority areas. On that basis, I commend the government amendment and hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Will the noble Baroness clarify one thing? I may be getting confused but I believe that the figures of £30,000 and £40,000 were the earnings figures that have now been applied to households. That seems a very odd and unfair government policy—taking an earnings figure and applying it across the board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the noble Lord raises a very relevant question. May I write to him?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Baroness for that response. However, it highlights the fact that we are still not clear about some issues, even now we are on Report. That has been one of the problems with the Bill from the start. That is not the noble Baroness’s fault, but we are still not clear about some things even on the third day on Report. That is the fault of the department and the way it has handled the whole process.

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I agree very much with my noble friend Lady Hollis that the Government appear to be obsessed with council tenants’ incomes. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, said, households with these income levels could in no way be described as high-earning. This proposal is just a tax on working council tenants on modest wages. That is very regrettable. I have heard nothing from the noble Baroness today or in Committee to convince me otherwise, although she has tried her best. I find this all very disappointing.

I still do not understand why the noble Baroness has on previous occasions—although she did not do so today—referred to a figure of £50,000 in London but seeks to impose this tax on working council tenants earning £40,000. I think the real reason, as we all know, is that the department has done its figures and realised that it needs to start levying this tax on earnings of £30,000 or £40,000 to get the maximum income. That is what this is all about; it is purely a tax.

I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Horam, said. It was a pleasure to serve with him on the Electoral Commission, on which we both served for many years. I would have hoped that, even if the noble Baroness did not listen to my contribution or those of other noble Lords, she would have listened to that of the noble Lord, Lord Horam. However, clearly she has not done so today. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Planning: Trees

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Thursday 14th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, councils expend an awful lot of time and effort in maintaining their highway trees, which I think is what the noble Lord was referring to, and it is important that they continue to do so, particularly where some of those trees that were planted perhaps 70 or 80 years ago have grown far too big for the environment in which they sit.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I think that we have all twigged why the noble Lord asked his Question: he is standing for election to the council in Sheffield next month. He is of course hoping that people will not see the wood for the trees and realise that he was leader of the council. Does the Minister agree with me that matters relating to that election should not be brought into the Chamber?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I have to say that I agree with the noble Lord. It is also worth noting that today is the first day of local election purdah.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, it is good that we all agree that we should build more homes and have more housing. We often fire at each other the records of previous Governments as regards what Governments are or are not doing, who built the most houses when, and what type of houses were built. I am sure that we will carry on doing that in future debates, but it is good that we all agree that we need to build more houses.

As I have told the House before, I grew up on a council estate in Southwark in south London. I have always been very grateful to the council that gave us a house that was clean, warm, safe and dry. Our family was very happy there and we kids were able to do our homework and not do too badly in the world—I hope. However, I have some concerns when we talk about affordable housing. I want to see more social housing built, such as council housing and housing association housing. I worry sometimes that we get into debates about affordable housing when homes at 80% of the market rate in some parts of London do not seem very affordable to me. That is a worry I have and I will come back to it. I also think that communities, whether in rural areas, small towns or villages or big cities, need homes for people on modest incomes, low incomes or high incomes to live side by side to make sure that our communities work. Whatever side of the House we are on, we should ensure that we work to do that.

Some of the government amendments in this group seek to replace the word “high” with “higher”. I am sure the noble Baroness knows that this concept initially caused alarm and that people wondered what was going on. It will be no great surprise to her to hear that some people were a bit suspicious about what the Government were up to and why they wanted to insert the word “higher”. So her clarification is very welcome and I thank her very much for it.

Her general comments were also very helpful and useful. As the noble Lord, Lord Porter, outlined, no one knows better than he and his colleagues in South Holland the needs of South Holland—as is the case with my noble friend Lord Beecham in Newcastle, and other noble Lords in relation to their areas. It is important that we ensure that local councils, councillors and council leaders are fully involved in whatever measures we bring forward as they are aware of the needs of their area. It will be helpful to do that at Third Reading. It would also be helpful if the noble Baroness would clarify again what she intends to bring back at Third Reading—but generally I very much welcome her comments.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for explaining why he tabled Amendment 61A. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, for tabling Amendment 56. While I always respect the views of former Ministers in my department, I will first address the concerns of noble Lords opposite as they are not seeking to remove a manifesto commitment from the Bill.

I turn first to Amendment 56. The changes proposed through this amendment would transfer the onus of defining “high” or “higher” value from the Government on to local authorities. This would lead to local authorities coming up with different methodologies, which would undermine fairness, consistency and transparency. Instead, by using the local authority data that we have collected to set the threshold, we can ensure that a consistent methodology is used to apply the definition across all local authorities. Rather than rushing to set a threshold for higher value, we need to ensure that we fully analyse the 16 million pieces of data that local authorities have provided, so that we set a definition that is fair and equitable. As I have said, the definition will be set out in regulations which will be subject to further parliamentary scrutiny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the amendments in this group are concerned with the payments to the Secretary of State and the deductions from those payments of sums of money to build replacement properties on a one-for-one basis. I am supportive of both the amendments in this group. As I said in Committee, the clauses concerning the high-value levy and the sale of high-value council properties are a very damaging mechanism to deliver government policy. They make local councils foot the bill and risk having a devastating effect on council housing stocks. Both these amendments seek to put in the Bill that the payments to government must be made after the deduction of the costs of replacement on a one-for-one basis.

Amendment 64A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, to which I and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, signed up, would add a further clause giving the local authority the ability to set out to government what specific types of local housing are needed in their area. Again, this seems to be within the principle of localism and should not really cause the Government any problems at all. I understand we will hear from the Minister that they understand the issue and are sympathetic to the points raised by the amendments. I am very pleased to hear that: it is very positive news and very welcome. I will not say much more than that, but I am delighted that the Minister and other colleagues have listened. Until we see the text of the amendment concerned, we of course reserve our position, and may bring our amendment back at Third Reading, but from what I have heard I am very pleased and I thank her very much.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I hope the noble Lord will understand that I do not have telepathy regarding what might happen in various spending reviews et cetera, but as far as I know such data collection exercises will continue. If that is not the case, I will let the House know.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, as this is the last amendment we will discuss today, I put on record my thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Williams of Trafford and Lady Evans of Bowes Park, for the courteous way in which they have responded to questions and comments from Members in all parts of the House. They have been helpful, informative and willing to listen. I know that other noble Lords appreciate that, too.

Having said that, I am disappointed that the Minister has not taken up my very good offer to enable the Government to arm themselves with more information to convince us all what a great policy they are putting forward here. I picked a period of three years because, as I said, barring any unknown factors the Government will still be in office then to deliver their review. I am disappointed that they do not want to take up that offer, and therefore want to test the opinion of the House.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Monday 14th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Before the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, stands up, that is on the list for the end of the week, definitely.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

I just wanted to thank the noble Baroness for both her announcements; they are very helpful. On the first one, she talked about noble Lords receiving various policy position papers. Would it be possible, when she does that, to sketch out when she thinks—we will not hold her to this, but just some idea of when—we will get the various regulations? That would be very helpful.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

We will endeavour to the best of our abilities, if we know when those dates will be, to bring them to noble Lords. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, I do not want to pre-empt any discussions that the group will have; I go into it with an open and clear mind. I am sure that we will glean information useful not just for the Bill but for housing policy generally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Can the noble Baroness tell the Committee how often these payments will be made? Will it be monthly, half-yearly or yearly? If an account overpaid an amount of money, when would that be put right? If a payment was due to be made in April and it was to be paid again the following April, the timing might be an issue.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I take the noble Lord’s point. A local authority may be disadvantaged for quite a period of time if the payments were not made very often. I shall take that point away and consider it.

Clause 75 seeks to amend Section 34(4A) and Section 43(4A) of the Housing Act 1985 to add to the list of matters to which the Secretary of State may have regard when considering whether to give consent to a local authority wishing to dispose of housing. These amendments will mean that if a disposal of housing by the local authority to another person or body could result in a reduced payment to the Secretary of State under Clause 67, the Secretary of State may choose to take this into account, among other factors, when deciding whether to give consent to the disposal. Making this change will ensure that there is important clarity on the issues that the Secretary of State may choose to take into account when organisations are considering such transfers and that he or she can consider if disposal of housing by the local authority to another person or body could result in a reduced payment.

Clause 76 is a technical amendment to Section 11 of the Local Government Act 2003, existing legislation which concerns the pooling of capital housing receipts. It replaces the existing power in Section 11(5) which enables the Secretary of State to set off payments owed to a local authority under that section against any payments the Secretary of State is liable to make to the local authority, with a more limited power which mirrors the provision in Clause 68 of this chapter. Like Clause 73, this aims to simplify accounting arrangements by reducing the total number of payments made between the Secretary of State and a local authority.

Clause 77 deals with the interpretation of certain terms used in this chapter, the great majority of which are self-explanatory. However, I would like to mention one term in particular. Housing “becomes vacant” for the purposes of this chapter,

“when a tenancy granted by the authority comes to an end and is not renewed expressly or by operation of law”.

We have discussed this previously. There may be some circumstances where a high-value home would become vacant under this definition but we would not want it to be counted in the vacancy rate set out in the determination. The power in subsection (2) will enable such exclusions to be made. Providing this power through regulations will provide flexibility to ensure that if circumstances change over time, or if a need for further exclusions is identified in the future, this can be addressed more quickly.

The department is engaging widely with local authorities and other stakeholders and no decisions have been made yet on the circumstances in which housing that becomes vacant may be excluded from the chapter under subsection (2).

Turning now to the specific amendments, Amendment 69A seeks to end the duty for local authorities to consider selling high-value housing as it becomes vacant three years after the Act is passed. Noble Lords have provided many considered lines of debate today but I do not believe the amendments would have the effect they envisage or be beneficial to local authorities or to people in need of new homes. While they would prevent the duty to consider selling from applying for six months following a vacancy arising and would end the duty after three years, the requirement for payments to the Secretary of State would not be changed. The Secretary of State would still be able to make determinations, which would be based on the sale of high-value housing that is expected to become vacant, but these amendments would mean that local authorities would no longer have to consider selling their vacant housing to make the payments.

This moves away from the intentions outlined in the Government’s manifesto. The legislation is framed to provide local authorities with some flexibility on what housing to sell and how to make payments to the Secretary of State. The duty is an important part of this to ensure the payments are focused on high-value housing, both in the calculation by government and the way they are met by local authorities. These amendments would move away from the aims of the policy. Six months is a very long time for a property to sit vacant before the duty to consider selling arises, particularly given the need for housing across the country. On this basis, I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing the amendment. When the question is asked, I hope noble Lords will withdraw their opposition and allow the clauses to stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for his information. As I have just said, I will bring forward as much as possible, but I have also undertaken to meet noble Lords to discuss matters for regulations as we go forward.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I think I have said what I can say on this matter. I recall legislation that has gone through this House with a sunset clause for a very specific purpose.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in today’s debate: the noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Campbell-Savours, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, and my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham. I was not particularly convinced by the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and was struck by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, on the wide powers that this part of the Bill grants to the Secretary of State. I am obviously disappointed that the Government have not taken up my offer of a sunset clause. I thank the noble Baroness for undertaking to take away the issue I raised about when payments would be made.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I now have an answer for the noble Lord: it is quarterly.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Baroness. That is interesting and I will reflect on it.

As I said, I will reflect on the points that have been made in the debate. We may bring this issue back—or some variation of it—on Report after Easter. With that, I beg to withdraw my opposition to Clause 73 standing part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, landlords collect the information and they send it to HMRC. It is not a question of HMRC collecting any new information; HMRC will not be doing that. Perhaps we should park the HMRC issue because we will come on to it in a later group.

I turn to Amendment 70D tabled by among others the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Beecham. This would give local authorities a choice about how to set rents for high income social tenants. Taken together with previous amendments that seek to make the policy voluntary, this would mean that a number of different approaches would be taken up and down the country. As I have said, that is not our preferred route as we want a consistent approach for all local authority tenants. This is best achieved by the introduction of a taper, which I hope I have covered thoroughly already. Regulations under this clause will be used to confirm the taper.

Housing associations will be free to decide on the most appropriate level of rent, although we hope that the majority will copy the approach of the taper that will apply to local authority tenants. The housing associations we have spoken to have suggested that this will be the most likely scenario.

Amendment 70E would enable local authorities to decide how rents should be set, presumably after they had taken the decision on whether to adopt a policy. I refer the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, back to the previous discussions and the commitments I have given on rents by way of a taper. This will apply to all local authority tenants and will link rent rises to increases in household income.

Amendment 75C, tabled by among others the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Kennedy, would change the status of the guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Local authorities will be very clear that if they are to be required to operate the policy, they need guidance about the steps they should take. The purpose of guidance will not be to prescribe exactly the processes and technical support needed to operate the policy within an authority but it may set out, for example, how income has been defined under the policy and the types of evidence that may be acceptable to help to verify declarations made by tenants. I am sure that noble Lords will be interested in any guidance that we intend to issue, and I will certainly share it when it becomes available.

Amendment 79C is concerned with the approach for non-declaration of rents by social households. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for the amendment and I will turn to the reasons for the power in a separate part of the debate. This amendment seeks to make the power voluntary for local authorities, but we believe that where action is needed for tenants who do not declare, the approach should apply consistently across the country. We are considering how this power could also be used by housing associations in discussion with them, and I am clear that there should be a fair and consistent use of the approach for non-declaration.

