General Election: Voting Rights

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Young of Cookham

Tuesday 25th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

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

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

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

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Young of Cookham

Thursday 30th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

Electoral Fraud

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Young of Cookham

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

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

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

Elections and Referendums: Spending Rules

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Young of Cookham

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

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

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

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

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Young of Cookham

Thursday 16th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Young of Cookham

Thursday 16th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Young of Cookham

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

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

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Young of Cookham

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Young of Cookham

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

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

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

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

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

“first proposed in consultation with the public”.

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

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

“on behalf of the other”.

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

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

[Lord True (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

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

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

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

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

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

when disposing of land for housing.

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

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Young of Cookham

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Young of Cookham

Thursday 26th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

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

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

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

Electoral Fraud

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Young of Cookham

Thursday 26th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

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

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

Voter Registration

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Young of Cookham

Wednesday 25th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

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

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

Short-term Holiday Lets

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Young of Cookham

Thursday 8th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

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

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

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

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

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Young of Cookham

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

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