Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 25th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Stunell for his work on the amendments in relation to the National Planning Policy Framework and for his contribution today. We shall see in the months ahead whether the solution proposed by the Minister manages to hold up against any challenge.

As we have heard, as the Bill progressed we had several lengthy debates in this Chamber on pubs and permitted development for alternative uses. I, too, am grateful to the Minister and to the Government for listening so carefully to the views from across this House and for this revised amendment from the other place, which will help greatly with the protection of pubs at risk. It has the advantage of introducing a permitted development right where the proposal is to extend the range of food to be offered while maintaining the pub itself. Beyond that, planning permission will be required before a pub can be demolished or face a change of use. That puts powers into the hands of local people and local planning authorities—here, I remind the House of my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association—and that has to be beneficial.

I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned on this issue, including the Campaign for Real Ale and the British Beer and Pub Association, and to those from all parties—including my colleague in the other place, Greg Mulholland—who have spoken and campaigned in support of it. I am very pleased to commend the Commons amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as this is my first contribution on these matters, I refer Members to my declaration of interests in the register. I declare that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham, a vice-president of the Local Government Association and the vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Beer Group.

In respect of Motion A, I am disappointed that the other place did not accept the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, although I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, that the other House did not divide on the issue. I hope that the noble Lord, with his colleagues in the department, will keep this matter under review so that, if it turns out that the provision needs to be strengthened, we can return to it at a later date. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, made a very important point about the primacy of the NPPF.

In respect of Motion B, I am delighted that the Government have listened to the campaign both inside and outside Parliament. I pay tribute to two Members of the other place—Charlotte Leslie, the Conservative Member of Parliament for Bristol North West, and Greg Mulholland, the Liberal Democrat Member for Leeds North West—for their campaigning over a number of years to bring about this change.

I also thank all the Members of your Lordships’ House who supported me in the debate and in the Division Lobbies. I particularly want to thank those Conservative Members who voted with me and those who kindly abstained, as that played an important part in getting a large majority when I tested the opinion of the House. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, for his generous support in the debate, as well as others, such as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. I am also grateful for the support that I received from the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Scriven, and others.

The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, corrects a loophole that was of great harm to successful pubs, and it protects and helps them. In the previous debate I was very clear that the intention behind what I proposed was never to keep open a pub that was not a successful business but to support successful businesses.

I like pubs and I like a pint. Like the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, I probably should have bought a few shares in the odd pub or brewery; I have certainly spent enough money on beer over the years.

I also pay tribute to the fantastic work done by Tim Page, the chief executive of CAMRA, Amy O’Callaghan, its senior campaigns officer, and all the members of CAMRA in branches across the country who emailed and phoned us and Members of the other place.

This amendment is important, and I am grateful to the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, for listening. It is an example of the House of Lords doing its job well. By winning the argument on the original amendment, we created the conditions for the Government to think again and we have a great solution today that I am delighted to support.

Combined Authorities (Finance) Order 2017

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 30th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I shall make two brief points. First, the powers and the checks and balances proposed in the order seem appropriate, but I note the final paragraph of the Explanatory Memorandum concerning monitoring and review, which says:

“Mayoral combined authorities will be required … to put in place an extensive programme of evaluation”.


I suggest to the Minister, not least because there are two different methods for creating the mayoral budget now—for most the precept, and for the West of England by agreement of the constituent councils—that evaluating how that works could well be something for independent review as opposed to being done by the combined authorities. I hope the Minister will pay some regard to that.

The other issue is that I did not quite understand what the Minister said about audit and, in particular, scrutiny. There is a very tight timetable between the beginning of February and the beginning of March. There is to be a budget proposed by the mayor, then to be agreed by the combined authority. The combined authority is of course scrutinising that mayoral budget, except that the combined authority itself is subject to scrutiny. My question is: at what point will the scrutiny arrangements that have already been approved by another order apply? Will there be a role for the scrutiny panel before 1 March, or will the scrutiny panel put forward its views at a date between 1 March and the date at which the constituent councils are setting their budgets, which need to come very early in March? There is a process issue about the role of scrutiny, because I think the Minister said that the combined authority has a scrutiny power over the mayoral budget, but the combined authority is actually itself subject to a formal statutory scrutiny arrangement.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my declaration of interests and put on record that I am a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I have no objections to the order before us and I am very happy to agree it. There does, however, need to be a wider debate at another time about where we are going with local government in England outside London. I will leave that for another day.

The section of the order with respect to mayors’ budgets is particularly welcome. I was pleased that the Minister made reference to the fact that there is a veto provision. All mayors will be mindful of that but, equally, it is set at the high bar of a two-thirds majority, or, in the case of Tees Valley Combined Authority, of a three-fifths majority. That is an important provision that mayors should be aware of.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made important points regarding auditing and scrutiny. I welcome the Minister’s response to that. I assume I am correct that if local electors have objections to the council they can make these as normal, but could the Minister confirm that as well as he can in writing?