Finally, Amendment 81, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, would mean that payments made to the Government under the policy could not be based on an estimate of the rental income increase or on a formula approach based on a set of assumptions. We have not taken a decision on the approach as further engagement with local authorities is necessary. I think that also answers the point put by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. However, there needs to be flexibility in the power to ensure that the most appropriate approach can be taken. I will carefully consider both the benefits and the drawbacks to an approach based on actual receipts and one based on estimates. Engagement with local authorities will continue over the next month, and the issue of how to return money will be at the top of the agenda. We will listen carefully to the arguments before making a decision.

As I have said, I recognise why there is a desire for local authorities to operate this policy voluntarily, but I hope I have done enough to persuade noble Lords why that would not be the best way forward. The Government have a clearly stated policy that high income social tenants should pay a fairer level of rent. On that basis, it is only fair that it should apply consistently across local authority tenants. I have outlined why we cannot do the same for housing associations, but that we are working closely with them to ensure they take up the policy. Alongside this, I have provided confirmation of our commitment to a taper that will meet a reasonable level of the costs of operating the scheme for local authorities. On that basis, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I think I heard the noble Baroness correctly, but I might be wrong, when she said earlier that council tenants receive a taxpayer-funded subsidy. If that is the case, will she say a bit more about it?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I talked about council tenants on higher incomes benefiting from a taxpayer subsidy when many people in the private rented sector who are on lower incomes would not be able to avail themselves of such a subsidy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this group of amendments largely looks at conditions of exemption to the pay-to-stay provisions proposed by the Government. All the amendments in the group bear the names of either myself or my noble friend Lord Beecham, with the exception of Amendment 82A put down by the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Young of Cookham. Their amendment identifies an omission and seeks to correct it. It is welcome but, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, the Government seemed to confirm that it is not necessary.

Amendment 70 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Lister. It seeks to put in the Bill a number of exemptions to which any regulation made by the Secretary of State under Clause 78 would not apply. My noble friend Lady Lister moved the amendment, which is at this stage only a probing one that seeks to highlight a number of problems with the across-the-board application of these regulations, making people pay to stay in their council property.

The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, may shortly tell your Lordships’ House that none of these exemptions are necessary. Maybe when we hear the Government’s response, we on these Benches will come to the conclusion that some of them are not. However, senior citizens who have worked all their lives, people with registered disabilities, or households with people in receipt of care or where a member of the household is a carer for another person living there are such exemptions: the Government should seek to protect such people from this unfair policy that will make life difficult for people on quite modest incomes.

Could the noble Baroness respond to the comments made by my noble friend, apparently attributed to Marcus Jones MP in the Bill Committee in the other place? That would be very helpful. If not, could she write to us about that? It would also be helpful if she provided more information about the work the department is doing in this respect.

I recently saw a job advertisement, I think in the Evening Standard, from a London borough recruiting parking enforcement officers. The pay was about £21,000 or £22,000 a year. I thought, “Two parking enforcement officers living in the same property in London would be deemed high-income social tenants”. That is ridiculous. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, who said that this policy evolved under the coalition and today, under the Conservative Government, has been pitched at a much lower level to catch a lot more people, many of whom can in no way be regarded as high-income earners. Couples earning more than £30,000 outside London are not high-income earners in any respect. If would be helpful if the noble Baroness explained how this policy has evolved since last year’s election.

Amendment 70B in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Kerslake and Lord Low of Dalston, and my noble friend Lord Beecham, seeks to make these regulations effective only for new tenancies granted after April next year, again as a mechanism not to penalise those presently holding a tenancy.

Amendment 70C seeks to afford some protection for a tenant following a mutual exchange or transfer. I signed up to it, along with the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Low of Dalston. It raises a particular issue regarding mutual transfers and could even encourage people to undertake such a transfer, perhaps releasing a larger property to a family. It may not be quite right but I hope the noble Baroness can see the problems that will be created and the issues that regulations will have to tackle to avoid some real injustices coming out of this ill-thought-out policy.

Amendment 74, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham, seeks to provide some protection for affected tenants by building in a process of external valuation of high-income rents. Even with the much talked about taper the Government have said they will introduce, some external valuation of the rent must be of benefit to tenants and would help to bring some element of fairness to this most unpopular policy.

Amendment 75, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham, seeks to bring in the higher rents over a period of time: first, a notice period of one year before the new rents become payable; then some transitional protection as the tenant moves to the higher rent. This, in effect, is the taper the Government talked about and on which we will need to see much more information.

Amendment 75B seeks to pilot these proposals, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, referred to them, in a number of areas before rolling them out across all local authorities. Of course, this was used in respect of the new requirements in the Immigration Bill for landlords to check tenants’ documents to satisfy them that they are able lawfully to rent a property. I know the noble Lord, Lord Best, was involved in the evaluation process in that respect. He spoke about how well the pilots had gone. It would be beneficial for the Government to adopt a similar pilot approach here.

Amendment 76 is similar in its intention to Amendment 70B. This is an interesting group of amendments, raising real, practical difficulties. As with previous groups, I may have some further questions for the noble Baroness as she responds to the debate.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will repeat my statement. Rent setting is usually done around three months before a new rent year. Providing for a notice period of a year before the new rent comes in would mean that the rental amount would not be consistent with changes in household income over the notice period. However, I will return to rent reviews shortly.

Amendment 75B, tabled by the noble Lords, Lords Kerslake, Lord Beecham and Lord Stoneham, seeks to pilot the policy before full implementation. I recognise that pilots have some benefits in certain circumstances, but it would not be workable here as it would be unfair on tenants in those areas. The policy must apply nationally from April 2017. Although we will not be piloting the policy, I recognise that we need a strong approach to implementation. Local authorities have told us that they need time to put in place the arrangements for implementing the policy. That is a fair request. My department is pushing forward with engagement, and the next few months will be critical. We intend to issue guidance to ensure that authorities are ready to operate the policy, engage with tenants, and set correct rents from April 2017.

I will also take this opportunity to update the Committee on engagement with tenants. We need to make sure that they have the best source of information and advice. Our engagement strategy includes a plan to talk to tenant representative groups and Citizens Advice. For example, it will be important for them fully to understand the commitment I have given to bring forward a taper to ensure that rent rises are affordable.

Finally, Amendment 82A seeks an exemption for rent-to-buy schemes. I can confirm to the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Young, who tabled the amendment, as well as to the rest of the Committee, that the policy will not apply to tenants in a rent-to-buy or shared ownership property. I have already reinforced the point that the home ownership offer to tenants, particularly those on higher incomes, is very important. I would rather see those households taking up the offer of home ownership than facing higher rents under the policy for high income social tenants. I hope noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Many of the amendments in this group are probing ones and these matters would be better left to regulations. However, we come back to the problem: we have not got any regulations so scrutiny is extremely difficult. That leaves us having to put down amendments on these issues to try to drag out the Government’s thinking. At the end of the day, the amendments are on the Order Paper today only because the Government have sought to push the Bill through at such a pace and not wait for the regulations to be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Perhaps I might make one final comment—it will be my last on this group. Will the Minister agree to reflect on some of the comments made in this debate and the previous debate, particularly the comments of my noble friend Lady Hollis? In the previous debate we were talking about income levels and rent levels changing almost weekly or monthly, but here the Government want a consistent level. For me, the two debates highlight some inconsistency and we need to look at that. Again, we do not want to get ourselves into difficulties in the future.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not know. I will get that figure to the noble Lord.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The Minister just referred to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam; does that not come in a much later group?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I did wonder, given that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was not in his place. I will just refer to the Marshalled List. The noble Lord is absolutely right, so if noble Lords could just ignore what I have said on Amendment 82AA.

I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, that is in the detail.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I am sure the Minister has picked up from the debates on this group and the previous couple of groups that, the more we drill into this, the more and more complicated it is getting. She and her ministerial colleagues have some job to get this right. I am sure it will get worse. It is very difficult to get this right and, in some ways, I wish her all the best.

On another point, I think I heard the Minister give the number of people on incomes of more than £50,000. If she is using that figure in her arguments, why are we setting the rates for higher rents to start at £30,000 and £40,000?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I was simply making the point that there are a high number of households with incomes of more than £50,000.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I get that point, but it is a bit odd that the Bill before us refers to incomes of £30,000 and £40,000, but in her argument the Minister uses an income of £50,000.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Monday 14th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I think there is a typo. We are on the wrong clause.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Can I check if I am yet again speaking to amendments that we have not got to? Amendment 82GAE is in this group. Would noble Lords like to discuss it or withdraw it?

[Lord Shipley]

Will the Minister be really clear about guidelines? This is about regulations and guidelines. I am now looking at the policy fact sheet, which the department published. It makes it clear that there is going to be a single set of regulations for these measures, that is, the phasing out of lifetime tenancies. However, the regulations will be subject to the affirmative not the negative procedure. Could the Minister confirm that fact? It then says that the regulations will be developed in discussion with local authorities and the regulations and provisions in the Bill will come into force early next year. That, therefore, is early 2017. It is therefore easy to share the guidelines that will be written because there is from now approximately 10 months for those guidelines to be shared.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

This has never been in previous lists. We just noticed it now. When the Minister stared speaking we thought, “What’s this?”, because we had two amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, which clearly go together, but I now see from the amendment sheet that it has been put in the list.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It clearly is a mistake and I really apologise if my noble friend has waited all this time.

[Lord True]

I was trying to say to my noble friend that I had come into the Chamber. I do not particularly wish to intervene, but we have patiently gone through six days in Committee and we have had many opportunities to look at groupings. I think it is a courtesy to the House if noble Lords who have a problem with the groupings—which are published, they are out there, and we pick them all up—make it clear before that they are not happy with the groupings. Otherwise, I think the House is entitled to expect things that are grouped together will be discussed together.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

If it helps the Minister, I have a Whips sheet from Thursday and the grouping of that amendment is not on there. It is a typo. Thursday’s sheet has the two amendments down in the name of my noble friend Lord Bassam but this paper has been worked on and has appeared today. I do not produce the Government’s Whips sheet for debates but Thursday’s sheet, which we signed up to, has my noble friend’s two amendments and nothing else.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Would noble Lords like to hear it tonight or on Thursday? I am not going to waste any more time on this; I will finish my comments where I should have finished them and say to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that when I have guidance, I will be happy to share it with him.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Thursday 10th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I endorse the comments of my noble friend Lady Hollis and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about the inadequate position we find ourselves in. I know that the Minister is frustrated as well but it would be useful if she could tell the House what discussions are going on in the department. This is absolutely ridiculous now. I am no expert in procedure but this is definitely a Bill that should be paused. It is ridiculous. To be told that we will get stuff months and months in the future is just not good enough.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and hope I might be able to perhaps provide some comfort to noble Lords. The secondary legislation will be subject, obviously, to parliamentary scrutiny. We want to set it out as soon as possible but we also want to ensure that it is correct and informed by accurate data. I cannot provide exact timescales for secondary legislation at this stage but I will do my best to provide further information on this on Report. I know that that is not perfect, but I hope noble Lords will accept what I say at this point. I will do my best.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I will certainly undertake to engage with the different sectors because they are at the heart of where potential abuse lies. I am very happy to meet with noble Lords in that context because the Government certainly want to guard against abuse in this way. I thank the noble Baroness for making that suggestion because it makes everybody’s life easier if there is confidence in the policy. She might not like the policy, as she says, but if there is confidence in the policy working better, then I will do that and I will invite her to it. My noble friend Lord Lansley is not in his place, but he talked about wanting to work with the Government about agreements. We have been engaging with local authorities, including South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge City Council, and we will as we continue to go forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, made a very good point about preventing properties being sold to foreign buyers. It is absolutely right that we should avoid residential properties being bought up and sitting empty as an investment, as they sometimes do in London. Some of them are empty but, whether or not they are, the point is that we want housing for people on low incomes here to be able to avail themselves of.

I mentioned the point about stamp duty the other day and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, immediately picked it apart. In April 2017 we will be introducing capital gains tax for owners based overseas. We have also halved the time that a property can sit empty before capital gains tax is due. I thank noble Lords for their very constructive comments, and ask the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before the Minister sits down, I think I heard her say that the money collected from councils would be used only for housing—I think she said that with regard to the levy. I looked at Clause 73, which says that where there is an overpayment it is kept by the Government and will be used to offset for future years. It also talks about Section 11 of the Local Government Act 2003, which talks about capital receipts being used to meet capital expenditure but also “debts or other liabilities”. We are going to come to this later anyway, but I think that what she said and what this technically does might be quite different.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will look at it again. I am assuming that the debts and liabilities are housing loans.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Thursday 10th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

How is this an efficient use of assets? It seems to me a most cumbersome, inefficient tax and raid on council housing.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think the noble Lord and I will disagree on this but it is incumbent on owners, whether private owners, the Government or local authorities, to make the best use of their assets, whether that means selling expensive ones or not. I accept that we will have to agree to disagree on this but that is our view.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, talked about the right to buy not delivering one-for-one replacements and questioned how the policy would do so. In the first year following reinvigoration, 354,000 additional homes were sold, and by the end of the second quarter of 2015-16 there were 4,117 new starts and acquisitions. That means that, to date, authorities are delivering a new home for every one sold.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for voicing Lib Dem support and enthusiasm for right to buy—the first party to do so. I thank all noble Lords for their amendments and for taking part in the debate. I fully understand their desire to ensure that affordable housing is not lost from an area through the sale of properties under the voluntary right to buy, and the particular concerns relating to rural areas.

