Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority Order 2017

Debate between Lord Lansley and Lord Beecham

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I should draw attention to my registered interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. I am also, of course, a resident of Cambridgeshire.

Cambridge and Peterborough are two of this country’s fastest-growing cities. They are complementary in their industrial character, but, together, they offer the potential to be one of the leading locations both for high-technology investment and for related value-added activity. To enable this, the county requires more infrastructure, more sites for investment, more housing and commercial development and more skills. All these can and should be more effectively promoted by means of a combined authority taking hold of significant additional investment for housing and infrastructure from the Government, equipping it with local powers and budgets, and seeking a multiplier effect through partnerships with the private sector. I support devolution—and this order. It can have a significant effect in creating and delivering a driver for growth in our area.

In particular, I supported the Government’s initial plan for a three-county devolution deal—that is, Cambridge, Norfolk and Suffolk. Why? In my view, the real potential long-term for East Anglia is to secure Cambridge’s structural relationship to its wider economic hinterland. In reality, that extends into Bedfordshire, Essex and Hertfordshire, as well as Suffolk and Norfolk. That is especially so given the focus on life sciences as a global hub south of Cambridge.

Devolution did not, and would not, fit neatly to the economic geography of the Cambridge economic region so the wider scope of devolution and, for now, that more ambitious approach have been dropped. That does not reduce the need for clear and active strategic co-ordination across several counties in the east of England. I urge the mayor and combined authority to look for those strategic relationships with their neighbouring counties—as I know they will. That, as much as anything, should encourage those working towards devolution deals in neighbouring counties—I know Suffolk is considering exactly this—to seek to create further openings in future for ambitious infrastructure plans on a wider footprint. Investment in Cambridge is strong and sustainable in itself but the long-term economic benefit to the United Kingdom will be maximised only by realising scale and opportunities for supply-chain and linked investments related to Cambridge’s remarkable high-tech pull.

I support the combined authority as set out in this order, but I must be clear that this order sets up a combined authority. Where I live, as a consequence of this, after May I will be represented by a parish council, a district council, a county council and the combined authority. That is certainly one tier, and arguably two, too many. Locally, there is an unwritten assumption that in time the combined authority and the upper-tier responsibilities of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough should be managed in one organisation. Indeed, there is already a single chief executive for both Cambridgeshire County Council and for Peterborough. That process should be taken forward—and quickly. The cost of the combined authority in itself is not large, but the complexity of four tiers of local government could mean that the vision, delivery and progress we make are nothing like as much as they should be. I also urge Ministers to work with the combined authority and local councils to bring the Cambridge city deal, which is important in the management particularly of transport and congestion issues in Cambridge itself, within the scope of the combined authority.

Further, I draw attention to paragraph 4 of the schedule, as noble Lords may not have had occasion to look at that. It implies that no decision of the combined authority can proceed without the mayor’s agreement but also that no budget or transport plan of the combined authority can proceed without a two-thirds majority. In practice, four councils can form a blocking minority, even in relation to a budget or transport plan the mayor supports. Of course, this implies that the combined authority, local authorities and mayor must work collaboratively, and they have shown themselves capable of doing so in bringing the order and this plan into being. However, legislation is like a contract. It must be robust when things go wrong and define what happens when people do not agree. I am far from happy that this is yet the case for the new combined authority. The mayor will have a mandate. The role is about vision, leadership and delivery. The mayor should not readily be able to be blocked. With that caveat, I support this order and I look for ambition in Cambridgeshire to be realised in the years ahead, not least through the mechanism of this new combined authority.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, surprised me the other week by making a favourable reference to me in relation to another matter. I reciprocate by thanking him for clarifying an issue that I have mentioned from time to time: it seems we are facing over time a reorganisation of local government on unitary lines without any involvement on the part of local communities. It is a back-door way of reorganising local government. As the noble Lord indicated, there may be a case for doing that, but it sits at odds with the protestations about local democracy and people being involved for it to be conjured up through delegated legislation of this kind.

Moreover, there has been a very interesting exchange of correspondence between the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—the initial report of which was really quite damning about the process that has been adopted here—and the Minister, Mr Andrew Percy, on its 25th report, which emerged just last week. In particular, there was reference in the initial report to dissatisfaction on the committee’s part relating to claims of popular support for the notion of having a combined authority—not a unitary authority. In reply, the Minister referred to the point that had been raised. He said that the committee’s Explanatory Memorandum,

“quoted that under the online poll 47% were opposed to the transfer of powers and funding to a Combined Authority. I accept that it did not record that 59%”—

a majority—

“were opposed to a mayor; our intention had been to include this but due to an error whilst the drafting was being refined, this was omitted from the final text”,

for which the Minister apologised. I am sure the committee was very grateful for the apology. I wonder what action has been taken against the unfortunate civil servant who apparently just overlooked that issue. The Minister went on to say:

“I believe it is right to refer to the comment made by the councils that the online survey results ‘aren’t representative of the population as a whole’ and represent a ‘self-selecting sample’”.


Any vote at an election represents a self-selected sample. What is the difference in principle that should apply to a response to the report? It seems an absurd justification.