For the record, in the previous debate when asking about mayors and their function the point I made was about selling land below market value, not at market value. Will the Minister also respond to that point in writing?

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I am aware that I have tabled a number of amendments to this section of the Bill. I am also aware that some detailed discussion has taken place outside the Chamber. I am generally content that we are moving in the right direction and do not intend to delay the Committee for long.

We welcome the statutory framework for dealing with temporary possession. Amendment 88 seeks to make it clear that an acquiring authority may serve one or more notices under the clause. I was concerned that that was not very clear from where we stand at the moment. I would like to hear a response from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, in respect of this amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 89, 91, 92, 93 and 94 in my name. These five amendments relate to Clause 17, which makes provision for a person affected by temporary possession to serve a counternotice to limit the total period which the temporary possession can last to 12 months in the case of a dwelling and six years in any other case. Leaseholders can also serve a counternotice providing that the acquiring authority may not take temporary possession. Having received the counternotice the acquiring authority must decide whether to accept it, withdraw the notice or proceed to take the land permanently.

As drafted, Clause 17 seems unnecessarily complex. The hope is that the Government might be able to simplify it without losing any of its statutory force. Regarding Amendment 89, Clause 17 applies wherever an acquiring authority gives notice of intended entry on to land for a temporary period to a person who is either the freeholder of the land affected or a leasehold owner. The clauses that follow seem to have a different counternotice procedure, depending on whether it is a freeholder or a leaseholder. So in connection with Amendment 89, is there a need to distinguish between leaseholders and freeholders? This amendment and the consequential amendments seek to avoid that and therefore to simplify the clause.

Amendment 91 refers to Clause 17(3), which allows a leaseholder to give the acquiring authority a counternotice to prevent it taking temporary possession of the land. It appears that this right is not available to freeholders, who can serve only a counternotice limiting the period of temporary possession. Surely, this right should be available to freeholders. This amendment therefore seeks to clarify the matter by stating:

“The owner may give the acquiring authority a counter-notice which provides that the authority may not take temporary possession of the owner’s interest”.


We then have consequential Amendments 92, 93 and 94. Clause 17(10) states that nothing in that clause,

“prevents an acquiring authority acquiring land compulsorily after accepting a counter-notice or withdrawing a notice of intended entry”.

My question is: should a permanent acquisition be available for temporary land unless a counternotice has been served requiring a permanent rather than temporary acquisition? Clause 17(8) is relevant in this respect. Amendment 94 would therefore leave out lines 38 to 40 on page 15. The concern is that landowners could potentially face a period of six years of temporary possession with the acquiring authority then deciding to acquire the land permanently. In the interests of fairness, the land should surely have been acquired permanently in the beginning. Scheme promoters should know how they wish to use the land and whether it needs to be permanently acquired from the outset.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley]

Clause 27 relates to the no-scheme principle. In moving Amendment 107, I wish to speak also to Amendments 109 and 111.

Clause 27 seeks to put the no-scheme principle in the compensation code on to a statutory footing. The Bill defines the no-scheme principle as,

“any increase in the value of land caused by the scheme for which the authority acquires the land is to be disregarded”.

Amendment 107 seeks to take this further to make the Bill state that,

“any increase in the value of land caused by the scheme or the prospect of the scheme”,

should also be disregarded. The Government have tabled a very similar amendment. I welcome that amendment and do not plan to say any more about it.

I turn to Amendment 109. New Section 6A(3) on page 21 of the Bill states:

“In applying the no-scheme principle the following rules in particular … are to be observed”.


This amendment seeks to delete the words “in particular” given that new Section 6A contains five rules which are clearly defined. I will come on to Rule 4 in a moment. If one has rules defining what the position is, why do we need the words “in particular”? That implies that there are other rules that might be considered and there is no indication as to what those might be. The current position is that only the statutory disregards can be taken into account in disregarding the scheme. This provides clarity over the valuation exercise to be undertaken. I hope the Minister will agree that “in particular” on page 21, line 28 should be taken out.

Finally, Amendment 111 relates to Rule 4. The purpose of scheme cancellation being on the valuation date is to avoid the need to speculate on what may have happened between the date of cancelation and valuation because they are the same. It is not clear what the purpose of Rule 4 is. It seems to be unnecessary and likely to create confusion, particularly in the context of the other four rules. I hope the Minister will be able to explain why it forms part of the Bill and why the words “in particular” need to appear in new Section 6A in Clause 27. I beg to move.

[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.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 2nd February 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I hope the Minister will understand that this is a very important issue. The reasons for that have been extremely well explained in the speeches that have been made so far. The noble Lord, Lord Horam, made an extremely helpful and important point, as did others, about the problems that exist. In a nutshell, those problems can be explained as follows. On the first day of Committee, my noble friend Lord Stunell pointed out that emerging neighbourhood plans are showing a greater appetite for more housing, precisely because they have more say in the way in which they build their community. In other words, it is in all our interests to promote neighbourhood planning. However, the second problem is that only around one fifth of the country is engaged in neighbourhood planning. As we know, in those places that do not have parish councils, it is a slower process. But as we also know, you do not have to have a parish council to undertake the neighbourhood planning process.