Amendment 57, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, will limit how housing associations are able to use the proceeds from sales under the voluntary right to buy by requiring the replacement to be of the same tenure and in the same area as the property sold. I thank noble Lords for their comments on this matter. However, we think it is important that housing associations should have flexibility and not be restricted in replacing like for like when this may not be the best solution for the area. One for one has never been on a like-for-like basis. We have always given that flexibility. By seeking to constrain housing associations’ discretion from Whitehall, we are limiting their ability to manage their assets to deliver their business and charitable objectives. We believe that these decisions are best taken by housing associations in the light of local conditions and need. My noble friend Lord Horam mentioned Westminster, which is very cognisant of its key workers, and the interventions it is making in conjunction with its local housing associations. This is the type of freedom we wish to see.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said that the replacement homes will not be affordable. Not everyone can live in exactly the location they wish to regardless of cost, be they social housing tenants, private renters or home owners. The best way to make homes affordable is to build more. I do not think any noble Lords disagree on that point. Our reforms will ensure that social housing is prioritised for those who need it most. Obviously, tonight we are talking about one-for-one replacement but there are all sorts of tenures of housing—for rent, for purchase, for low-cost rent—and housing associations will take all those issues into account when determining what types of houses to build.

Noble Lords asked whether we had achieved one for one, and made the point about two for one in London. In 2013 there were 3,054 sales under right to buy and by 2015 there were 4,017 starts, so I think noble Lords can agree that that was on an approximately one-for-one basis in terms of sales and new constructions. In London in 2012-13 there were 632 sales and in quarter 2 of 2015-16 there were 1,240 starts. I appreciate that noble Lords will immediately pick up the three-year time difference but under that agreement there were three years in which to replace the houses sold. In the rest of the country that figure has been achieved and in London it has been exceeded.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said that the flexibility around the tenure of the replacement units will erode the housing stock. Housing associations should be free to replace the properties sold with alternative tenures—they have done and they will do, I am sure—where this may be appropriate for the community they serve. This can include shared ownership, which we talked about in previous debates. Obviously, a much lower deposit is required for a shared-ownership property.

The question was asked: what does the deal mean for London and social housing in the capital? The largest London housing associations have all signed up to the agreement. As with the rest of the country, receipts from the sales will be reinvested in the delivery of new homes. I will say again that these are additional homes and, as noble Lords have said, the homes sold remain homes for the people who have bought them.

I now turn to Amendment 60. I fully understand the desire of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Pinnock, to ensure that the replacements promised under the terms of the voluntary agreement are realised. This amendment would also require the replacement property to be in the same area and of the same tenure as the property sold. The agreement reached with the housing association sector is that, nationally, for every house sold a new one will be built—I am happy to confirm that again—which will increase the overall number of much-needed houses in this country. However, the type of home and where it should be are decisions that are best taken by those housing associations, many of which will be local and will want to replace those homes locally.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Does the noble Baroness think it is regrettable that if this carries on, we will lose social housing in the centre of London? The risk is that it will go to the outer London boroughs, and here in the centre of London there will be less social housing for rent.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we have been through the various types of social housing products that are available for housing associations to bring forward. Obviously, shared ownership schemes may be very attractive for them to build. The figures that I gave noble Lords about starts and replacements in London demonstrate that over the last three years, the delivery has been two for one. I would imagine that local housing associations, including those in London, will want to provide a mix of tenure. I do not deny the point the noble Lord is making about London being so expensive.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The noble Baroness mentioned the figures for starts. Does she have the figures for where those starts are in London? They may not be available now, but it would be very helpful if she could provide them.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not know by borough where those starts are but will, if I can, provide the noble Lord with the figures. It would be interesting to see exactly where they are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Baroness for that statistic. One of the points that we made back in the group of amendments on rogue landlords was that the vast majority of landlords are decent landlords.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. It highlighted the problems we have with this part of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Horam, said that we are not like Paris or New York where people have been priced out of parts of those cities. They are unable to live there because they cannot afford to be there. I agree that we are not there, and I would never want us to get to that situation. London is one of the greatest cities in the world, and it works because you have rich and poor people living on the same street, living side by side and getting on very well together. That is how London works. It may not be the Government’s intention, but the Bill could create a situation where people are driven out of whole parts of London, which would be bad. We cannot have everybody doing key-worker jobs or in modest or lower-paid jobs all living in outer London boroughs. That would not be right. It worries me that we will get to that situation with the policy we are pursuing today.

We will come back to this on Report. I look forward to the information on housing starts that the Minister said she will send us. It will be very interesting to know where those starts are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I did promise the noble Lord information on starter homes. I will be bringing it forward in due course, but I have not got it ready for today. I have not forgotten my commitment to him.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, for both his endeavours and his amendment, which proposes an equity loan scheme for housing association tenants in place of the voluntary right-to-buy discount. I understand that part of the reason for introducing this amendment was to reopen the debate about the funding of the right-to-buy discount.

An equity loan, by its nature, is not a discount and has to be repaid by the tenant. This is a very different offer—more akin to the Help to Buy scheme than to an extension of the right-to-buy scheme. This will inevitably make home ownership less attractive to the very tenants we are trying to reach: those on lower wages who are being priced out of home ownership because of high house prices.

We had a clear manifesto commitment to extend the right to buy to housing association tenants, and the voluntary agreement with the sector will give 1.3 million families the chance to purchase a home at right-to-buy level discounts. Our extension of the right to buy is about offering housing association tenants the same opportunity as council tenants. Providing equity loans to tenants, as proposed under this amendment, would not provide the same offer to them. We have been clear that housing associations will be fully compensated for the right-to-buy discounts offered to tenants and that this would be funded through the sale of vacant local authority high-value assets. They will be fully compensated. There are billions of pounds locked up in local authority housing assets. It is only right that when they become vacant they are sold, enabling the receipts to be reinvested in building new homes and supporting home ownership through the right to buy.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Why is it only right that they are sold? They should be used for other families who need social housing.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Can the noble Lord—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

In your remarks, you said that it is only right that these houses are sold to provide receipts. Why are they not just used for other families who need a large council house?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, part of the receipt is reinvested.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I grew up in a large council house in Southwark and my family benefited very much from that. Denying other, larger families that is just wrong.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as I said, we are coming to the detailed mechanism of high-value assets soon and that is certainly one thing we will be discussing. It is very important that noble Lords make these points at this stage in the Bill, because they will form part of the Government’s consideration. I am not, in any way, dismissing the points made. We will need houses and dwellings of different sizes, but the mechanism of how that will work will be set out in due course.

This is probably not the best hour or the best group of amendments in which to start discussing this, but I should like to address the points of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, about the value for money assessment. We are clear that we have done the right level of analysis to support the decision-making at each stage and to ensure that proposals would offer good value for money. We have done an economic analysis for the right-to-buy extension, taking into account the fact that that would be funded from the receipt of vacant high-value asset council sales, which shows that there would be a clear economic benefit. We have also undertaken an analysis for the voluntary right-to-buy pilot.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, looking at the time, I intend to be very brief in moving my amendment, your Lordships will be pleased to know. Amendments 59A and 82B in this group are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham. Amendment 59A seeks to add a duty on the Regulator of Social Housing so that, when monitoring compliance,

“the Regulator must make a report where a community-led housing provider … has used grants made by the Secretary of State to facilitate or meet a right to buy discount”.

Amendment 82B would put in the schedule exactly what is meant by community-led housing scheme, for the avoidance of doubt.

Noble Lords all around the Chamber have expressed support today for co-operative and community-led housing, but without my Amendment 59A we would have very little information about what is happening in this part of the social housing sector as a result of the policies being implemented in this part of the Bill. The group also includes a clause stand part debate. With that, I beg to move.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I will be equally brief. Amendment 59A, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, would require the Regulator of Social Housing to monitor and report where a community-led housing provider or TMO had used grants made by the Secretary of State in respect of a right-to-buy discount.

Let me be clear again that TMOs are not part of the right-to-buy arrangements. Under the voluntary right to buy, the landlord/tenant relationship is with the property-owning landlord as a registered provider, and the tenant would exercise their right to buy against that landlord. The amendment does not make sense in that landscape. If the concern is about different tenures—social tenants and owner-occupiers—being part of a TMO, there is no reason to believe that tenants and owners could not come together in this way.

I appreciate that the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Kennedy, want to protect TMOs and other community-led organisations that are not landlords so that they continue to help tenants to play an active role. The voluntary right-to-buy agreement contains protections that allow housing associations discretion not to sell properties that are important to their communities and clients.

The purpose of Amendment 82B is to create a definition of community-led housing, but there is no need to, as it is a colloquial umbrella term to cover a range of different and distinct structures and organisations, such as fully mutual co-operatives, community land trusts and tenant management organisations. The Government very much support community-led housing, and these bodies have distinct and specific legal definitions. Fully mutual housing associations are defined in Section 5 of the Housing Act 1985. Community land trusts are defined in statute in Section 79 of the Housing and Regeneration Act. TMOs are defined through the Housing (Right to Manage) (England) Regulations 2012, Part 1 Section 3.

Additionally, the organisations are different in nature. Fully mutual housing co-ops will generally own their homes, community land trusts may or may not, and TMOs will generally act as a managing agent for housing owned by a local authority. Imposing an additional overarching definition would be unnecessary. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, yes.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the Minister. That is very helpful. We put the amendments down because there is concern in the housing sector about what is happening in this clause, so her comments are very useful and welcome. I am very happy to withdraw my amendment but again place on record my thanks to the Minister for the way she handled the debates today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Homelessness: Rough Sleeping

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Monday 7th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not have any information about how many rough sleepers are over 60 or under 30 but if such information exists, I will get it to my noble friends. Statistics have been put out in the press showing that one in five rough sleepers is a migrant. I will look at government figures to see whether that can be confirmed.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords—

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I can, my Lords. We can all argue about statistics and, given that I have not seen the report, it is very difficult to make a comparison of the different figures. However, I will do so.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

In her earlier remarks, the Minister said that authorities could negotiate a higher discount on the property with developers. If they can do that, why can they not negotiate a lower discount as well?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Because the whole point of the starter home is that it will be available at a discounted level to those under the age of 40. I will give the noble Lord the workings out of why that was arrived at. I am guessing that it was derived for a similar reason to that for the affordable homes discount, which has now been going for many years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

That is very helpful, thank you. We used to hear from the Benches opposite about how local authorities knew best but it has all gone very quiet now. I am thinking of the Localism Act, which was never mentioned again from the Benches opposite.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not think that anything changes there. Nobody would promote any louder than I the view that local areas know best but local areas also know that government has certain expectations of them, and it has ever been thus.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, asked me for a breakdown of demand. I elected earlier on to provide that in due course and I will write to him. I do not have it at my fingertips at this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, this is all relative. When house prices come down, the next house up on the ladder will also be cheaper. Under the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Best, after five years the couple in question would benefit from a quarter of the discount. I accept that after 20 years they would benefit from the whole discount. I know there is not agreement in the Committee about this, but we want people who work hard and want to move up the housing ladder to be able to do so.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

We all want people who work hard to move up the housing ladder, but the problem here is that this is such a small group of people.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Can the Minister explain something? I think most of us would sympathise with trying to find the best way to help people into owner-occupation, particularly given the pressure of house prices. We could argue whether it should be equity loans, starter home discounts of 20% or anything else, but why this sudden fixation with mobility for people who are no longer first-time buyers but second-time buyers and maybe, subsequently, third-time buyers to be free of any discount so that they can enter the market without having had to save, as my noble friend said, in the way that everybody else has? Why do the Government consider it to be part of their responsibility to help people become second-time buyers?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, housing is an issue for government and there is a huge demand on housing in this country. This scheme is not to the exclusion of other products—I must stress that it is not as though we have switched off the tap to all other products. Sitting on these Benches, one might think that there were no other products on the market, but there are. This is one way of helping that demographic for whom home ownership has been so out of reach.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I asked a Question this week about people on the living wage for whom homes are out of reach—people who are trapped in the private rented sector. This is not helping those people.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I did not disagree with the noble Lord. I pointed out the various things that were available, such as shared ownership and affordable rented properties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My noble friend indeed makes a valid point. If people went on to do that, it would be fraudulent activity, so I presume that there would be appropriate penalties. People need to know that, if they behaved like that, they would get caught and pay a heavy price.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not disagree. We would not want to introduce a system that was fraught with potential fraud.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Yes, I understand my noble friend’s point. Under our proposals in the NPPF national planning policy consultation, small-scale development in the green belt for starter homes could take place, but only where it is endorsed by the local community. I take my noble friend’s point, certainly in light of recent flooding, about the need to have this very finely balanced and for green belt not to be used as a sloppy method for builders to be able to build willy-nilly.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

On that point, the idea for this policy was originally to build on brownfield sites and get them back into use, but the policy has now been widened. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, people will opt for the easier options. I am worried that we will end up with a situation where we will still have the old brownfield sites, because no one wants to build on them, and other options, in our towns and elsewhere, will become more attractive for people to build on.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am in total agreement with the noble Lord and with my noble friend. One thing we are testing is whether there should be more flexibility on developing brownfield that is in the green belt—that exists, of course, but it is 0.1% of all green belt. It has been suggested that there should be a bit more flexibility on that, but not on the green belt itself. The noble Lord and my noble friend are absolutely right that these will become go-to sites for developers unless we are very careful.

Amendment 42 seeks to prevent housing regeneration schemes from incorporating starter homes. In January the Prime Minister announced an ambitious new programme to regenerate public sector estates, to tackle deprivation and build more homes. As I announced at this Dispatch Box a couple of weeks ago, £140 million of loan support funding has been made available to support regeneration and encourage investment from the private sector. My noble friend Lord Heseltine has appointed his estates regeneration advisory panel and its first meeting was held in February. Clause 2 is very clear on the definition of a starter home, which we need to ensure our reforms are widely understood. Clause 4 sets out the requirement for the provision of starter homes for residential development. My department will be bringing forward a technical consultation on the requirement so that we get it right.