I find myself deeply suspicious of the Government’s approach to this and other mayoral elections. The history is recent: there was a referendum as to whether there should be a Mayor of London. Later, the coalition Government ordained that there should be referendums in a number of authorities. My own authority of Newcastle—I remind the House I am a member of Newcastle City Council and one of several honorary vice-presidents of the LGA—is one of the authorities that was forced to have a referendum. Most of the referendums resulted in a rejection of the notion of an elected mayor. Through this process, the Government are getting round the verdict in so many places without having the courage—that is all it requires—to seek again the opinion of people who made their position very clear some years ago. The Government would be in a position to argue that they are offering more than just a chance of having a mayor. They are offering the chance of a mayor with enhanced powers, a combined authority with enhanced powers and all the rest of it, but they have deliberately chosen not to offer that opportunity to the people on whom they imposed a more limited version of the process a few years ago. I find that inconsistent and, frankly, rather disgraceful.

I wish the citizens of these two authorities well. I hope that the combined authority works out well and that the mayor works well, but we are seeing an erosion of local involvement in these matters and in areas that have expressed clear enough reservations. Bath was the last one we discussed in this Chamber; it was quite clear that Bath did not wish to have an elected mayor as part of the combined authority. The Government really should look again at their processes in connection with this issue.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Lord Beecham

Wednesday 27th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My noble friend is anticipating the result, I hope correctly. This amendment deals with one aspect of the pay-to-stay provisions which have been very controversial. I shall reiterate briefly that the rationale for the provisions is based on a myth; namely, that council housing in particular is subsidised and therefore people with what is regarded as a high income are being subsidised by the taxpayer. In fact, of course, the housing revenue accounts of councils are not subsidised. Councils are obliged to balance the books and do so through the rent system. Paradoxically, however, what we may find under the pay-to-stay provisions is that the so-called high-income residents will be subsidising the taxpayer, rather than the other way round, because the money raised from the increase to be applied will go to the Treasury.

In a useful discussion with the Secretary of State and the Minister, I suggested that at the very least there should be some indexation of the income levels to reflect the increases which one anticipates will continue to take place in the consumer prices index. The amendment seeks to provide that this could take place on the basis of a triennial review to update the levels by the rise, if there is one, in CPI. That seems reasonable and the Secretary of State thought so too. I had hoped that the Government might come forward with an amendment, but they have not done so. I assume, however, that their view has not changed and I trust that the noble Baroness will—

[Lord Lansley]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I am not sure why he has chosen the consumer prices index rather than the retail prices index, since the difference between the two is that the retail prices index reflects housing costs.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Lord Beecham

Thursday 17th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, by the standards of Committee stage on the Bill, this has been a relatively short debate, and I will not prolong it too much. But I find myself slightly puzzled at the position that we end up in.

First, I thank those who participated. Most have supported the amendments. One of the most telling phrases was that of the right reverend Prelate, who said that the provisions in the Bill failed to capture the nuances of the needs of Gypsies and Travellers. I think that that is right. I particularly welcomed the participation of my noble friend Lady Whitaker, who is a tireless campaigner for the groups that are the subject of this amendment.

I was, however, slightly puzzled by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I very much welcomed the rare degree of agreement between us, which we did occasionally experience in his ministerial past, but the notion that somehow it was the system that created the problem in his constituency where, as he put it, a particular group took possession of land and developed it, strikes me as a little odd. This is not the Wild West. Presumably they did not just walk on to somebody else’s land and erect fencing around it. They must have acquired the land and they must, presumably, have got planning permission for building on it. The implication was that they had developed it and sold it and moved on. The noble Lord is shaking his head. Perhaps I have misunderstood him.

[Lord Lansley]

To be clear, yes, they acquired it, but at agricultural values. Then the utilities were provided because the utility companies were required to do so. Then, of course, they subsequently made retrospective planning applications. Often in particular circumstances, when they were refused planning permission, they based the essence of their argument to the inspectors that they had a housing need as Travellers in the area, that the local authority was not providing collectively for all the housing needs of Travellers, and that therefore their particular application should be granted.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Lord Beecham

Thursday 10th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I intervene briefly on this group of amendments. I have listened with care and interest to the debate on the previous group and was hoping to contribute to that, but I think it is perfectly appropriate to do so now.

[Lord Beecham]

Actually, the Companion allows that. Because we are in Committee, noble Lords can speak on any aspect at any time, if that is any help.

[Lord Lansley]

I am learning the advantages of being in your Lordships’ House as opposed to another place. This is clearly one of them.

I am prompted not least by the introduction to the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I can well understand his point of view about the absence of detail that we hope to see in regulations. I share the collective view across the House that we would like to see those regulations in order to understand how the architecture of the Bill will be shaped before we come to the decisions that we need to make on Report. But the absence of those regulations and that architecture affords an opportunity for the noble Lord to ask a lot of questions. Indeed, the amendments, in so far as they probe these issues, simply relate to a sub-set of the issues that potentially need to be covered in the regulations.

