Deregulation Bill

Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

2: Clause 1, leave out lines 8 to 11 and insert—
“(b) must be framed so as to include all those whose work activities may pose any risk to the health and safety of any person other than the self-employed persons conducting them.”

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak also to Amendment 3. I thank the Minister for reverting on this matter at Third Reading, as he promised to do, and for providing some important draft regulations. The issue with which we have grappled throughout this Bill is how Professor Löfstedt’s recommendations might be safely implemented—if indeed they can be—and in particular how it would be possible to deliver the recommendations that those self-employed who pose no potential risk of harm to others should be exempt from the general duties of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 without creating unintended consequences.

As we have asserted before, maintaining the status quo for the self-employed is the preferred approach given the minimal requirements that would fall on them in these circumstances and the risk of confusion that could follow any change. However, we accept that this is not where the Government are—hence another attempt to implement the recommendation is necessary. Certainly, the first two attempts to implement a Löfstedt approach fell short. The most recent did not have the support of the professor himself and received substantial criticism when consulted on, not least from the CBI and the EEF, and it is understood that the HSE advised that the last approach should be abandoned. The latest attempt is reflected in the government amendment and in the draft regulations, which I think were circulated on Monday.

As we have heard, this amendment provides a framework for determining who is conducting and undertaking a very prescribed description and, hence, is subject to the general duty. As we have heard, it can be determined or framed by reference to types and locations of activities or any other feature, and, crucially, by whether persons who may be affected by the conduct of the undertaking may be exposed to risk to their health and safety—a very important change.

Although our preference for any exemption from the general duty is that it should be based on everyone being in, subject to exclusions which take people out, rather than the reverse, we see merit in this government amendment. We are comforted by proposed new subsection (2A)(b), which appears to be a substantial change in the Government’s position, as I think the Minister confirmed. It brings matters back to a Löfstedt formulation and therefore we are grateful to the Minister for his efforts in bringing this about, doubtless with the steadying hand of the HSE. It raises questions of how it is to be put into practice and doubtless takes us back to issues around risk assessments, but I was pleased to hear what the Minister said about specific guidance being developed in this regard, as well as use of the existing guidance.

Although comforted, I am bound to say that we are not comforted enough. Our Amendment 2 would simply ensure that, rather than just setting out some of the potential criteria by which undertakings of a prescribed description may be determined—that is, the circumstances which bring a self-employed person under the duties of the 1974 Act—it is mandatory. So regulations determining the self-employed who retain a general duty must always include those who may pose a risk to the health and safety of another person. Indeed, why on earth should that not be the case?

Certainly that approach is what has been provided for in the draft regulations that we have seen. But they are, frankly, only that—draft—and presumably there is no prospect of them being finalised before the end of this Parliament. The Minister may wish to comment on their intended progress. What assurance do we have that the actual regulations will replicate the circulated draft? I understand exactly what the Minister said—that if he were in a position to determine that, that would be the case; it would be the basis on which the Government took them forward. However, we know where we are in the electoral cycle and, come May, who knows who will be in a position to take this forward and on what basis? Is it not the case that the Government of the day could ignore new subsection (2A)(b) in framing any regulations, undoing the good work that the Minister has achieved and reverting to a prescriptive list which bears all the flaws of the earlier version? Changing primary legislation, which could always be done, would be much more difficult.

Incidentally, in determining who is exposed to harm, the Government have discounted the employees of a self-employed person. Accepting that Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act would in any event impose a duty on the self-employed in respect of their employees, can the Minister tell us why that is so?

Our Amendment 3 was drafted before we had sight of the government amendment and it calls for a review of any proposed regulations to see that they are fit for purpose. This still has relevance, although we see that the draft regulations—the Minister referred to this—provide for a review of any regulations within a five-year period. Such a review would clearly be welcome.

On the face of it, the Government’s position represents a significant and welcome change. However, unless we think about locking it down more tightly in primary legislation, it may yet be wasted. I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his constructive comments, and I recognise that the timing creates some difficulties. I have consulted on whether draft regulations can be finalised, approved and laid before the general election, but I have to say that with the best will in the world that will not, at this stage, be possible. I cannot give the noble Lord a guarantee on the structure, nature and composition of the next Government—I am not sure that any of us can at present. That, of course, has to remain a matter of good will and of the commitment of those who have been involved from all sides in these consultations.

