Queen’s Speech

Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, the Queen’s Speech asserts the Government’s objective of increasing the life chances of the most disadvantaged. That is a worthy ambition but lacking in credibility when it is considered that much of the last six years has seen the poorest in our society bear the brunt of benefit and tax changes driven by austerity.

An IFS study published just last September looked at the broad range of policy measures introduced under the coalition Government to estimate how the changes have affected both household incomes and work incentives over the period. It concluded that while there has been some strengthening of work incentives, it is low-income working-age households and the very rich who lost the most in absolute terms from the tax and benefit changes. But measured as a percentage of income, the bottom two deciles have lost the most—that is, proportionately, the poorest have taken the biggest hit.

Sheffield Hallam's Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research has undertaken a different analysis looking at the welfare changes introduced by this Government and the projected financial losses to places and people. This analysis showed that post 2015, welfare reforms impact unevenly across the country, with older industrial areas, less prosperous seaside towns and some London boroughs being hit the hardest, but with much of southern England escaping lightly. As a general rule, it concludes that the more deprived the local authority area, the greater the financial loss of its residents from the post-2015 welfare reforms—so much for rebalancing the economy. The Government will claim that these losses can be compensated for in whole or in part by increases in personal tax allowances, the national living wage, and perhaps the extension of free childcare, but we know that these do not impact fully, if at all, on those so damaged by the cuts.

We have seen a similar pattern with local government finance settlements, not only in the colossal scale of the cuts—a 56% cumulative, real-terms cut in government grant funding for local government—but in the distribution of support, which has shown the most disadvantaged areas doing worse in terms of changes in spending power, and some of the more affluent areas doing the best. My point is that it is difficult to conclude from all this that fairness is truly at the heart of this Government’s approach and that an expressed care for the most disadvantaged will translate into positive policies that will help improve their lives and communities.

That is why in particular we need to ensure that the proposal to move to 100% business rate retention by local authorities includes an effective system of equalisation between local authorities, transparency on additional responsibilities taken on, and arrangements for the funding of safety nets. An improved system of appeals for business rates is also essential if the full consequences of appeals are to fall on local authorities. We have seen before—council tax support being just one example—government passing responsibility to local government without transferring adequate resources or the means to raise them.

The ink is only just dry on the Housing and Planning Act 2016—a piece of framework legislation hugely lacking in detail, as we debated extensively—but here we are again, looking to change neighbourhood planning, streamline compulsory purchase powers and amend pre-commencement condition arrangements, predicated on the notion that it is the planning system that is holding up delivery of a proper homes programme. Of course we should welcome a commitment for the building of more new homes for so long as there is substance and not just spin in the commitment, but, as our recent debates have made clear, and fairness demands, these must be homes that meet the needs of all our communities—affordable, for rent as well as for purchase, and as supported housing.

Turning to the privatisation of the Land Registry, just yesterday the Competition and Markets Authority expressed concerns about the sell-off, identifying that it could give the new owner a monopoly on commercially sensitive data with no incentive to improve access to the data. Of course, the privatisation of the Land Registry is not a new idea. It was floated under the coalition Government, with the proposed creation of an office of the Chief Land Registrar and the bulk of the registry’s work going to a service delivery company. It is clear that the first and foremost reason for this sale being revisited is to generate a capital receipt for the Chancellor.

Noble Lords may recall that at the time of the earlier proposals the former Chief Land Registrar wrote:

“The Land Registry is a successful and highly regarded department of government with a 150 year history … It conducts its business impartially and free from any conflicts of interest. It grants and guarantees title on all transactions so providing the security of tenure and conveyancing machinery on which a stable society depends and without which the property transfer and mortgage markets could not function”.

We would do well to listen to that view.

Of course, the fattening-up process has already begun, with the Infrastructure Act 2015 providing the means for the local land charges system to be removed from local authorities and operated by the Land Registry. However, this arrangement will fragment the provision currently undertaken by local authorities, with what is termed the CON 29 component of the hitherto joint service remaining with local authorities. The transfer of local land charges to the Land Registry was due to take place from this July. Perhaps we can have an update from the Minister on how that is all progressing, and in particular how the local authority databases are to be valued for these purposes. We do not necessarily argue for the status quo—we can see a wider role for further digitalisation of the service and a wider remit for the Land Registry, particularly in this era of greater transparency of land transactions—but we should oppose the folly of this privatisation.