I hope the Minister will be willing to look at this issue between Committee and Report, because we will be coming back to this on Report. The Bill says that neighbourhood planning is important and must become more important. But as a consequence of that, local planning authorities must do more to promote neighbourhood planning. It is for them to decide whether that is through the creation of more parish councils under the review procedures that exist or through the other means that exist. This is a very important issue. It is not going to help the Bill if we simply end up with not many more people engaged with the process.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I have only a few brief remarks to make on this amendment. To go back again to my own ward, in Crofton Park, we have a neighbourhood forum and are tempted to set up a neighbourhood plan. We are one of the places in London that is trying to do this. It is a difficult process, but I certainly see the value of it. My fellow councillors and I, along with community members, are working towards that. We hope to get it approved and to put it to a referendum among local residents.

The noble Lord, Lord Tope, is right: there is only one parish council in London, and it is the Queen’s Park parish council in Westminster. It was set up in 2014 after a referendum, and it is based on the Queen’s Park ward of Westminster City Council, which is a Labour-held ward—there are not that many Labour-held wards in Westminster—but it is non-political. I do not think that parties contested the election there, so it very non-political, and by all accounts it works very well and is a very good thing.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was right in what he said about parish councils and neighbourhood plans. They are largely in more rural areas. I know the east Midlands well, and I have come across the Deeping St James Parish Council in Lincolnshire very close to Peterborough. I have many colleagues and friends who are involved in that parish council, and it works very well. They certainly look at their rural area and are very conscious of the planning that takes place there. I accept that in many cases it is as the noble Lord described.

The only issue I have with the amendment is that this is a new duty for local government and perhaps funding should be addressed as well. Perhaps the Minister will address that when he replies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I shall be very brief but want to ask the Minister four specific questions about Clause 8, which will help us when we come to Report. Clause 8 was a late addition to the Bill; it was not in the initial draft that went to the House of Commons. It would help if the Minister could explain why it was felt necessary to include it.

My first specific question is: can a county refuse to undertake the work and, in that case, what would happen? Secondly, can a county subcontract the work to somebody else, which would presumably include the use of consultants? Thirdly, if it does, how is local knowledge about the district in question going to be guaranteed in constructing the plan? Fourthly, with reference to Schedule 2, it looks to me as though a county can charge a district whatever it likes, so what action do the Government plan to ensure that cost recovery is reasonable?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before the Minister responds, on the point raised by my noble friend Lord Beecham about difficulties with the Sheffield city region, my understanding is that it is North East Derbyshire District Council and Chesterfield Borough Council in Derbyshire which wish to join. I think that Bassetlaw District Council in Nottinghamshire may also want to join. The legal action is being taken by Derbyshire County Council, which of course partly comprises the north-east Derbyshire and Chesterfield areas. The problem is with three districts in two counties, but one county council has raised the legal action on the points that my noble friend outlined.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

On that specific point, perhaps when the Minister responds he can tell the Committee how the policy has arisen. Where are the examples of the councils that do not have these plans? Why do the Government think it so necessary to take such a wide-ranging power, as the noble Baroness asked? Clearly, there must be some very serious problems that the Government want to address for them to take such wide powers. I would love to be informed about what those are.

[Lord Shipley]

The Minister kindly answered three of my four questions. The missing answer was on the right of a county to charge whatever fee it wishes to. It is an important issue and, if he prefers, the Minister can write to me, but in Schedule 2, lines 31 to 40 rather suggest that a county can charge a district whatever it wishes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, in his amendment. I simply ask for the Minister’s guidance, either now, in writing or at Report. I draw his attention to the Fixed Odds Betting Terminals All-Party Parliamentary Group, which launched a report earlier this week on the subject. It drew attention to the London Borough of Newham, which has succeeded in using cumulative impact assessments to curb the development of new bookmakers. Broadly speaking, the noble Lord’s amendment is about change of use and new betting offices and payday loan shops. The APPG report was about fixed-odds betting terminals, and I am not sure that it directly related to the location of payday loan shops. However, there is clearly a problem with cumulative impact. Newham Council has adopted policies to curb the development of new bookmakers. The APPG says that:

“While being a helpful mechanism to stop the expansion of future bookmakers, this would not, of course, provide a mechanism to deal with current bookmaker premises and clustering”.


There is, therefore, a very serious issue here and it would be helpful if the Minister could look at it before Report, with a view to having a further debate at that point.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I will make a couple of brief comments before the Minister responds, including one about payday loan shops. I should declare in this context that I am a director of a credit union—London Mutual Credit Union, which is based in London and covers four London boroughs: Southwark, Lambeth, Westminster and Camden. We are also the credit union to the Armed Forces: a number of our members are from the Armed Forces.