The consultation will recognise that there are some developments where the inclusion of starter homes could help to secure a diversity of tenures and support mixed communities, but that compulsory inclusion could alter the viability, as my noble friend Lord True pointed out. But as my noble friend Lord Horam said, we should not exclude it at the outset—I think that that is absolutely right. I reassure noble Lords that our consultation will invite views on whether these schemes should be subject to the minimum starter homes requirement. As my noble friend Lord Horam absolutely rightly pointed out, engagement with tenants is crucial.

My noble friend Lord Heseltine was very keen to make sure that this is a truly genuine engagement with tenants, as well as other people involved in the scheme. So we need to wait for the outcome of the consultation to enable us to take into account the views and expertise of the sector. We need to work with those who will make this work on the ground to ensure that we get it right. Setting the requirement through regulations will help us to keep this operation under review and give more flexibility in the future.

Given my comments, I hope that the noble Lord will feel content to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not know but, as I said either earlier today or on Tuesday—the days are rolling together—I expect that the size of the sites will be roughly what we see now in terms of affordable housing. However, that is my guess rather than something that I have been informed about.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Baroness for giving way—she has been very kind in that respect. Part of the problem is that you may agree a certain size for a site but then a rumour goes round that that is not the case. Although it may not be the intention, people will fear that these sites will be lost, in which case they will not bring the land forward for use.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Perhaps I may make another point about covenants, which many philanthropic landlords attach to their sites. We appreciate their benefits. Sometimes sites are donated to the local community and, if the donor wants to put a covenant on the land prohibiting its use for starter homes, that is within their gift. Although, again, we stress the benefits of starter homes in communities that are looking to create homes, we also appreciate the other factors that are in play.

We want to see policies working together. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham highlighted how well-intentioned policies working together can in fact conflict with each other. We know that we need growth in rural areas to allow young people to stay in the communities in which they grew up. However, we also want neighbourhood planning to play a role in identifying the sites on which starter homes should be built so that there is collaboration between the landowners, the developers and the communities that they serve. That is an important point. One of the benefits of neighbourhood planning has been its collaborative nature, and that must be a factor in the doubling of acceptability of housebuilding that we have seen. Local people feel far more in control in terms of what is put in their community than perhaps they did 10 or 20 years ago. That is not a political point; it is something that we have all learned over the years.

However, we do not agree that starter homes on rural exception sites should be in perpetuity rather than having the five-year restriction that we are proposing. We believe that there should be a consistent model for first-time buyers. Why should rural workers not have the same opportunities as workers in towns and cities? They, too, need to move and grow.

We are currently considering all representations and will issue our formal response to the planning consultation in due course. Any changes to national planning policy will be a material consideration which a local planning authority must take into account when making planning decisions and developing planning policy. If changes are made, starter homes will be an additional, not a replacement, type of affordable housing which can be delivered on these sites following consultation with the local community.

Amendment 50C would allow local councils to ensure that the requirement for starter homes did not have to be met on rural exception sites. We will consult separately on the starter homes requirement for suitable, reasonably-sized sites for the regulations. We will also test in the consultation any exemptions from the requirement. Again, it is right that we discuss this with the housing industry and ensure that we achieve the best outcome.

I want to be clear that the consultation will include a minimum site size for the starter homes requirement. Any sites, urban or rural, below the size threshold will not, as I have said, be subject to the starter homes requirement. Starter homes can be delivered on sites below the threshold but this will not be a compulsory requirement; it will be a matter for local determination.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not. What I have said is that I strongly expect—although I do not know—that it would be very much in line with what was expected through the affordable housing duty. However, that is just a guess from me at this point.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The Minister said that people living in rural communities should have the right to benefit from the starter homes policy. I am absolutely fine with that, but the whole issue is about how much people earn and whether they would be able to afford these starter homes. My noble friend Lady Hollis has mentioned a number of times that these homes may be unaffordable. During the debate a couple of days ago my noble friend talked about an area in Norfolk where building two or three bungalows in the village would free up some of the family homes in order to get people to go there. It is regrettable that that is going to be the case here. If we stick with this policy, we are not looking at the wider implication that, actually, it is unaffordable for most people in rural areas.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not agree with much of what the noble Lord said. Obviously, the mix of tenures is essential, whether it is starter home level, shared ownership, affordable rents or social rents, and a number of funding streams are available for the different types of tenure. I think that the noble Lord and I may be saying the same thing but in a different way. I hope that the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, six terraced houses would be quite a small site size. It is important for noble Lords to know in due course what the site sizes will mean, and I will let the noble Lord know. I am guessing at this point, but six sounds like a very small site size, and therefore probably exempt.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Just one final point. I was pleased to hear that we may be agreeing after all; I am not sure that we are, but that would be great. The point about rural areas is not just what happens in 10 years—the important issue is the people who are living there.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think I addressed quite a lot of my remarks to the local test.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, that is a very good question. Can I come back to the noble Lord on that?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in the debate this evening. My amendment was only a probing amendment, although I fully accept that it is not the best that I have ever proposed from this Bench or elsewhere in the House. It is important that we had a debate on infrastructure, and we will discuss that further in the days ahead. It is very likely that it will come back to us on Report.

I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, on her concerns about developers having these proposals. I am also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his support, as well as my noble friends Lady Hollis of Heigham and Lady Young. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I will be as brief as I can. This amendment is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham. No one can deny that the sections of the Bill on starter homes are not without their critics. They include an interesting policy idea for building homes on brownfield sites that had not previously been considered for housing, having transformed overnight into the main housing policy for the Government to the exclusion of all others. This has been done without a Green Paper, without a White Paper, without any pre-legislative scrutiny or proper consultation and without any testing to see if this is the right way forward to deliver the homes that we all agree need to be built. I hope that noble Lords, whatever their view, can all agree that it is a bit risky and not the way to roll out a new policy. The saying “Act in haste, repent at leisure” could not refer to a more suitable policy.

On top of that, we must not forget that we have not seen a regulation yet, and we are not going to see the regulations perhaps until the autumn—which, when we consider the implications of this Bill, is nothing short of outrageous.

To try to bring some order to the whole process, we put down Amendment 53E for consideration by your Lordships’ House. It would provide for a sunset clause to bring an end to the programme unless the Secretary of State makes regulations for these clauses not to be repealed. That statutory instrument would have to be laid and approved by both Houses of Parliament. The period of three years was selected because we are in a fixed-term Parliament, so the Government can accept this amendment in the full knowledge that they will be able to get the regulations through Parliament without the risk of a general election getting in the way—unless of course some unforeseen circumstances arise. This is a useful device for the Government to consider, and I hope the noble Baroness will look at it carefully. I beg to move.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the noble Lord has just left me with a very horrible thought, but I thank him and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, in his absence, for their amendment to introduce a sunset clause to the starter homes provisions. The effect would be that the starter homes provisions would be repealed unless affirmative regulations permitted them to continue.

I am sure the noble Lord will not be surprised that I strongly resist this amendment. This Government made a manifesto commitment to deliver 200,000 starter homes. The electorate supported the manifesto and expect the Government to deliver. We intend starter homes to be a new but enduring aspect of housing delivery. We have heard how first-time buyers are increasingly unable to access the housing market, and we want to ensure there are new opportunities for home ownership and to support young people into home ownership.

A sunset clause would introduce uncertainty to delivery. It would cause developers to pause as the sunset period approached and would be unhelpful not only in starter home delivery but in overall housing supply. If we want to achieve the uplift in housing supply we need, we must give clarity about the future rather than uncertain messages.

I accept that starter homes are new and we are embarking on a new journey in affordable housing delivery. We have made provision in regulations that give us flexibility for the future in setting the starter home requirement, the minimum site threshold and any exemptions to the requirement. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I am very happy to withdraw my amendment, but want to place on the record our thanks from these Benches, and from the whole Committee, to the noble Baroness. She has handled the debate today and all the questions from around the Committee with great skill. We appreciate that she has been very kind to us all and thank her very much for that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, all I can say is that local authorities know their market, and they can use Section 106 for other types of housing on sites, whether for sale or for rent, in addition to starter homes where viability allows, as well as for infrastructure. I cannot answer more clearly than that at this time.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The Minister is right to say that local authorities know their market. The core problem with this Bill and its provisions, which has not been taken account of, is that of the powers being taken to the centre of the Government.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Those powers are a specific type of power for the Secretary of State, but that does not take away from any of the other powers that local authorities might wish to use, viability allowing, when agreeing Section 106 for development in terms of other affordable homes for sale or for rent.

If I may, I wish to make a bit more progress. Our analysis has shown that in regions outside London, we expect that, on average, up to 60% of eligible households currently renting privately would be able to secure a mortgage on a starter home. Within London, we expect that up to 47% of eligible households currently renting privately would be able to secure a mortgage on a starter home. For example, 59% of eligible households currently renting privately across London would be able to secure a mortgage on a starter home in Hammersmith and Fulham.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, first, if someone is paying 4% on a mortgage, they might not be getting the best deal on the market. Secondly, I just repeat my point that £450,000 is the cap on a starter home and £356,000 is the implied price of a new-build first-time buyer property. I do not think we are necessarily talking about the same thing.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

But the point is that the figures she referred to are for the whole of London. The price of a property in the Elephant and Castle, around where I grew up, is £450,000 or more. This may apply on the edge of London, but not anywhere near here.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I recognise there are vast variations in house prices in London. We talked about Lewisham the day before yesterday, and we could talk about every borough in London today, but I am simply giving an average implied price. I accept that Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea are more expensive—I could not afford to live there—but there are places in London that are more affordable than others. This is simply an average price.

Amendment 37B would restrict who could buy a starter home to those purchasing with a mortgage only. We are allowing starter homes to be purchased only by qualifying first-time buyers under the age of 40, with limited exceptions. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, asked whether this fits in with the Equality Act. I confirm that an equality impact assessment has been prepared for the starter homes provisions in the Bill, and this will be kept under constant review in line with the duties under the Equality Act. In addition, a further assessment is being prepared to accompany the Government’s consultation proposals for starter home regulations.

We need to prioritise our assistance to the generation of people in their 20s and 30s who have been disproportionately affected by the increasing affordability pressures over the last 30 years. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham made the very good point that this is a very popular product and significant interest is already being generated on these homes. He was correct that this is done on a first come, first served basis. He also made the point about it being a good way of increasing mobility in the social rented sector and for those currently on waiting lists. I totally agree with that point—it is. We will be ensuring that resale letting restrictions are included in our regulations. The aim is to provide a place to live in. We are consulting on these requirements for the regulations shortly, to seek wider views and to ensure that they operate fairly and effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I can only reiterate my commitment to sharing the consultation once it has been published and to ensuring that as soon as regulations can be brought forward, they will be.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Can the Minister not go a bit further than that? Can she not just agree here today to go through the usual channels to explore the point that my noble friend has made about the possibility of having further process at Third Reading?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think I have explained that having a mortgage will not stop gaming. There are always going to be abuses of the system, but we are trying to address an age group which has been disenfranchised from the purchasing market. I hope that what I have said gives to some extent reassurance to the noble Lord and that he will feel content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Can I push the noble Baroness a little further on this? I do not think it is good enough to say that there are always going to be abuses; we need a little more than that. There will be scams and shams, so we have to make sure that we will be able to identify them and sort them out.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not disagree—

London: Housing Costs

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to help people on the living wage in London to own their own homes.

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

My Lords, this Government are working closely with the mayor and the GLA on measures to increase supply and boost home ownership for all Londoners. These include London Help to Buy, which provides equity loans of up to 40% of a property’s price to homebuyers in the capital, and London shared ownership, which could see Londoners in a borough such as Lewisham buying a home with a deposit of as little as £3,500.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, first I declare an interest as a councillor of the London Borough of Lewisham. The Minister recently confirmed to me in a Moses Room debate:

“I agree that not everybody will be able to afford a starter home”.—[Official Report, 22/2/16; col. GC 40.]

There lies the problem. Funds are being diverted into the starter home scheme, for homes which are unaffordable to most people on modest incomes, from other housing schemes. Why does the Minister think it is acceptable that the Government are reducing the options for people on modest incomes and the living wage, who are often at the poorer end of the private rented sector, which will mean that often their dream of owning their own home will remain only a dream?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there are a number of products on offer to first-time buyers, including shared ownership, which might require a deposit of as little as £1,400. There is Rent to Buy and a number of other products should people want home ownership.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Cathcart for explaining on behalf of my noble friend Lord Flight the reasons behind Amendments 24 and 25. If enacted, Amendment 24 would remove the requirement for a landlord to notify a “relevant person” that their tenant’s deposit has been secured in a Government-authorised tenancy deposit protection scheme.

Section 213 of the Housing Act 2004 defines a relevant person as,

“any person who, in accordance with arrangements made with the tenant, paid the deposit on behalf of the tenant”.

This can be a family member but in most cases it is a charity such as Crisis or Shelter, which offers deposit loan schemes to vulnerable people with a history of homelessness, or a local authority, which pays the deposit through housing benefit in cases where tenants are out of work or on a low income.

I welcome proposals which reduce burdens for business and I understand the spirit in which this amendment has been tabled. However, the proposals set out in Amendment 24 have the potential to adversely affect the willingness of a charity or a local authority to pay a deposit on behalf of a tenant. This could lead to vulnerable people or those on low incomes being unable to access the private rented sector, which is something we would want to avoid.