The duties and the question of the employees of the self-employed are covered by the general duty that the self-employed have to consider the interests of others and the risks involved. That seems to me to be fully covered here. We have moved as far as we can and the draft guidance was intended to provide an indication of where this coalition Government would be moving and where we would trust any successor Government to continue in assessing this very delicate balance between where Professor Löfstedt started, which was with the sense that we should try,

“to exempt from health and safety law those self employed people whose work activities pose no potential risk of harm to others”,

and, as he also said in his original review, to,

“help reduce the perception that health and safety law is inappropriately applied”.

That is what we on both sides are attempting to do. I felt that the Government had now moved sufficiently far to assure the Opposition that we were very much pursuing this role and that our proposals would bring Britain into line with other European countries and remove health and safety burdens from the self-employed in low-risk occupations. I hope that that does provide sufficient assurance, but I will see how far we have been able to do so.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response, and I entirely accept his assurance about what he sees as the way forward in circumstances where he and his colleagues were in a position to determine that. It is a great pity that the Government have come a significant way on this but we are just a smidgeon away from locking it down and making it mandatory. I really do not see the problem with doing that. If the Government are happy to provide for that in the draft regulations and happy to take those factors into account as part of their amendment, simply always making it mandatory to feature that provision in regulations seems to me to be quite a small additional step and one that could make a real difference. It is a pity that having come so far the Government cannot just close that gap.

Incidentally, in terms of the employees of self-employed people, I understand that Section 2 of the 1974 Act creates a general duty on all employers, whether they are employees, self-employed, or whatever their status is, so I am not quite sure why they are being excluded here when these arrangements are considered. Perhaps we might reflect on that. This is difficult, because I would like to test the opinion of the House, but I think that the Minister has done his utmost to provide reassurance on the record. That is where we are, and it is probably the best way to leave it today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 2, as an amendment to Amendment 1, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

5*: After Clause 43, line 7, leave out “section 25A” and insert “sections 25A and 25B”

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, in moving this amendment, I will also speak to our other amendments in this group. In doing so, I, too, draw attention to my interest in the register. We consider that this is an integrated group of amendments that stand together, should we decide to test the view of the House. I trust that that is agreed.

The issue of short-term lets has generated considerable controversy since it has been proposed that there should be some relaxation of the London provisions, but it has also focused attention on what is now happening in the market and why the status quo cannot be sustained. Currently, the letting of residential accommodation for temporary sleeping accommodation in London for a period of less than 90 consecutive nights constitutes a change of use for which planning permission is required. Notwithstanding that there is the possibility of a fine of up to £20,000 for failure to secure permission, we know that short-term letting is extensively carried on without permission being available.

We have covered in earlier debates the problems that can arise and the issue is helpfully dealt with also by the briefing we have received from London Councils for this debate. It concerns the potential loss of residential accommodation to the lucrative short-let market, increased problems with noise and anti-social behaviour, loss of community identity, increased crime and fire safety risks, and significant challenges on continual enforcement. We know that other cities around the world are experiencing similar problems. There is clearly a market for this activity and business opportunities have been created, particularly via the internet, which are different, as the noble Lord said, from those of the 1970s. According to the Government’s own figures, there are currently thousands of London properties and rooms advertised as used for short-term lets, each potentially in breach of the law. That is an untenable situation.

The amendments that I am speaking to have the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hanham and Lady Gardner of Parks, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who have each added their names. Indeed, we have worked together across our party divides to come up with a package of measures that, building on the government amendments, would enable home owners who wish to let their homes on a short-term basis to do so unless there is detriment to the amenity of the locality and to do so within a system where there is proper notification to local authorities and where enforcement is enabled. Like the Government, we do not see this as providing new opportunities for large-scale commercial lettings. These amendments, too, are about providing safeguards for the local community.