I was conscious that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, and others, encouraged the Government to take action in the previous Parliament in respect of the interest rate, and that is very welcome. There is, however, an issue—we certainly get it because our main office is in Heaton Road in Peckham. About 10 doors along is The Money Shop. We often get 50 to 60 applications to join the credit union but also people walking in off the street. Often they have been to The Money Shop and, because of difficulties there, people have suggested that they go down to the credit union. They join, and the first thing that we do is try to find out what their problem is: how big their debt is—get it all out of them. Then, if we can, we will find them a loan. We want to pay that direct to The Money Shop, to end the problem there, not just give it to the people themselves.

There is, however, an issue with a number of these high street shops and how they operate. I would certainly like to see more action—more ability for a local authority to look carefully at its area and see whether there are enough such shops. Unfortunately, as we have all seen, the problem is not borrowing more money, it is getting a grip of your finances and controlling them. Credit unions are one type of organisation that can help with that, along with others such as money advice services.

Combined Authorities (Overview and Scrutiny Committees, Access to Information and Audit Committees) Order 2016

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 26th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, this a slightly lengthier discussion than we had on the previous two orders. It results from there having been great cross-party collaboration when the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill passed through your Lordships’ House. That work developed the basis for the proposals now before us. Let me say at the outset that much of it is welcome.

For the avoidance of any doubt, I want first to ask the Minister to confirm that the order will apply to all combined authorities automatically and that, if there is to be a combined authority in future which does not have a mayor, the order will apply to it as well. I then have a few specific questions. When the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill passed, we had established separate overview and scrutiny committees and audit committees—it was right to separate those two functions. But in the case of audit, I hope that the Minister can confirm that it will encompass risk, particularly investment decisions.

One function of overview and scrutiny will be to scrutinise risk, but there are advantages in audit committees having a clear risk function as well, because some investment decisions will be very big financial decisions. It was good to see from the list of consultees that the National Audit Office and the Centre for Public Scrutiny were consulted, because one of the aims that we had with the Bill was to ensure that value-for-money audits were done, as well as simply financial audits. Can the Minister confirm whether the proposals given to the Government by the National Audit Office and the Centre for Public Scrutiny have been incorporated in this order?

I have a further concern that there is to be no governance framework for the operation of overview and scrutiny committees. My questions are: how does an overview and scrutiny committee know what it needs to scrutinise? Who will tell it what it should review? Am I right in assuming that agendas and papers for the meetings of combined authorities will be made available, and that they will include both the public and private parts of those agendas? We need to be clear exactly what is proposed here. When the Bill was passed, there was a lot of concern about access to meetings. We do not want to see decisions being taken in lengthy pre-meetings of combined authorities, from which the press and public are excluded, with the formal meeting of a combined authority being very limited in time and content. I submit to the Minister that such an outcome would not be good for local democracy or for the success of mayoral combined authorities in the public perception.

The absence of a governance framework places a lot of responsibility on the shoulders of the committee members, in particular independent members, to ensure transparency and openness. I suggest to the Government that they should monitor the appointment of independent members. There is clearly a process, which we welcome, but I think the Government will need to monitor that appointment process to ensure that it is indeed wholly transparent.

I have a further query about timescales, which relates to the two months allowed for a combined authority to respond to an overview and scrutiny committee. The timescales, as I understand them, are these: an overview and scrutiny committee will call in a decision if it wishes to, which will prevent implementation for up to 14 days. When that committee has held its meeting, the combined authority or mayor must hold a meeting to consider what it has said within 10 days. Potentially, that gives 24 days for the total time taken to that point. However, a period of two months is then allowed for the combined authority to respond to the overview and scrutiny committee, to explain why it made its decision. That is too long. I have not understood why it should take two months. I would be puzzled if it needed to take more than a fortnight, but there may be a reason that I have not understood. I am happy to seek the Minister’s reassurance on this point.

Finally, I would like an explanation, if the Minister is able to give one, for the statement about protecting the overview and scrutiny committee’s independence in the Explanatory Notes. The relevant bullet point, at the top of page 4, says that,

“to protect the overview and scrutiny committee’s independence, the committee may not include any officer from the combined authority or the combined authority’s constituent councils”.

That sounds eminently right and reasonable. What I am not clear about is exactly how the overview and scrutiny committees will then be staffed. There will clearly have to be staff members present, writing opinions and papers for the attention of scrutiny committee members, which implies quite significant staffing. That may be fine, but presumably it also implies that the officers giving advice to the overview and scrutiny committee will potentially be required to give evidence to the overview and scrutiny committee. What power does an overview and scrutiny committee—which may not include any officer from the combined authority or the combined authority’s constituent councils, so there must be independent officers present—have to require an officer who has given advice to a combined authority to attend a meeting? I should be grateful if the Minister will explain that point.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, again for completeness, I refer the House to my interests set out in the register in so far as they are relevant to the issues being debated. I should state at the outset that I am content with the order before your Lordships’ House and am happy to approve it.