Amendment 25 would allow tenancy deposit protection information to be provided to the tenant by their landlord electronically by email. The Government welcome proposals that seek to reduce burdens on business but in this case primary legislation is not required. The aim of this amendment can be achieved through secondary legislation, using powers in the Electronic Communications Act 2000. I will be happy to look further into the proposals outside this Chamber and consider introducing secondary legislation at a later date. I hope that this explanation will reassure my noble friend and I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

Amendments 26 and 31, which were tabled by my noble friend Lord Cathcart, seek to reduce the time taken to repay a deposit to a tenant or landlord where either party is absent or unco-operative. I accept that there is a minor cost to a landlord or tenant in arranging for a solicitor or magistrate to witness a statutory declaration, but this process is necessary for the landlord or tenant to prove beyond any doubt that they have attempted to contact the other party and that they have not been able to reach an agreement on the amount claimed from the deposit before it is repaid. The example that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, gave just before he sat down underlines this. Removing the requirement could leave the process open to abuse, with no independent verification that the other party had been contacted to give their consent. With this explanation, and given that the vast majority of claims are settled without a problem, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendments.

Amendment 28, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, would require a review of the tenancy deposit scheme. I understand that this amendment has been tabled in order to ensure that tenants are treated fairly at the end of their tenancy, and I know that we can all agree with that aim. My department has a governance role to ensure that the schemes are working well. The performance of the schemes is monitored through monthly key performance indicators, regular governance meetings and information provided by the tenancy deposit scheme users’ group, which includes landlord and consumer representatives.

From the overall feedback received, we are satisfied that the alternative dispute resolution system generally works well. Of the 11.5 million deposits which have been protected since the launch of the scheme, less than 2% have gone to adjudication. On average, following adjudication, 27% are awarded to tenants, 17% to landlords or agents, and just over half are split between the two sides.

Looking to the future, we are satisfied that the tenancy deposit protection schemes awarded contracts for new custodial schemes from 1 April this year have the necessary alternative dispute resolution processes in place to ensure that tenants will continue to be treated fairly. This was a key evaluation criterion in our re-procurement exercise carried out last year.

In conclusion, I hope that this explanation will assure noble Lords that tenants’ deposits are and will continue to be returned to them fairly and quickly at the end of the tenancy, and I hope that they will not press their amendments.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 33B, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Kennedy, which gives the Secretary of State powers to underwrite a national tenancy deposit bond guarantee scheme. In 2014-15, 220,000 households were prevented from becoming homeless. Of these, 54% were assisted to remain in their own home and 46% were helped to a new home. Statistics show that in at least 42% of cases households were assisted into private rented sector accommodation. In support of this, many local authorities, housing associations and charities in England already have a rent deposit or bond scheme.

The Government have already funded Crisis to the tune of nearly £14 million to develop a programme to help single homeless people to access the private rented sector. Nearly 9,000 single homeless people have been helped into private rented sector accommodation so far, with a 90% tenancy sustainment rate. This Government’s approach is to support a provision of resources to local authorities at a local level. This is because they can then use the funding flexibly to meet local needs. Of course, different areas have particular requirements. To divert scarce funding into a single national approach would not always be the best or most effective use of resources and to specifically underwrite a national scheme may not be the best use of resources.

I hope that this explanation will reassure noble Lords and I hope that they will not press their amendments. But before I sit down I will answer a specific question from the noble Lord, Lord Best, about the DCLG continuing to fund the private rented sector access programme. We have not made any decision on further funding, but from the start of the programme all funded schemes were required to attract funding from other sources and make plans for future sustainability. I will keep the noble Lord updated on this.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, I think her response to the national rent deposit guarantee scheme is quite disappointing. Will she say why? She said that a number of authorities have these schemes, but what is the objection to having a national scheme? We are talking about very modest sums of money.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think that the noble Lord will accept that the fact that the scheme is currently working very well and that some local authorities may actually decide to underwrite the schemes themselves in certain cases to prevent homelessness is—and we are looking after every single penny—a reason not to do something unless there is evidence to say that we would need to do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I will come back briefly to the national deposit scheme. When the noble Baroness writes to my noble friend about the amount of money and the authorities involved in such schemes, will she also say what percentage of tenants are protected by them, and about the thought processes behind how the Government decided not to go for the national scheme? I think she will say that most of it is covered, but what consultation took place to decide not to come forward with a national scheme?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am happy to do that.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, makes a very good point; for example, would it apply to Norfolk, where my noble friend lives? Whether it is one person or two people, they will not get to the £45,000 she is talking about.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. We talked about shared ownership earlier on. It may well be the case when one person works and they are on the average or median wage—and by the way, I will write to clarify what might be the art of the possible borough by borough if necessary, which it sounds like I am on the way to doing. Of course, if you look at my borough, it is split down the middle as regards the demographic. I have completely lost my train of thought. It may be that other products such as a shared ownership scheme might be the most appropriate to somebody where the whole household earns the median wage. I was simply trying to illustrate this by an example and I am slightly regretting it now—but I will write to clarify this.

We need a radical shift in the way the housing market supports the young first-time buyer, otherwise we condemn a whole generation to uncertainty and insecurity. As I said earlier, over the last 20 years the proportion of 40 year-olds who own their own home has gone from 61% to 38%.

In specific response to Amendment 37, Clause 1 sets out our position clearly. This consistency of approach is important to ensure our reforms are widely understood, particularly by lenders and developers, and that delivery is maximised. Starter homes are a national priority and all local authorities must play their part in delivery. But as I made clear at Second Reading, and earlier this evening, they are just one part of the package of affordable housing options, and they will increase the choices available to those who wish to own their own home. There is a range of products available, and starter homes will be, rightly, part of that mix. We support the delivery of other tenures. We have funded the delivery of other tenures over this spending review period. But we do not believe that the amendment presented here will serve any useful purpose.

The noble Lords, Lord Shipley, Lord Best and Lord Beecham, talked about the Savills and Shelter reports. We expect starter homes to be an entry-level property valued at below the average first-time buyer price for that local area by its very nature. But Savills and Shelter based their work on average house prices. We have examined the affordability of homes to those currently in the private rented sector. Assuming that those households sought to buy in the lower quartile of the first-time buyer market for new-build housing and moved within regions to areas where they can afford to buy, we found that outside London up to 64% of households currently renting privately would be able to secure a mortgage on a starter home, compared to only 50% who could now buy a similar property priced at full market value. Within London, up to 55% of households currently renting privately will be able to secure a mortgage on a starter home, while only 43% could now buy a similar property priced at full market value. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, does not believe me.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made a point about starter homes and increasing housing supply. We are designing our starter-home reforms to increase housing supply and not just to change tenures. We want the planning system to release more lands specifically for starter homes, for instance on underused brownfield land not allocated for housing. This is being supported by our £1.2 billion new starter homes land fund, which seeks to propose more brownfield sites for starter homes.

On Amendment 47, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Greaves, argued—in fact, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, did not speak; I am giving her credit when she is not here. The other noble Lords argued that the duty to support starter homes should extend to other types of affordable housing. Clause 3 expects councils to actively support starter homes as a new product in their housing mix. It does not remove the ability to deliver other affordable housing alongside starter homes. Nor does it remove their local planning policy. I expect that most councils will continue to support delivery of a range of affordable housing and have planned policies to help achieve this.

Councils are very aware of their commitments to meet local housing needs, and they will strive to meet these needs. That plays into the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about support for localism other than the duty to provide for starter homes. The Government completely recognise that local councils will be very keen to support delivery of the range of housing products available according to their local needs.

The Government’s record on affordable housing delivery is strong. There were 193,000 affordable homes delivered in England between 2011 and 2015, exceeding the Government’s target by 23,000. In addition, councils are in a position to bring forward more land for affordable housing. More council housing has been built since 2010, as I said, than was built in the previous 13 years, and 2014 saw the highest number of council housing starts for 23 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the money is in the Budget. Affordable homes for rent are grant funded. Contrary to what one might think, they will be the first, not the last, to be built out because they are grant funded. They effectively act as pump-priming money for developers to build. I do not agree with that point.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I think the point that the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, made was that this was money agreed in 2015 that covered 2015 to 2018. The noble Baroness said that the money is in the Budget. Is she saying that there is money available for future years? Is that correct, or are we talking about money that will finish in 2018 and we will then decide what will happen post that?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Lord. That is a very interesting point. I am sure we will return to it when we consider the rest of the Bill.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Would the noble Lord like me to respond to that point? I am sorry, I have slightly lost track of who I am responding to. I will carry on and noble Lords can interrupt me if I have not covered something.

It is clear that starter homes are a new product and will provide genuine opportunities for young first-time buyers to gain a secure position on the housing ladder. We want councils to really get behind delivery. For this reason, we want the duty to focus on starter home delivery. We expect this duty on councils to encompass a wide set of activities, such as working with neighbourhood planning groups on starter home delivery and identifying exception sites for starter homes. The Secretary of State will issue guidance setting out what councils should do to meet this, which they must have regard to.

Housing: Affordable Housing

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Monday 22nd February 2016 Grand Committee

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will come to the figure on replacements during my speech, if the noble Lord would bear with me.

Until now, the discounts available under right to buy have been available only to tenants in local authority properties and some former council properties. Extending these discounts to housing association tenants in England will end that unfairness and mean that up to 1.3 million more families will get a realistic chance to own their own home. Working with the National Housing Federation, we have secured a voluntary agreement with housing associations to give their tenants the opportunity to buy their own homes with an equivalent discount to the right to buy.

As set out in the voluntary agreement with the National Housing Federation, tenants of housing associations will be eligible for the equivalent discounts that are available under the right to buy of up to £77,900, or £103,900 within London. The extended right to buy will make home ownership affordable for the first time for many more housing association tenants. The Government have been clear that the sale of high-value vacant council housing—I stress vacant—will pay for the cost of compensating housing associations for the discount.

Starter homes will provide an affordable step into home ownership by offering young first-time buyers a minimum 20% discount on a new home. This model gives purchasers the benefit of immediate ownership and, importantly, will help them achieve the step up to their second home in due course. A number of noble Lords made the point about securing that discount in perpetuity. We do not want people five years down the line—or however long it is before they sell their house—to suddenly be at a disadvantage and find there is another cliff for them to overcome. We have decided not to insist on that in perpetuity discount to allow people to step up on the housing market.

We expect starter homes to be valued at below the average first-time buyer price for the local area. Developers must build them for sale to young first-time buyers and will ensure that they price them for this market. With a 20% discount, average market prices for homes bought by first-time buyers in the third quarter of 2015 could be reduced to £145,000 across England, excluding London, enabling more first-time buyers to buy their own home. We have examined affordability of starter homes to those who are currently in the private rented sector. If they were to buy in the lower quartile of the first-time buyer market, outside of London, up to 60% of households, currently renting privately, would be able to secure a mortgage on a starter home, compared with 45% who could buy a similar property at full market value.

There are a number of different points to make about the market, including saving for a deposit through a Help to Buy ISA. We are also looking at the possibility of allowing a Help to Buy equity loan to be offered on a starter home to ensure that a first-time buyer needs only a 5% deposit.

Starter homes are just one part of our package of affordable housing options. They will help to address a real problem of access to home ownership for the under-40s, the one demographic excluded from this market.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked about affordable rent. As we have discussed already under the housing Bill, £1.6 billion has been put aside for houses for affordable rent. That will be grant funded, so they are absolutely guaranteed to come on to the market. These are minimum positions for this sector, because local authorities may well do a deal with developers to produce more—and, of course, there is the £4.1 billion that we have put aside for 135,000 shared ownership houses, which will require a deposit of something like £1,400. That may be unaffordable for some people, but I think for most people it will be within the scope of what they can afford.

The noble Lord also made a point about garden cities. The Government are certainly not closed to suggestions about proposals for garden cities; they are a very good way to build a lot of houses and, in fact, to build sustainable communities within certain areas. I know of a number of areas where people are very keen to bring such proposals forward.

A number of noble Lords made the point about the £450,000 cap in London and £250,000 cap outside of London. A cap is precisely what it is—it is not an average house price. Many properties will fall well below that cap, and the Government will keep an eye out to make sure that housebuilders do not abuse that provision for first-time buyers for starter homes.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made the point about the forced sale of high-value assets. The high-value assets sales will not be for occupied properties but for vacant properties at the very top of the market, and details of that will come out in due course. He also made the point about homelessness going to 1980s levels. Homelessness is at less than half of the 2004 peak, and the Government are maintaining spending centrally and locally on homelessness prevention. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, talked about continuing to discuss this issue and bear it in mind as we go through the housing Bill. I think that the last time we had a debate on this matter, I mentioned the rough sleeping social impact bond, which we intend to bring forward. We have brought forward a homelessness SIB, which was the first in the world.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, also talked about replacement of property in the local area. This is what we fully expect: that a housing association will want to build in the local area.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, talked about 53% of housing associations renegotiating right-to-buy agreements. If that happens he will, I am sure, reiterate his words to me; we have, however, no evidence that it will. This agreement was made in good faith and the first five pilot housing associations are already starting on it. He also asked how the exemptions on the right to buy would work. We are very keen that these exemptions are negotiated and agreed locally in a form that is best for the local area.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, talked about starter homes being the only game in town. They are a priority for the Government because of the demographic group that has fallen out of home ownership, but they are not the only game in town. Affordable homes for rent, shared ownership, custom build—these will all be promoted in the housing Bill. She mentioned flexibility for councils, and I totally agree—other than the duty in relation to starter homes, councils will have flexibility on what is best for their areas.