Our amendments cover five issues. First, there must be provision in regulations for those letting properties on a short-term basis to have an obligation to notify the local authority. Our amendment is not prescriptive as to form and content and it need not be overly bureaucratic. The Minister rather set his face against that in introducing his contribution, but there is no reason why this could not be dealt with very straightforwardly via some web- based approach. It is not prescriptive, but it would give an opportunity for the local authority to gain an understanding of the scale of activity in its area. It would also aid local authorities in their enforcement role, which we know is a challenge at the moment, and of course could potentially be an encouragement to tax compliance.

Secondly, we consider the number of days in the calendar year that accommodation should be available for short-term letting should be 60 rather than 90, as the Minister recognised, with regulations enabling this to be reduced. We consider that to be a more reasonable constraint and protection on local amenity. But even that would allow a four-month back-to-back letting across a year end. The Minister simply asserted that 90 days was more appropriate. I am not sure that that assertion, frankly, carries more weight than one for 60 days.

The concept is that short-term letting should be allowed effectively for someone’s home. It appears that the Government are seeking to define that by liability to council tax. We think that that is inadequate. Would not a liability to council tax arise for somebody letting residential property on a commercial basis, for example, between tenancies? Limiting the relaxation to someone’s principal residence in London would better target the deregulations.

Fourthly, we welcome the provision that the Government are seeking to make for local authorities to disapply the regulation for certain properties or areas, but oppose this right being subject to the consent of the Secretary of State. Local authorities are better placed to make the judgment about the impact of short-term lettings in their boroughs. Surely, that must be the case. We agree that they should not be able to do this in an arbitrary manner and protection of the amenity of a locality is a fair yardstick. However, we believe that a desirable hurdle rather than one that is necessary is considerably fairer. Indeed, the necessary hurdle could give rise to substantial and fair challenges on the local authority.

Finally, there is the issue of enforcement. In their policy document of February this year, the Government stated that:

“To protect amenity and address concerns over nuisance, the Government proposes that the new flexibility should be able to be withdrawn from particular properties after just one successful enforcement action against a statutory nuisance”.

In his contribution, the Minister said that there was provision elsewhere for this to be effective, but I am not sure where it is. The Government were clear in their policy document that that was what they wanted to happen. Our amendment provides that regulation should make such provision but is potentially more flexible than the “one strike and you’re out” approach.

These amendments are designed not to undermine the Government’s position, but to strengthen the safe- guards, and also, in the spirit of localism, to recognise that local authorities and not the Secretary of State are best placed to determine whether the scale of short-term letting is destroying the amenity of their areas. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hanham (Con)]

My Lords, my name is also on this amendment, and I would like to draw attention to the declarations I have made in the past of being a joint president of London Councils and also a former leader and member of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which will be affected by this legislation.

The noble Lord has set out very clearly the amendments that we think are necessary to make this legislation tenable. London has a particular problem. I drew attention on Report to a phrase in the policy document which said that London needed to be brought into the 21st century over the renting and letting of property. I said then and I say now that I think that London is already and has been in the 21st century for a very long time. There is enormous pressure on property in London. There is probably more renting now in London than anywhere else. There is a hugely transitory population, so that we now have great areas where we know that people are not resident. The properties are not used; they are investment properties. London has a dichotomy. It is an area where people want to live but now cannot, largely because it is getting so expensive. Where there is investment, the people who have invested in property are not from this country but from abroad. Where there is a lot of very new property on land which perhaps could have been used for local people, it is now largely empty.

The temptation to let is enormous. To make sure that there is no abuse of the proposals which the noble Lord has brought forward, we have tabled these amendments. Before saying more about that, I want to mention some other things that I am concerned about. The Government—of whom I have been a great supporter —are all in favour of devolution, of passing powers to different parts of the country and to different parts of England. We have just done it with Greater Manchester. There is more devolution. London has had devolution through its ability to put forward Private Members’ Bills to deal with the issues that affect London. These Private Members’ Bills are not put forward in isolation: they have to be put forward with the agreement of all the London boroughs. That process has been deficient, at the very least, in terms of what has happened here. I saw a representative of London Councils here today in Parliament and, as far as I am aware, London Councils has been solidly against this proposal since it was first brought forward. By definition, that includes the London boroughs.