Generally, the order brings combined authorities under arrangements similar to those that exist elsewhere in local government. The new combined authorities, which will elect their mayors this May, will have considerable powers over large areas of service delivery and policy that have a tremendous effect over people’s lives. The powers that it is proposed to give to these new elected mayors and combined authorities are, in some cases, not yet through their parliamentary procedures, such as bus franchising, which is being debated in the other place as it considers the Bus Services Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raises some important points about how the procedures will operate in the future and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response.

I am pleased about the measures in respect of overview and scrutiny, which can serve a valuable function. I have first-hand experience of this, so I hope that the House will allow me to explain with a local example how valuable the function is. I have told the House many times before that I am a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham. I may not have mentioned that I am a supporter of and season ticket holder at Millwall Football Club. I and many other councillors, residents and campaigners—including Vicky Foxcroft, the Member for Lewisham Deptford, Neil Coyle, the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, and the Association of Millwall Supporters—were concerned at the proposals for redevelopment around the Den, which would not deliver any social housing or enough affordable housing. The club was clear that that potentially put its future at risk in a part of south-east London where it has been part of the community since 1910. Councillor Alan Hall, Councillor Brenda Dacres and others on the overview and scrutiny committee were able to provide robust challenge to the proposals. Other cabinet members, including Councillor Joe Dromey, also opposed the plans, which in recent weeks had a considerable amount of publicity in the Guardian, the Evening Standard, the South London Press, Private Eye, Sky Sports and the BBC. I have been struck by how many members of the House’s staff have said to me as walked past, “Defend my Den, my Lord”.

Yesterday it was announced that the planned compulsory purchase of land leased to Millwall would not be going ahead and that the local authority wants to get around the table to seek agreement on the way forward in a manner that brings together the club, the Millwall Community Trust, which does a great job with children in the area, and others to secure the redevelopment by agreement. Overview and scrutiny played an invaluable role in achieving that turnaround, as did the Association of Millwall Supporters, by highlighting concerns and issues. That is a local example of effective overview and scrutiny. I am happy to support the order.

Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 26th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the discussion of these orders. I remind the House of my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association. I seek clarification on two points in one of the orders, because, broadly speaking, most of what is proposed is not contentious for us.

I have a question about the combination of polls, and my query lies with paragraphs 8.7 and 8.10 of the Explanatory Memorandum. The memorandum says, rightly, that when you combine polls, that produces cost savings. Given that this is a new election, can the mayoral elections be held on the same day as a general election? In other words, might we end up with three elections on one day? I note the following words in paragraph 8.10:

“Government is confident that electoral administrators will be able to effectively administer combined authority mayoral elections and other polls that they may be combined with”.


That says that the Government are confident, but what evidence were they given by electoral administrators? Running three elections at once is clearly more complicated than running two.

My second question relates to the election booklet that the Minister referred to. Is it the intention to distribute that election booklet alongside poll cards? Clearly, if it is a single process, that will reduce costs at a time when local authorities are having great difficulty in balancing their budgets. Having to pay for two separate distributions will be more expensive and unwieldy than if both are delivered together.

[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.

Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2016

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 21st December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the order. It is a final step in the devolution of powers to an elected mayor and combined authority in Greater Manchester, and should fulfil its basic aim of providing those local leaders with the levers they need to boost economic growth, which is the Government’s intention. We should congratulate the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and all the leaders and councillors in Greater Manchester for the leadership that they have shown to the country as a whole.

One of the things that is particularly impressive about the order today is that if you look carefully at the checks and balances for the local authorities, the combined authority and the elected mayor, and how they relate to each other, those checks and balances seem appropriate. I think they will help give legitimacy to decisions so that neither the elected mayor nor the combined authority is overly exposed to a decision, and local authorities will still be able to maintain the necessary powers and influence that they want to maintain.

Of course devolution will work only where there is trust and public support. There is evidence that both are available in Greater Manchester, and for that reason it is particularly good to see in paragraph 9.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum that “No guidance is necessary” from the Government on the order. It is one of the few occasions that I can recall where central government has not felt it necessary to issue guidance. However, I have one caveat to that, which is about the guidance that was promised in the passing of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act a few months ago about openness and transparency in decision-making, by which I mean access to meetings for the public, the press and the media. Will the Government be very clear that all these will happen, as was promised at that stage?