I am conscious of the time, but I had better answer the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, before I get told off again. He asked about the quality of housing. That is a very good point. Design quality will be a focus of my noble friend Lord Heseltine in estates regeneration. We are not trying to gentrify estates; we are trying to give people on regenerated estates the quality of life that they deserve.

The noble Lord also asked whether starter homes are a gimmick. They are not a gimmick. We recognise that the under-40s are being increasingly precluded from the housing market and we want to reverse that position. He rightly made the point that historically, London and the south-east have been the hardest areas for people to own their own homes. That is why we are focusing so much on providing not just one-for-one replacement, but two-for-one replacement, for people accessing their own homes in London.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about infrastructure funding in connection with some starter home projects. Infrastructure funding can be accessed through Section 106. He is right that CIL is not applicable here, although local authorities can negotiate Section 106 infrastructure funding if it is viable—we do not want to push developments out of viability. Finally—because I have gone well over time—he talked about social rented sector rents versus private sector rents. In fact, the percentage increase in the social rented sector has got far out of kilter with the private rented sector, and we have tried to address this through the Welfare Reform Bill, although some noble Lords will not agree with that approach at all.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Would the Minister come back to me, perhaps in writing, with regard to people on the new national living wage, a big policy of the Government? They have no way of affording a starter home—a number of organisations have said so. How will the Government address that? The Minister also referred to the fact that, in addition to starter homes, other forms of housing would be supported. Will the Minister write to me about the sums involved?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will certainly write to the noble Lord about the sums of money involved. I agree that not everybody will be able to afford a starter home, which is why we have so many products we intend to bring forward. For shared ownership, which I mentioned earlier, it could be that one needs a deposit of £1,400, which would suddenly make the prospect of home ownership—even if it is part ownership —far more of a possibility. I appreciate, however, that certainly in London the housing market is very expensive.

With that I will finish because I have gone three minutes over time. I did not want to neglect the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, because I did before, but I have a load of questions I have not answered, so perhaps I could write to noble Lords.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I see the point, and as I say, my son is living in such accommodation, but the reason owners do it is to protect against squatting as opposed to provide for permanent accommodation. There is no tenancy agreement in place. However, I will go back and think further about this. It is a slightly anomalous situation in the general housing market, given that many of the properties are not housing. With those words, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate: the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, my noble friends Lord Beecham and Lord Campbell-Savours, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, who said that, yes, local authorities have powers, but it is a cumbersome process, and a lack of budgets at present means they will not be effective. With this amendment we would empower only the tenants to seek redress themselves, which is a good thing, although I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, does not necessarily agree with me on that.

The electrical safety amendment should not cause the Government any problems whatever. I am pleased that the Government are looking at this area of additional safety. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours made a powerful contribution to the reason why the Government should agree to these electrical safety tests in the private rented sector. We believe that these two amendments raise issues of paramount importance, and we will divide the House on both issues if we do not get the necessary movement from the Government on Report —we are very upfront about that straightaway.

I end with the hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, will hold discussions with noble Lords before we get to Report so that that will not be necessary and an agreement can be reached on both issues. We are very much willing to have those discussions. However, we think these are serious matters, which need looking at. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, at the start of the first day of Committee, and my first contribution at that stage, I should have declared that I am an elected councillor of the London Borough of Lewisham.

I join other noble Lords in concern about the lack of regulations available for noble Lords to see. Why does the Minister think that it is acceptable to bring forward a Bill in such a sorry state? Does she accept that it is wholly inadequate to suggest that the Government will consult fully and lay regulations months after the Bill has become law?

On Second Reading, and subsequently, I and other noble Lords from these Benches have welcomed the banning order proposals in the Bill. They will provide, we hope, an effective additional tool for local housing authorities to use against rogue landlords and persons engaging in letting agency or property management work who think that they can rip off tenants and treat them badly with impunity. With an ever-increasing number of people forced into the private rented sector, it is important that there are proper safeguards. Peter Rachman became synonymous with the rogue landlords of the 1960s. We want to ensure that we do not have any modern-day Rachmans, or, if we do, that they are dealt with effectively.

I also see the proposals in this part of the Bill as a first step to dealing with the issues in the private rented sector that make life difficult for tenants living at the poorer end of the market. The ward that I represent on Lewisham Council is typical of those that the Bill is aimed at: we have very little local authority housing other than a successful housing co-op, and until recently an overwhelming number of people there were owner-occupiers. However, there has been an explosion in the private rented sector in the last 10 years, for a variety of reasons. Most landlords are very good, with anything from one to a few properties. They often get into the market as a landlord because they have fallen into negative equity, have looked to move on but have been unable to cover their capital outlay. Many of those coming to my surgeries are now private sector tenants, invariably young people, both singles and couples, who cannot get any social housing because they are not in a priority group, cannot go on the housing list, cannot afford to buy and are left to seek refuge in the private rented sector.

When I was a member of Southwark Council in the 1980s, we had properties deemed hard to let—that nobody wanted to live in—and the council was able to let those to single people and couples who would not otherwise qualify for social housing. That category no longer exists. The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, in this group, has identified what is a significant omission from the Bill. The amendment has the full support of noble Lords on these Benches. After we have taken action against the rogue landlords, what happens to their tenants? These will be the very people who have suffered at the hands of the rogue landlord in the first place. It is right that the amendment should be in the Bill and not left to regulations, advice notes or any other procedure that does not involve it being clear in the Bill itself. If the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, does not accept the amendments today, I hope that she will at least reflect on this proposal and meet with colleagues from your Lordships’ House to discuss this matter before we get to Report.

We also support Amendment 7, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill. Following an enforcement action resulting in a financial penalty, it must be right that the money should be retained by the local authority and not be lost to the Consolidated Fund or some other place where money from these penalties goes and never returns.

The remaining amendments in this group are government amendments. Amendments 3 and 8 appear to correct drafting errors and make matters clearer. Amendment 4, to which my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours referred, seeks to deal with the situation where a person convicted of an offence continues with the breach after conviction. I have an issue with this amendment. Does it go far enough when dealing with people who, at this stage, have no respect for the law, or where the tenants are again in a difficult situation? We may need to look at that further.

My noble friend Lord Beecham will ask more questions of the Minister when she moves her amendments. At that point, we may need to look at the issue further and bring an amendment back on Report.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I shall answer the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, first because I ran out of time in a debate the other day and I could not answer him fully. He will get first place on the housing list today.

The noble Lord referred to the regulations which other noble Lords have mentioned at length. I can only reiterate my desire to bring forward as much information as I can. In any event, as I outlined in relation to the previous amendment, none of the orders could be implemented until the regulations were in force. So the orders would not be retrospective; they would only be made after the regulations had gone through. However, I take his point and I will do my best to bring forward as much information as possible.

The noble Lord made a point about social housing being so much harder to obtain than previously for people who would seem to be on modest incomes. That is behind the Government’s priority of building homes for all types of tenure in this Parliament, but focusing particularly on the younger generation that he talks about who are increasingly left out of the housing market. He also asked whether I would meet with him and colleagues before Report and I will be happy to do so.

Amendments 3 and 4 amend Clause 20 so that a person who has been convicted of breaching a banning order and continues to breach the order after that conviction shall commit a further offence and be liable to a fine not exceeding one-tenth of level 2 on the standard scales for each day or part of a day on which the breach occurs. This would equate to up to £50 a day until the breach ceases The amendment also introduces a defence of reasonable excuse in relation to the further offence which will capture any cases where a person was genuinely not able to cease breaching a banning order following conviction because, for example, they were in hospital and therefore unable to manage their affairs to bring tenancies to an end. Rogues who continue to let out their properties despite being convicted for that offence will therefore not only incur punishment for the initial breach of the order but will continue to be punished for each additional day that they remain in breach of the order. This sends out a strong message that a breach of banning order will not be tolerated.

Amendments 5, 6 and 8 amend Clause 22 so that a person who has had a civil penalty imposed upon them for breaching a banning order as an alternative to prosecution, and continues to breach the order despite the first civil penalty, can have an additional civil penalty of up to £30,000 imposed for each period of six months or part of a six-month period in which the breach of the banning order continues. Rogues who continue to let out their properties despite having incurred a civil penalty for the breach will, therefore, be subject to additional civil penalties for continuation of the breach. This sends out the strong message that a breach of a banning order will not be tolerated and will ensure that the business model of rogue landlords is disrupted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I think I understood what I was saying, but I am sorry if noble Lords did not. I shall be very happy to write and explain. I always use the example of a house that costs £100, so it will probably be something around that.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

While all this is going on, I am conscious that there is one very vulnerable tenant and one rogue landlord, who is getting angrier. What protection is there for the poor tenant left there while all this is going on? The landlord is not getting his rent or having his mortgage paid and the council is in there taking things over. I am wondering about the human issue.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I do not have any particular concerns about the rogue landlord; I am concerned about the vulnerable tenant. That is why the local authority, or the managing agent of the local authority, is the protection for the tenant who, if they have been subject to the practice of a rogue landlord, might find it a light relief not to be treated in such a contemptuous way.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

That is absolutely right. I have no worries for the rogue landlord but the noble Lord, Lord Deben, spoke earlier about these characters and some of their despicable practices. I am worried about how they treat their tenants.

Housing Estates

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The right reverend Prelate makes a really good point about regeneration being about not just the physical structures that are in place but some of the social structures that are in place to support communities, and other amenities, as he said, such as schools, hospitals and GP surgeries, that so often are not thought about when we think about regeneration.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a councillor in Lewisham. The Government issued an Estate Regeneration Programme prospectus in 2014 that promised a £150 million fund from 2015-16 onwards, with all the funds being drawn down by March 2019. The PM recently announced a £140 million fund for estate regeneration. Will the Minister confirm that these are not the same funds being announced twice?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. These are not the same funds being announced twice. The fund that he is referring to was for regeneration projects that had run into difficulty and needed substantial support from government.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this Second Reading debate. I realise that just to name check everyone would take nearly 20 minutes but I pay particular tribute to the maiden speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. The noble Baroness and I have a shared history in a funny sort of way which I only realised when she pointed it out to me when she came into the House. Both of them made great contributions today and I know they will continue to make them in the future.

Naturally, a huge number of points have been raised and I shall try to address as many as I can tonight, particularly those made a number of times. Where I cannot address them tonight, I shall continue to listen and discuss them with noble Lords outside the Chamber and in Committee. Several noble Lords have raised concerns and I shall do my best to allay some of their fears. As the Bill is so wide-ranging I shall try to group my comments together.

The issue that starter homes are unaffordable was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy, Lord Thurlow, Lord Young of Norwood Green, and Lord Kerslake; by the noble Baronesses, Lady Andrews and Lady Doocey; and by the right reverend Prelates the Bishops of Rochester and of St Albans.

I will focus now on the price cap versus the average price. The price cap in the Bill is £250,000 outside of London and £450,000 inside of London. That is a cap and not an average. We fully expect starter homes to be priced well below that cap. The average price for a first-time buyer of properties in England in 2014 was £226,000, and the equivalent starter home would have a discounted price of £169,000. In London the discounted starter home price based on 2014 prices would be £291,000. The experience of help to buy bears this out. Eighty per cent of the properties sold were bought by first-time buyers and the average price of homes purchased under help to buy of £186,000 was well below the national average of £286,000. That means that starter homes will be more affordable than some noble Lords fear.

A number of important questions were raised on how infrastructure would be funded. Local planning authorities will still be able to secure Section 106 contributions for site-specific infrastructure improvements for starter home developments through the planning process. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and my noble friends Lord O’Shaughnessy and Lady Hodgson asked how we can ensure that quality is maintained. Again it is very important to learn the lessons of the past and we are working with the sector on this. We know how important quality is and we issued design exemplars for starter homes in March. We will continue to work with the sector on this.

Many noble Lords also raised concerns about starter homes replacing other forms of affordable housing. Local planning authorities will need to apply their planning policies, including those on affordable housing, in the light of the legal starter homes requirement. Local planning authorities know their market and we would also expect them to seek other forms of affordable housing, such as social rent, where it would be viable. Councils have the options to release more land for housing to ensure that they deliver as much housing of all tenures as needed.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, also said that it should be down to councils to assess needs and deliver on them. Young people need homes now. As my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy said, the crisis for first-time buyers is acute. We want councils to consider their needs and the Bill will ensure that they do so. Starter homes will form part of a mix of tenures that we want to see on developments. Councils are in a position to build their own social rented housing, and many are starting to do so. The Government fully intend to make sure that affordable homes to rent continue to be provided. That is why in the spending review we confirmed £1.6 billion for 100,000 affordable homes to rent. The noble Lord, Lord Best, questions whether this is enough. Because it is grant-funded, it is a minimum position. We would expect councils and developers to do more than the bare minimum.

A number of speakers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked whether starter homes should keep their discount in perpetuity. This would defeat the purpose: long-term restrictions may make it more difficult for the first-time buyer to sell and move on—whether to take up a new job or move to a larger home as their family grows.

Several points were made about the right to buy and high-value assets. In response to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, those tenants who buy a starter home under right to buy should have the same freedoms as every other home owner. The existing right to buy does not include any restrictions on letting, and it would be unfair to include this restriction for housing association tenants. The noble Lord, Lord Young, also questioned the exclusion of Section 106-funded properties and right to buy. It was decided, because of the short timescale, to exclude properties built through Section 106 from the voluntary right-to-buy pilot. Aspects of the main scheme will be different. Under the voluntary deal the presumption is that housing associations will offer to sell tenants the property in which they are living, and we would expect them to do so in the majority of cases. We are working with the sector on the detailed implementation of the main scheme.