My personal view is that none of the amendments in this group would help us in any way because we need to see the whole shape of the regulations in order to understand this clause. From the Government’s point of view, there is considerable advantage in the flexibility provided by regulation in this area, rather than having too much rigidity in the system. I say that because I am prompted by what the noble Lord said: that this was about electoral opportunism rather than building houses. Actually, this is electorally popular. I have no doubt about that. The right to buy was popular in its time and is popular now, and the right to buy for housing association tenants will prove popular. However, the issue is about building houses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley]

In a way. I certainly do not propose to engage in a semantic debate about what the policy is described as. We know what it is and it will rightly be regarded by housing association tenants as the creation of a right to buy. It may be circumscribed in certain ways, not least by housing associations themselves under a voluntary agreement. But everyone will know what it is, and that is what they will be looking for.

On the latter point, I must say to noble Lords that I do not think I have to judge whether the policy was popular: it was. People voted for it and, frankly, at the last general election they voted for right to buy again. I do not think we need to have that debate. Indeed, that was not my purpose in speaking. I was addressing the issue that, actually, my noble friend Lord Horam made perfectly clear in a previous intervention. He was absolutely right. As I said at Second Reading, this is about building more houses. If we are to solve all the problems we are debating, we will solve them more readily if we are able to increase the number of houses we build. Then, we will not be trying to parcel out who lives in which home and under what tenure—as appears sometimes to be the purpose of these debates—rather than giving more people more opportunities to have whatever home they want under whatever tenure they want. The more homes we build, the more likely we are to be able to satisfy more of those ambitions.

Completely contrary to what the noble Lord just said, this is about building more homes. The local authority may sell houses, but those houses do not cease to be occupied. They will go into the market. That value, realised through the right-to-buy discount, will enable people to own the homes they are occupying. The housing association will take the market value and will, as a consequence, be increasingly equipped to invest in further new housing in the future. There is that benefit.

At the same time, the Government have an opportunity, and this is where the flexibility in the architecture of the Bill comes in. The Government will have flexibility in certain circumstances to say, “No, we can actually do more by way of building more homes where we most need those homes to be built if we reach an agreement with a local authority to build more homes, through which we reduce the deduction—the payment it has to make”. That is why the single example of Greater London in the structure of the Bill is indicative. Frankly, one for one would not in itself be sufficient to justify substantial deductions on the payment.

In so far as there is a given amount that is required to be paid over to housing associations that arises from the discounts, such payments might therefore have to be met by the Government out of general taxation. I see nothing in the Bill that requires the two sums to be exactly the same. That flexibility allows the Government to enter into agreements with local authorities. There is a clear incentive for local authorities to come forward with proposals that would allow them to build more homes than one could otherwise anticipate being built as a consequence of simply transferring that money through to the right-to-buy discount. The consequence, one way or another—through the housing association route, or the local housing authority arriving at an agreement to build more homes—is that more homes should be built. That is devoutly to be wished for.

What will help us to explore the issues arising out of the discussions in Committee is to know more about Clause 72. What do these agreements with local authorities look like? For my own part, it is important to be able to see a practical example. I declare an interest as an unremunerated chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. We want to see houses being built. We need more affordable homes. In my time as Member of Parliament for South Cambridgeshire, I saw the housing waiting list in my constituency more than double. We have a fast-growing area. We have rising land prices and property prices. We have a lot of demand for key worker housing and affordable homes. In that sense, we are very much like the most pressed and needy areas of London. My noble friend talked about the changing geography of London and that is absolutely right. There are places outside London that exhibit characteristics very like some of the most stressed parts of London.

In encouraging the process of fleshing out between now and Report, I say to my noble friend that it is not just about fleshing out the regulations; it is about engaging in conversations with local authorities. I would be happy if my noble friend would allow such a conversation to take place between her department, South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge City Council and for me along with colleagues to be part of that. We should discuss the potential for these deductions and what they can deliver. The Government are right to believe that they should have the flexibility to give local authorities leeway regarding the assumptions that would lead to payments into the right-to-buy discount if they are building more houses and showing the additionality of being able to do so.

For that reason, there has to be flexibility in the architecture of the Bill regarding, on the one hand, the ambition to build more houses through local authority agreements that directly correspond financially to a flexibility in how much money is asked of individual local housing authorities; and to what extent that money corresponds with the money provided in right-to-buy discounts.

[Lord Beecham]

Why not leave the decision to local authorities within whose boundaries these high-value properties are situated? How can it be justified to levy on those local authorities a payment when the property is not yet vacant?

[Lord Lansley]

I am grateful for that because I had not realised it until I listened to the Bill being discussed earlier today. The answer is that, insofar as the local authority seeks to achieve not just replacement new homes for the dwellings that are sold but to do more, the consequence in financial terms has to be borne by the Government, so the Government are a partner in this proposal. It does not automatically follow, as one of the amendments in this group implies, that the amount of money that is derived from local authorities through the payments that are required under Clause 67 has to correspond with the amount of money that is provided to housing associations under the right-to-buy discount. If there is a difference, and in particular if there is a shortfall, it is down to the Government to cover it. Frankly, I think that the Government, through agreements reached with local authorities, should have the flexibility to create such a shortfall and to fund it differently.