Some of the context of the order and the areas that it covers—housing, planning, transport, education, training and culture—is new, while some is not. There used to be regional spatial strategies when we had regional development agencies; and of course the Bus Services Bill will give a range of transport powers to a combined authority that will exist in future. So not everything that is going to be devolved actually has to be part of this, but the powers have been extended. That is welcome, but an acid test of the success of devolution will lie in further education and skills training, and whether there is an increase in vocational training and a reduction in the number of those not in education, employment or training—NEETs. It is very important that this model produces success. There have been so many models for skills policy over recent years, and I hope that the combined authority will take very great care to ensure that this will improve skills outcomes.

I have two final points. In terms of the powers that are being conferred, there is no mention in the order of social care—yet, at the end of November, Greater Manchester asked for an extra £214 million to cover social care costs. The Financial Times reported that it had appealed to the Treasury for the extra money, saying that,

“the ‘financial pressures in social care pose a real threat’ to Manchester’s ability to deliver devolution because of the resulting strain on the city’s NHS budget”.

That was three weeks ago. Could the Minister update us on that situation, because there is no mention in the order of adult social care?

My final question is as follows. The Minister kindly responded to a Written Question I tabled on 9 November about which other combined authorities would have mayoral elections in May 2017. He replied that they would take place in Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, Sheffield City Region, Tees Valley and the West Midlands. He indicated that there might well be others in addition. It is now 21 December, those elections are due to take place next May, and yet this order for Greater Manchester is the first. What timetable are the Government working to for all the other orders that will be coming to your Lordships’ House?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, the order before us today is one of a number of orders in respect of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and puts powers in place so that when we get the mayor elected next May, they can hit the ground running. The powers here include the power to prepare a spatial development strategy, which will of course enable the authority and the mayor to improve growth in the conurbation. As we have heard, the powers are similar to those already exercised by the Mayor of London and will be exercisable only by the mayor. Compulsory purchase powers will be exercised by the mayor with the agreement of the combined authority. I am supportive of the powers.

Greater Manchester is growing, with jobs being created, enabling the conurbation to increase in prosperity, so these powers are very welcome. The delivery of more housing and housing development is important, as is ensuring that we have transport that meets those growing housing needs and works well. I was pleased to hear about the additional powers in respect of bus franchising in advance of the buses Bill, and that again is very welcome.

However, perhaps the noble Lord could just comment on the court case involving Sheffield and the consultation there. There will be other devolution deals around the country, and it would be helpful to know what is being decided about the action by Derbyshire County Council. I agree with many of my noble friend Lord Beecham’s comments in respect of Greater Manchester. We obviously wish the authority very well next year in the elections, but equally it highlights how much money the authority has lost recently and going forward. The noble Lord mentioned the northern powerhouse, but we need to address the fact that billions of pounds are being taken away from Greater Manchester areas, and other areas as well. It is important to note that we risk ending up with a northern poorhouse rather than a northern powerhouse.

I also have a brief comment about the report in the Times today on voting that my noble friend Lord Beecham mentioned. It is only speculation in a newspaper, and it may not be true, but if it is true, I assume at some point next year we will have some legislation on what you need when you go and vote, such as passport, driving licence or utility bill. As my noble friend said, if you are 18, you may not have any of those three documents in your possession at all. We need to know a bit more about that. I accept that the Minister may not be able to tell us today, but we need to find out about it urgently.

It is disappointing that we get reports of these things in the media when I and other noble Lords have talked about the underregistration problem in this country. Millions of people should be on the register today but are not; the Government have done next to nothing on registration in recent years. That is a real shame. Whatever comes from the Government must be proportionate and not an overreaction. I would be interested to know how many court cases there have been for voter fraud in this country—I think there have been very few—and how many convictions; I think it is even fewer.

I remember that when I worked for the Labour Party, I brought a case against the Conservative Party in Slough. We won the case and the councillors concerned were all kicked out of office. That involved multiple applications to register to vote. I remember the official showing me the pictures of these houses. They were burnt-out shells, but dozens of people were registered as living there. In court, it was quickly shown what was going on; people were quite rightly kicked out of office and some went to prison. I would be interested to know how many people the Minister thinks such court cases involve, but we must work on registration; that is the most important thing. With that, I am content with the order.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 12th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who I thought made an excellent case for Amendments 1 and 113 in his name and, in so doing, I should say that I am the vice-president of the Local Government Association. I simply add a little for the Minster to take away, because the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, talked a great deal about the importance of bus services for employment opportunities and for training purposes.

In the consultation that is talked about—a huge amount of consultation will take place on this Bill, not just in terms of this amendment—one type of organisation that should be automatically consulted is employers’ organisations. There can be huge problems for people who often are on a low income, live in remote places and have no access to a car and who, therefore, need to be able to get to employment and training opportunities, often at unsocial hours, by public transport. Therefore, it is important to consult those people. Proposed new subsection (4)(d)(iv) in Amendment 1 refers to,

“organisations, or types of organisation, specified by the Secretary of State in regulations made by statutory instrument”.

I hope very much that employers’ organisations and jobcentres will be included in that list.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as this is my first contribution to the discussion on Report of the Bus Services Bill, I refer noble Lords to my register of interests: I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I should also say that, generally, we on these Benches welcome the provisions in the Bill.