The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, asked about housing associations selling off property to avoid the right to buy. The Government are fully compensating housing associations for the right-to-buy discount, based on open-market value, and the housing association will keep the full receipts of the sale, so there is really no financial benefit to a housing association in selling off empty properties to avoid the right to buy.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Could I be clear? The Minister said that the Government are fully compensating the housing associations. It is the local authorities that are compensating the housing associations.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I understand that it is the Government who will fully compensate the housing associations.

Noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake, Lord Adebowale and Lord Stoneham, the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Rochester and the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, are concerned about the wider implications of the Bill and the future of social housing, especially when local authorities are selling their high-value assets. We are considering a number of types of housing that could be excluded when that is taken into account, and cases where housing will not be considered to have become vacant. We are engaging widely, and I will make sure that the points raised here are taken into account. I would also be happy to meet the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, to discuss housing co-ops in particular.

In addition, the Government are committed to using a portion of the receipts to fund the building of additional homes. The Secretary of State and the local authority can enter into an agreement for the local authority to retain part of its receipts to lead on the delivery of more homes that meet housing need.

Members were also concerned about high-value assets forcing people out of their areas. The aim is not to force people out of homes. This will apply to a property only when it becomes vacant. The Government support the ambitions of social tenants to make the move into home ownership but, equally, it cannot be right that some social tenants on higher incomes are benefiting from lower rents when those renting privately do not. Social housing for rent must primarily be focused on those in real housing need who are on lower incomes.

We recognise that rent rises must be affordable and protect work incentives. That is why we have consulted on proposals to introduce gradual rent rises in relation to income, to help ensure that the extra rental costs are manageable. There is broad support for our proposal for a taper and we will consider the responses carefully.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about the use of a formula and the loss of family properties. The data that we are collecting will inform the high-value threshold, and for local authorities the use of a threshold to determine payments will give greater certainty and predictability, which will help them to manage their finances better. It will also provide greater flexibility for local authorities to choose what properties they sell in order to make the payments.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, who I commend for the work he described earlier on right to buy all those years ago, asked about the portable discount. Under the terms of the voluntary agreement, where a housing association exercises a discretion not to sell a property, the association would offer tenants the opportunity to use their discount to buy an alternative home from their own or another association’s stock. Receipts from sales under the new scheme, including the government grant to cover the cost of the discount, will generate considerable income for associations to reinvest in new supply, with an additional home being provided for every home sold. To allow the portable discount to be used on properties in the open market loses that income to the sector, limiting the ability of housing associations to deliver new supply. We are currently working with the sector to finalise how the portable discount might work.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Andrews, asked questions about planning. The decision to grant planning permission in principle will be locally driven where a choice is made to allocate land for housing-led development in a local plan, neighbourhood plan and new brownfield register. This will promote plan-led development and ensure that decisions take place within a framework that includes the engagement of communities and others, as well as consideration of development against local and national policy, including important matters such as heritage and, of course, flooding. Allowing permission in principle to be granted for housing-led development will allow it to accommodate other uses that are compatible with residential areas such as retail, social and community uses. This will help to deliver the mixed and balanced communities that we want to see. However, the Government were clear in the other place that there is no intention to allow permission in principle to be granted for fracking.

The LGA report referred to by my noble friend Lady Eaton presents a narrow picture of the build out as it only covers homes on major sites—that is, those with 10 units or more—and therefore overstates the average time to complete all work on a site. However, I agree that ensuring that where permission is given for new homes, building them out without delay is a very important part of the equation, and this includes ensuring that the local planning authorities play their part by discharging conditions as quickly as possible.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, suggested that women would be disproportionately affected by our planning policies, and we will of course continue to keep them under review as, for example, we finalise the new planning policy following the closure of the consultation next month.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans suggested that the Bill has got rid of the need for considering Gypsy and Traveller needs. The Bill does not remove the need to assess their accommodation needs. The proposed changes to the legislation make it clear that the needs of all those who reside in the district must be taken into account, and that includes Gypsies and Travellers. The provision of caravan sites and moorings for houseboats are considered under the duty to assess housing needs in the Housing Act 1985.

I think that I had better move on to the question of the lack of information on secondary legislation. Noble Lords will forgive me if I do not name-check everyone because so many of them raised the issue. I understand the concerns of noble Lords about the number of secondary legislation proposals proposed by the Bill. I will do my best to provide as much information as possible as the Bill progresses. I have discussed this with a number of noble Lords in meetings. I want to ensure that everybody has the information they need to understand the implications of the measures in the Bill and I hope to explain as much as I can during Committee. Each one of the measures will be different and there is much detail that is still to be sorted, as well as data to be collected and analysed and stakeholders that we need to work with. We are consulting widely and we will be sharing the details as they emerge. We want to make sure that we get it right. We do not want to rush into secondary legislation before working with those who will make all this work on the ground. An example will be many of the planning measures where we plan to consult shortly on the details that will be in the secondary legislation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, talked about getting on with the data analysis to inform the formula for high-value assets. As she says, we are making good progress on collecting the data and we need to get the formula right. However, there is still some way to go. I will keep the House informed as we make progress. We will bring forward the detail that Peers want as soon as we can.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, talked about sink estates. We know that the worst estates have huge potential to be revived so that they become thriving communities once more. That is why we are so determined to kick-start work which would benefit the lives of people by providing high-quality homes.

My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes raised rogue landlords and sending them underground, and that we need better enforcement. As well as the clauses on banning orders which will ensure that rogue landlords are unable to continue letting out properties, the Bill ensures that local authorities’ powers of enforcement against those who are committing housing offences are greatly strengthened. Some of this is already going on, particularly in London boroughs. Clause 117 and Schedule 9 will enable local authorities to impose a civil penalty of up to £30,000 as an alternative to prosecution and enable provisions which will extend the availability of rent repayment orders.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, talked about the right to buy—replacements and figures. There is a rolling three-year deadline for local authorities to deliver one-for-one replacements. So far, they have delivered well within the sales profile. By March 2013, there had been 3,054 additional sales and by September 2015, there had been 4,117 starts.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, talked about planning competition. I believe that there is an appetite for greater competition in the planning system, although I must point out—a couple of noble Lords touched on this—that the decisions remain with the local planning authorities. We anticipate that a number of ambitious and high-performing local authorities will also want to compete to process planning applications in other areas.

The noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Tope, raised issues on electrical safety in the private sector. The Government are committed to protecting tenants and have agreed to carry out the necessary research to understand what, if any, legislative changes regarding electrical safety checks should be introduced. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, raised the idea that the Bill should ensure that rented properties are fit for human habitation. Local authorities already have strong and effective powers to deal with poor-quality, unsafe accommodation, and we expect them to use them.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Thornhill, the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Cameron, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester were concerned about the level at which people are classed as having a high income. The issue is whether people on those household incomes, which are above the average median wage of £26,000 a year, should automatically benefit from a lower rent than people in comparable private rented housing. Our view is that it is not fair for the taxpayer and that it is an issue that should be tackled. It is also important to recognise that social housing should be prioritised to those in genuine need. There will be households on lower incomes that are more in need of social housing for rent. We do not want to damage work incentives and that is why we are proposing a taper, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. That would see rents rise gradually in relation to income. Doing so will ensure that households are incentivised to accept higher-paid work so that they see a range of benefits from that income.

The noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord McKenzie of Luton, asked how income will be assessed. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about ensuring that vulnerable tenants are protected. We will ensure that the implementation of “pay to stay” is fair for tenants as part of our ongoing engagement with local authorities.

I hope that noble Lords will indulge me, given the huge number of questions, for another couple of minutes. If any noble Lord objects, please let them speak now.

On lifetime tenancy, many Members, such as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, suggested that reviews of social tenancies would place undue pressures on local authorities. Keeping that under review should already be part of good tenancy management, but in any case, we expect that savings over the long term are likely to outweigh any additional costs from reviewing tenancies.

Many noble Lords talked about rural impacts. We understand the pressures faced by the rural community, which are many and complex. The Bill allows for certain types of housing to be excluded from being sold when vacant. We will set out our thinking on this in due course. Under the voluntary agreement on right to buy, housing associations will have the discretion not to sell homes in rural areas. We are consulting on planning reforms to allow starter homes on rural exception sites, to help villages thrive. This includes an option to retain local connection tests. We want rural exception sites to continue to deliver housing for rural communities.

On flooding, I welcome my noble friend Lord Liverpool’s comments on local plans. I know that my noble friend Lord Deben, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, will also keep a close eye on this. Planning guidance is clear, but I am sure that we will come back to this subject in due course.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked whether adapted housing under regeneration schemes will be excluded under the high-value asset sales. Excluded housing will be set out—noble Lords will groan now—in secondary legislation. The department is engaging widely with local authorities and other stakeholders. No decisions have been made yet on the types of housing that will be excluded or cases where housing would not be considered as becoming vacant. As part of our process of updating data on local authority stock, we are collecting information on the purpose of the stock held to understand more about the types of housing that local authorities own, which will inform decisions on housing that will be excluded.

I conclude with the noble Lord, Lord Best, because he might be thinking that I am ignoring him. The noble Lord made a wide-ranging contribution with a promise of much more to come, which I look forward to, given his wealth of expertise. I share his view that we need houses both to rent and to buy, which is why the package we announced in the spending review includes that significant support of £1.6 billion for 100,000 rented homes. We also committed £4.1 billion for 135,000 shared ownership homes, allowing people to buy a share if they cannot move straight to purchasing outright.

The Bill needs to be seen as part of our wider crusade to get more homes built for all our communities with a planning system that delivers, while managing the homes we already have fairly. I know that we share this ambition to address the housing needs of the country, even if our views may differ around the edges on how to get there. I look forward to working with all noble Lords who have spoken today and other interested Peers as we take the Bill through the House. I beg to move.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Perhaps the noble Baroness could say a bit more. Regarding my noble friend’s Amendment 31C, I agree that we should move forward on a basis of consensus. I also agree that no council should have a veto. I accept that entirely, as it would just stop things happening. However, that is why my noble friend’s amendment says that either council may make a referral to the Secretary of State. His intention is to avoid that happening; equally, his intention is to get consensus where we can. Can she say why she will not accept that amendment?

Fire and Rescue Service: Thomas Review

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Monday 11th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am certainly very happy to meet the noble Baroness, but she may like to meet my noble friend Lord Bates—or perhaps she can meet both of us.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I pay tribute to our brave men and women in the fire service. We have all seen their bravery during the recent floods, along with that of our other emergency services and the Armed Forces. The Government have had this report since February 2015 and the Fire Minister made reference to it in a speech to the LGA in March. Can the Minister give more of an answer to the House—her response was not very satisfactory—and explain why the Government have sat on this report for 11 months?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as I said, the Government will be deliberating on the report. The themes of the review are already in the public domain and we will respond in due course. I echo the noble Lord’s words about the bravery of our fire and rescue services, and in fact all the emergency services, over the Christmas period. Certainly in the areas that I visited following the flooding, their services have been absolutely exemplary.

Housing: Office Conversions

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Wednesday 2nd December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend makes a very good point. My answer to the noble Lord’s first question is that it varies a lot across the country. In the north-west, where both I and the noble Lord live, there is a demand to build housing within town centres in an attempt to revitalise them. However, there is also a demand for housing nationwide; where that situation is distorted and reversed and office space is being lost, an Article 4 direction can be made.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as an elected councillor in Lewisham, south London. For this great capital city to thrive, we need housing available to rent or buy for people on a wide variety of incomes who do all the jobs that need doing in the capital. Does the noble Baroness agree with the Housing Minister, Mr Brandon Lewis, when he said yesterday that Londoners had to make a judgment call about whether they could afford to live in the capital?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we all have to make a judgment call on whether we can afford to live in the capital. It is certainly true that London has the highest house prices in the country. This Government’s aim is to provide more houses— 1 million new homes by 2020—so that the demand is met overall and people have somewhere to live.

Housing: London

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Monday 26th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to address the shortage of housing in London.

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

My Lords, responsibility for housing in London has been devolved to the Mayor and the GLA, in line with this Government’s commitment to give local areas control over their development and growth. We work closely with London Councils and the GLA on increasing housing supply in London. Total funding to the GLA for affordable housing in London across 2015 to 2018 is nearly £1.5 billion, delivering 43,000 affordable homes under the programme.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, in the last five years the Government have failed to tackle the housing crisis in London: the number of people owning their own home in the capital is now below 50%; the number of private renters has gone up by 800,000; and there are the lowest levels of peacetime housebuilding since the 1920s and a 79% increase in rough sleepers. When are the Government going to take some real action to deal with the crisis? They have had five years to deal with it so far. Their record is poor. Urgent action is needed.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I cannot agree with that statement. More council housing has been built since 2010 than in the 13 years of the last Labour Government. There have been more council housing starts in London than in the 13 years of a Labour Government, and there have been 800,000 more homes built in England since 2009—260,000 affordable homes delivered since 2010.

Affordable Housing in Rural Communities

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Thursday 15th October 2015 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for initiating this timely debate. I also pay tribute to the church and the work it has done in providing rural housing, and to all the other landlords who have done the same thing philanthropically to preserve and sustain their local communities. Perhaps I could start with the context; then, I am very keen to answer noble Lords’ specific questions.

In 2010 we inherited the lowest peacetime rate of housebuilding since the 1920s, a dysfunctional planning system and levels of housebuilding that were tumbling. Today, we are growing faster than any other major advanced economy and our job creation is the envy of the developed world. Now, we are meeting the aspirations of people to own their own homes.