For some reason, the Government have chosen to try to override what London wants. They may not think that London figures very greatly within this category in relation to the rest of the country. One of the rationales for making the change is to enable London to do what other parts of the country do. But London is different. It has very different pressures, as I have tried to suggest.

In these amendments we are trying, first, to query whether people really do go on holiday for 90 days. I think we would all be jolly lucky if we managed to get that amount of time off. That suggests that if people want to let for 90 days they might not be quite as altruistic as they might appear to be at first sight. Is it not reasonable to suggest that people might like to go on holiday for a lesser number of days?

Secondly, the amendments are trying to ensure that somebody will at least know that the letting is likely to take place. We have not specified what that process should be other than that people should notify their local authority that they want and are likely to let their properties on a holiday-let basis. If that does not happen and something goes wrong or difficulties occur in those properties—I think that my noble friend Lady Gardner will go into this in more detail—no one will know why or how the properties have been let, or to whom they have been let, and the local authority will have no real powers of intervention. I think that that matters. I am all for deregulation but I also think that because of the whole problem of renting in London, a little more grip needs to be kept on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

When the noble Lord referred to the 15 and the seven, I thought, “I hope I have got my maths right”, so I am glad that we said that there were eight and seven. He is quite correct. I mentioned those authorities which did not want the review to happen and, subsequently, the seven which did not object. To clarify that point, I say that the noble Lord is quite right. I hope that I am being clear. I am being detailed in my response so, while I am not expecting it, I at least hope—and one should never give up on hope—that I shall carry the House in certain elements of what I am saying, and that there will nevertheless be clarity in covering the issues that have been raised.

My noble friend Lord Tope also raised council tax liability as a way of demonstrating residency. We believe that this provision distinguishes between private and business premises because it requires liability for council tax, which means that if a property was used as a residence, a hotel or a hostel, it would be liable for business rates. Combined with the 90-night limit, we believe that this provides an appropriate safeguard against short-term letting on an ongoing basis.

I welcome the interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, as I do those of all noble Lords. I listened to him attentively. He raised the issue of insurance. It is of course a matter for landlords to enforce, and for tenants to abide by, the terms of the lease and any insurance policies. Our amendments relate to the need to apply for planning permission and do not affect issues under an existing lease or indeed an insurance policy.

I hope that I have addressed most, if not all, of the issues raised in the hour and 10 minutes that we have had on this group of amendments. This is an important area, and I assure the House again that the Government have listened to the concerns expressed during the passage of the Bill. We believe that what is in front of us today, and what we are proposing more generally, is a balanced approach, with the objective of updating a law that would work for the benefit of ordinary Londoners wishing to let their homes in a legal way.

I hope that noble Lords will accept the reassurances that I have given again today: we are proposing amendments to seek to prevent the loss of housing stock by allowing the short-term letting of homes for a maximum of 90 days without the need for planning permission. I stress again that there are safeguards in the Bill to check that the added freedom will apply only to those people who are providing their homes and paying council tax; and we are providing local authorities with the power to apply to the Secretary of State where exceptions may be and where local amenities need to be protected.

I believe that the Government have listened and present a balanced perspective on where we are today. If I may, I end with the words of the song:

“Maybe it’s because I’m a Londoner

That I love London Town”.

I believe that what the Government have proposed does just that.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, this has been an extensive debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendments: the noble Baronesses, Lady Hanham and Lady Gardner, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Tope. I hope they will forgive me if I do not pick up each of the very strong comments that they made.

To the noble Baroness, Lady Shields, I say simply that no one is saying that there should be no opportunity to boost family income or to use a property when someone is abroad—indeed, it might lead to interesting opportunities for tourism—but this is a question of balance and the protection of the local community as well. Just because something can be accessed digitally does not mean that you should disregard other issues, particularly around enforcement.

The Minister is right that over the months we have perhaps narrowed the gap. He asserts that the Government and he himself continue to listen, and I am sure that he does. However, I hope he will respect when I say that on this occasion they have not listened enough. I wish to test the opinion of the House.