Bus use in London has grown while outside it the picture has been very different. We are hopeful that when the Bill passes into law, it will help to halt the decline in bus use outside London, particularly in rural areas. The two amendments in this group are in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty. As we have heard, Amendment 1 seeks to place a duty on county councils in non-metropolitan areas to consult on the needs for local bus services. It would require them to issue a consultation document and, following the consultation, to issue an assessment on the need for local bus services in the county and, further, to seek to secure the provision of bus services that address the needs identified that would otherwise not be met, as my noble friend outlined. The amendment is very focused and requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance to assist county councils in making sure that they have properly responded to the outcomes of the consultation. The amendment goes further in setting out what the consultation must address and who, at a minimum, must be consulted. I agree with my noble friend Lord Whitty and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about ensuring that employers’ organisations are properly consulted. However, the amendment gives considerable scope to the Secretary of State to set out and shape the consultation to be undertaken.

Amendment 113, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty, would place a requirement on the Government and the Secretary of State to issue a national strategy document within 12 months of the Act coming into force. Noble Lords will recall that that was discussed in Committee. As we have heard, there is no need for the bus industry to be the poor relation of other transport services. I fully support this amendment’s objective of requiring a proper national strategy. As we have heard, this document will set out the objectives, targets, plans and funding mechanisms for the delivery of bus services over the next 10 years. That is a very welcome idea. We have heard and seen the decline in bus services outside London. The Bill is an attempt to halt that decline. It seems sensible for the Government to pull those things together into one document. I hope that the Minister will give a positive response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 14, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, returns to a key part of the Bill raised both at Second Reading and in Committee. Under the Bill, only mayoral combined authorities can automatically opt for a franchise scheme if they believe that that is right for their area. All other categories of authority have to seek the permission of the Secretary of State to go down that route; that in turn would need to be approved by the affirmative procedure.

Our amendment, and Amendment 25 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, would put the whole question of franchising on a level playing field. We support the Bill in general, as I have said, and there are many good measures in it which we believe would improve bus services outside London. We have evidence that franchising works here in London and, where an authority thinks that that is the right model for it, we want it to be able to take it up, improving the number of passenger journeys and driving up standards.

With the change of government, I hope that there has been and continues to be a period of reflection on the whole question of mayors and the exclusivity of powers under the Bill that can come only when having a mayor. If an area wants a mayor, that is fine; if it does not, that is fine too. I hope that we can move away from effectively forcing authorities down a certain path if they want to have certain powers to a much more consensual approach, where it can be determined locally what is the best model for a locality and the full suite of powers be available, no matter what model is chosen.

Amendments 24, 26 and 27, also in my name in this group, are complementary, although in my opinion Amendment 25, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, works better. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley]

I support this group of amendments. The issue is whether a distinction should be drawn between the powers of a mayoral combined authority and an ordinary combined authority, the difference between which is only whether an elected mayor chairs the authority’s meetings. A second issue is whether a distinction should be drawn between a mayoral combined authority and a county council or an integrated transport authority.

It is very difficult to see why the Government are drawing the distinction they are. It is also very difficult to see why other bodies with transport responsibilities are being excluded from an automatic right to propose a franchising scheme without the Secretary of State’s agreement. Devolution of power implies devolving that power and devolving responsibilities associated with it. I would be content with the right to propose franchises to be extended to authorities other than mayoral combined authorities.

My concern relates in part to a later amendment, Amendment 28, about the independence of the audit function. If we have a robust audit system in place to examine proposed franchising schemes, it is much easier to allow other authorities, beyond mayoral combined authorities, to propose the franchising route. If a local transport body feels that franchising is right for it, and if it is subject to that rigorous independent scrutiny, it should be allowed to proceed.

There is an issue about the future of elected mayors where some combined authorities have turned into mayoral combined authorities and others have not. There could well be a change of heart within the Government anyway about the application of elected mayors—whether they will be compulsory in areas with substantial devolved powers. We are writing now into legislation that the extra powers that go with the right to franchise can go only to mayoral combined authorities, when not all combined authorities may end up being mayoral.

I hope that the Minister will look carefully at this because there is a very strong case to extend the power to franchise to authorities other than just mayoral combined authorities.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Randerson. It may appear to be an issue of semantics on the term “may specify” in new Section 138C, to which the amendment relates. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, wishes to amend the words to “must specify” and my noble friend Lady Randerson prefers the words “must consider”. I think the term “must consider” is better. “Must” is stronger than “may” and “consider” does not require a specification. I am not sure it is necessary to require an enhanced partnership to define or specify what a ticket looks like.

There are two issues in the long list of possible requirements in new Section 138C. Some have a national standard. They may relate to issues such as emissions, which my noble friend Lady Randerson has talked about, and they should apply across the country. Others are simply best left to the local arrangements and definitions of what seems appropriate. I hope that when we come to understand a little better what the list of requirements in new subsections (3) and (4) amounts to, we can get some closer definitions.