On affordable rural housing, this Government believe that meeting the housing needs of rural communities is very important: since 2010, more than 85,000 affordable homes have been delivered in rural local authorities in England. Some communities have gone over and above their commitments. I pay tribute at this point to Willersey in Gloucestershire, which has done just this. But we know that more are needed and we are committed to delivering 275,000 affordable homes over this Parliament in rural and urban areas. The 2015 to 2018 affordable homes prospectus makes it clear that where a particular scheme, for example in a rural location, involves higher than average costs, the HCA will wherever possible seek to take account of such genuine comparators. Our intention is that bidders will not be systematically disadvantaged where there are some higher costs or higher grant bids within their proposed programme.

Local authorities should plan to reflect local needs, particularly for affordable housing, including through rural exception sites. They should also consider whether allowing some market housing would facilitate provision of significant additional affordable housing. Through the Rural Productivity Plan, we will review the planning and regulatory constraints facing rural businesses, including how permitted development rights can better support the provision of new homes, jobs and innovation.

The Government are committed to reforming the housing market and boosting the supply of much-needed housing. Housebuilding starts have more than doubled since 2009 and planning permission was granted for 242,000 houses in the year to June 2015. Almost 800,000 new homes have been delivered in England since 2009. Completions are up and housing starts are at their highest annual level since 2007. More than 260,000 affordable homes have been delivered since 2010 and, with nearly 186,000 affordable builds, we have exceeded our 2011-15 target by 16,000. Over this Parliament, we will ensure the fastest rate of affordable housebuilding in the last 20 years, with 275,000 new affordable homes by 2020.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans asked whether there should be a wider definition of rural. The Government would be willing to revisit the definition if evidence can be provided that this would convincingly increase new housing supply. He also made the point that many new starter homes will not be affordable to people in rural areas. A number of noble Lords also made the point that starter homes may be a threat to rural affordable housing supply. Starter homes are a new form of low-cost house ownership to help young first-time buyers on to the property ladder, including in rural areas. The definition of affordable housing will be expanded to include starter homes, and a consultation on that will take place shortly.

The August 2015 rural productivity plan announced that starter homes will be encouraged through the use of rural exception sites to help villages thrive. Young first-time buyers face significant affordability pressures in many rural areas, so we want the development of starter homes to make a significant contribution to housebuilding in those areas.

The right reverend Prelate also asked what safeguards are in place to ensure one-for-one replacements locally. Under the agreement with the National Housing Federation, there is a clear commitment to all properties sold being replaced with an additional home. Rural areas will benefit from that and there is a clear exemption for rural housing under the agreement, whereby housing associations can decide not to sell those homes.

Both the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asked about situations where landlords donate land and want it kept for the specific purposes for which they originally intended it. The agreement we have in place includes examples of types of property that associations may decide they do not want to sell to the tenant, including supported housing, historic legacy stock and homes in rural areas. It also includes rural properties that are protected by clear restrictive covenants in existing residence contracts. That should give a good basis for housing associations to engage with local landowners and their wishes on the issue.

The right reverend Prelate also asked what the Government will do to deliver affordable rented accommodation in rural areas. That is a very good point. Affordable rent was introduced in 2011, and rents can be set at 80% of local market rents. More than 260,000 affordable homes have been delivered since 2010, as I said, of which 85,000 have been provided in England in 2014-15. I cannot provide more specific figures because of the spending review.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, asked about community land trusts being excluded. They are included in the agreement and are one category where properties can be exempted. She does not look convinced, but perhaps I can meet her afterwards.

My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes asked for the definition of affordable housing. It is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. The NPPF defines it as:

“Social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing, provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices. Affordable housing should include provisions to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households or for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision”.

The Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 defines social housing as “low cost rental accommodation” and “low cost home ownership accommodation”. In the Act, a low-cost rent is simply defined as below market rate. Low-cost home ownership is defined by availability for occupation on a shared ownership or equity percentage basis.

My noble friend also asked about sinking funds. Registered providers are generally required to make provision for a sinking fund, for example to meet future costs in shared ownership developments.

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asked about landowners selling land above market price. It has to be at discount of market price, otherwise they will not qualify. He also asked about the 10 units limit on Section 106 orders—we discussed this last night—the small sites threshold. A judgment was issued on 31 July this year quashing the Section 106 small sites threshold. Increasing the number of homes is a top priority, and our policy was aimed at securing it by helping small builders and developers to contribute. Section 106 requirements can be very burdensome and prevent developments actually being built. We now have permission to appeal against the judge’s decision.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said that this was being forced through and was a waste of money. The Government had a clear manifesto commitment to extend right to buy, and we are very pleased that the sector has come forward with a voluntary offer, rather than needing to legislate. The policy will boost not only new home ownership but supply through replacement.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, asked about the impact of high-value council sales in rural areas. We are legislating to require local authorities to pay the Secretary of State a sum in line with the anticipated receipt from the sale of high-value council housing. Councils will be able to retain some of that fund to support new housebuilding in their area.

The noble Lords, Lord Taylor and Lord Kennedy, talked about house prices versus wages in rural areas. It is a particular problem in rural areas; we recognise that there can be that gap. That is why we allocated £1.4 billion through the 2015-18 affordable homes programme in both rural and non-rural areas.

In conclusion, we want to support people who aspire to buy their own homes, and to support young families who sign up for a starter home. As much as possible, we want to support their aspirations by building homes in every part of this country.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Obviously, I asked a number of questions that the noble Baroness has not responded to. I assume she will write to me and perhaps place a copy in the House.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I was about to conclude by saying that I recognise I have not covered everybody’s points, and I will write to them in due course.

Northern Powerhouse: Lancashire

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am very pleased to be able to tell the noble Lord about the Blackburn to Bolton rail corridor, which will make a huge difference, the Burnley to Pendle growth corridor and the work done on the M65, which is a particular congestion point off the M6. Maintenance on the Burnley Centenary Way viaduct is under way, and there is the East Lancs cycle network for those who are interested in cycling. There is also the restart to the electrification of the trans-Pennine rail network and the Todmorden curve, for which I campaigned many years ago and am glad to see is now up and running.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a locally elected councillor. Why are the Government so wedded to a piecemeal, one-at-a-time approach instead of putting together a coherent strategy for devolution of power across England that takes account of all communities, including rural areas and small towns, as recommended by Mr Graham Brady of the 1922 Committee in the other place?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the Bill that is currently going through the other place and has just gone through this House is a framework Bill which allows bespoke devolution deals to take place in areas according to local need and their plans for growth. To prescribe would be the wrong way forward for government. I do not agree with the noble Lord’s point about the piecemeal nature of this approach. The north-west, the north-east and Yorkshire are doing very well economically—in fact, Yorkshire has created more jobs than the whole of France.

Right to Buy: Housing Associations

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Monday 12th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question from the other place. I declare an interest as an elected member of Lewisham Borough Council. The extension of the right to buy to housing associations funded by the forced sale of council homes will mean fewer affordable homes, and we will oppose that. I am sure the noble Baroness will have seen the figures from Shelter estimating that up to 113,000 council homes could be sold to pay for this policy. Can she tell the House more about the guarantee of like-for-like replacement that she referred to? Is that both for housing association and council homes?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, councils should effectively and efficiently use their resources. Where there is an increased need for housing across the country, it makes no sense for a local authority to keep high-value, vacant council houses when it could sell them to fund the building of new homes that will reflect its local housing need and increase overall housing supply. We want to work with both local authorities and local associations to ensure this one-for-one additional housing.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 75 is not one which we on these Benches can support. I declare an interest as an elected local councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham.

Although this amendment is concerned with elections to local councils in England, I mentioned in Committee that we had a referendum in 2011 on changing the voting system for elections to the House of Commons. That was wholly rejected and I have seen nothing following on from that result, or anything that has happened subsequently, which leads me to believe that the country wants to change the voting system for any elections. I also mentioned that we have got ourselves into a bit of a mess in recent years. We have managed to heap on voters a whole plethora of voting systems and that is not a good thing to do. I accept that, where a proportional system has been chosen, it should remain. However, I would like to see us use fewer systems.

I also referred to the fact that I thought that one of the worst systems was the supplementary vote system. I have observed many counts where people have only put a cross in the second column, which means that their vote is discounted. Therefore, I would like to see a reduction in the number of systems being used, and we certainly cannot support the amendment tonight.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, this amendment is about the voting system for local government elections in England and Wales. Like Amendment 73, it would introduce a fundamental change to these. As I explained in the case of the earlier amendment, we are clear that issues such as this need to be considered in a far wider context than this Bill. Even in terms of timescale, when STV was introduced in Scotland, the review of the 32 local authorities took two years, and clearly in England that would take much longer. Notwithstanding any of the arguments for or against the amendment, as I said in the previous amendment, this is not the Bill to be talking about changes to the franchise. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, pointed out, the people of this country said no to the alternative vote in 2011—I was one of the people who campaigned against it. Again, it is not the place of an unelected House to propose changes like this. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Monday 29th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare that I am an elected member of Lewisham Council in south London. This has been an interesting debate but changing the voting system to a form of PR is not something that I am in favour of, although this would be only for the election of councillors in England.

In 2011, we did of course have a referendum on moving to a new system for elections to the House of Commons. The system put forward was AV. I know that that is not a proportional system but it was the system agreed by the then coalition Government, put to a referendum of the voters of the United Kingdom and rejected. There is nothing that I have heard in this debate or elsewhere that makes me think there has been a change in the heart of the voters in England and that what people want is to elect their councillors by single transferable vote, having stuck with first past the post elections to Westminster only three years ago. I did, however, agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, when he talked of looking at governance structures from time to time. I think that that is right. That does not take me down the road of moving to single transferable votes for the election of councillors.

There are issues, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, referred to, about the number of voting systems that we use to elect people to various public bodies, positions and Parliaments in the United Kingdom. Where a body is elected by a proportional system, it should remain a proportional system, but I would like to reduce the number of systems we use. It is very confusing for the voter to elect people when we are using, at least, first past the post, single transferable vote, closed list systems, top-up lists and the supplementary vote. Supplementary vote is one of the worst voting systems we use. I have been to many counts where the supplementary vote system was used. There are often a considerable number of spoilt ballot papers because people put the X in the second column instead of the first column so the vote is completely discarded, which is a bad thing. I do not think that these people intend to spoil their ballot papers; it is just that they have not understood that they need to put an X in the first column and then one in the second column as well.

Could the noble Baroness in her response make reference to the myriad voting systems we now have in the United Kingdom and how that could be a little less confusing for the voter? I am sure that from the Dispatch Box we are all agreed that changing the system for the election of councillors in England is not something that either of us supports. Nor is there evidence that it is something that the public want. At this stage, there is no need to move down that road.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we debated this previously in earlier debates. Amendment 47 would amend the Representation of the People Act 1983 to provide that all local elections in England and Wales would be by single transferable vote.

For the single transferable vote system to function effectively, multi-member electoral areas would be required. As many existing electoral areas in England have only one councillor representing them—for example, nearly all county councils—it would require a review of local government electoral areas in England by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. It could therefore not be introduced, even if it were desirable, within any short timescale. It would also cost more and take longer to achieve a result because of the more complicated count processes.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked me to list the myriad electoral systems. The Mayor of London is elected by the supplementary vote system. European elections use the d’Hondt system of PR and local government is first past the post. That is three that I can name; I am sure that there are more. But I hope that on the basis of this short debate, the noble Lord will feel content to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley]

I add two facts for ministerial consideration. One fact that really struck me about the Scottish referendum was the very high turnout rate of 75% of 16 and 17 year-olds, when for the 18 to 24 year-old age group it was only 54%. That is very marked. What it demonstrates is a clear interest in current affairs and their futures. The question is whether an age group that can demonstrate such a commitment to thinking about their future should be denied a vote generally.

Secondly, decisions are made regularly by local councils which impact on the daily lives of 16 to 18 year-olds. A very good example is the cost of public transport for young people—the cost of bus services, urban rail systems and so on. I have come to the conclusion that the voice of those young people is not adequately heard. I am in favour of votes at 16 and have been for many years, but I am even clearer now that the time has come to implement the change that Scotland has trail-blazed.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there is no doubt that the Scottish referendum and debate was unique, certainly in my lifetime, in engaging the public in the way it did. Participation in that election by people from all age groups, including 16 and 17 year-olds, was like nothing we have ever seen before. We can all look at it, wonder why we do not engage better with people from all age groups and reflect upon it. Amendment 48 would change the franchise for those entitled to vote in local elections in England and Wales to include 16 and 17 year-olds. As we have discussed, the Bill provides that the franchise for electing mayors for a mayoral combined authority is the same as that for all local elections in England, where the voting age is 18.

More broadly, of course, the voting age for parliamentary elections is set at 18, and beyond that the voting age in most democracies, including most member states in the EU, is also 18. Only Austria in the EU allows voting for 16 year-olds. We have heard the argument about the franchise in Scotland, but this was decided in Scotland, as is its devolved right, just as it is right that decisions about the franchise for elections that take place in England should be decided by this Parliament. I am sorry to be a party pooper at this time of night, but the Government have no plans to lower the minimum voting age and I am clear that the Bill is not the place to take steps to change the arrangements for local elections. I am sure that even proponents of lowering the voting age to 16 agree that, were it to happen, it should be only following detailed debate.

I have not read the report on IER but I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, about EROs engaging in getting people in general registered to vote, and certainly those younger age groups. On that basis I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, will feel happy to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I am pleased about the Minister’s final remarks, because I think the drop is catastrophic: 47% have dropped out in just over a year and that collapse is a consequence of IER. We have to deal with that; it is catastrophic.