I understand that it is not necessary for this to be in the Bill, but the issue will arise in the context of statutory guidance. In that context, having read the list of requirements, it is helpful to consider what the appearance of a vehicle being used to provide local services should be. I do not fully understand whether the appearance refers to, say, the colour of a vehicle. In London, buses are red; in other places, buses in the same transport authority can be different colours. It is important that those matters are considered. Of course, appearance could relate to the number of times a bus is washed. On the appearance of a bus, if it gets dirty in winter, we prefer to have windows that people can see out of. I understand that this is a very small example, but we need to be a bit clearer about what the list of requirements actually is and, if they are requirements, whether they must or may be specified, and whether they must be considered. Having read all this very carefully, I have come to the conclusion that the words “must consider” are a better way of explaining what should be done.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response so we can understand a little better what this means by the time we reach Report.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken in Committee today I draw the Committee’s attention to my being a member of a local authority and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am very supportive of Amendment 84A, moved by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, which seeks to put in the Bill a requirement that an enhanced partnership scheme,

“must state the minimum standards of service to be provided”.

It seems sensible that we should state clearly what the expected minimum standards are for a scheme. My noble friend laid out clearly the reasons why. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, will give a positive response.

I am supportive of the other amendments in the group as well. Amendment 84B, again in the name of my noble friend Lord Berkeley, would toughen up the clause by replacing “may” with “must”. All of us want to see the Bill become law and improve the bus services provided to people outside London. Where we can, being much clearer and certain on what is to be done is helpful. In this respect, removing “may” and inserting “must” is helpful. Amendments 85 and 86 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, would place a requirement on enhanced partnership schemes to consider what are the other requirements or standards to be provided.

The final amendment in this group is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. It seeks to add a further provision on the collection of qualitative performance measures, specifying that these could include matters of passenger satisfaction. The service that passengers receive in all respects should be measured and taken account of. If people are unhappy about the cleanliness of their bus or other matters when they travel, that should be taken account of by the authorities. I look forward to the noble Lord’s response to these amendments.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 20th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

[Lord Shipley]

Before the noble Lord sits down—that is actually the subject of the amendment that I shall be moving next Monday.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 14th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, to help noble Lords with this Amendment 82GAE, we are going to speak to it in its place, which obviously will not be tonight.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I shall start again in a moment.

I can almost hear the Minister’s reply, which may be to tell us that all this will be made clearer in regulations, but as the Minister well knows, we have no regulations. There are no draft regulations and it is essential that, before Report, we have regulations which explain clearly what the Government’s intentions are on matters such as buy to let, subletting for short periods and leaving and letting a starter home within five years. In the case of this probing amendment, we need to know whether payment for a starter home can be in cash. I hope that the Government will rule this out today.

The basic principle is that cash buyers do not need a starter home. The simplest way to address this is via a requirement that the purchaser takes out a mortgage. Indeed, a key part of the National Planning Policy Framework definition of affordable housing is an eligibility test, with its provision for those whose needs are not met by the market. However, that is not a cash buyer, whose needs can self-evidently be met by the market. Therefore confirming in the Bill that anyone buying a starter home must do so via a mortgage would restrict market abuse.

Amendment 41B would require a first-time buyer to occupy their starter home as a principal residence. Thus, starter homes must not become second homes, and buy to let should be prohibited. However, there may need to be some consideration prior to regulations being published about how a property could be let out for short periods, where, for example, a purchaser of a starter home has a six-month temporary work transfer to another place. Therefore I am very keen to know what the Government’s thinking is on this matter. In the face of the fact that the Bill lacks so very much detail—even the technical briefings lack detail to enable us to respond properly to exactly what is planned—I hope very much that the Minister will be able to clarify these matters.

[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.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments looks at starter homes. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, will be aware that while this is a flagship policy of the Government, considerable reservations have been raised both inside and outside Parliament about the whole scheme. That was very evident in our previous debate.

We are in the midst of a housing crisis and these proposals on their own do not go any way to solving the crisis. They may even make things worse as funding is diverted from other programmes to support this one. That is one of the failures of the Bill; it does not do enough to support other housing tenures. The starter homes product is unaffordable to many people in most areas. At Second Reading, I pointed out that you could need an income of up to £77,000 per annum in London to afford one of these homes.

Although the Minister will not accept the point about the price cap being seen as a price guide, I certainly share the concerns of Mr Nick Hurd, the Conservative Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, when he drew that conclusion when the other place debated this Bill. The proposals actually make things worse by diverting funding from other schemes and allowing starter homes to replace low-cost rented homes within planning obligations, which will reduce the supply of housing available to those on low or modest incomes. That local authorities are able to grant planning permission only for certain residential developments, as specified requirements relating to starter homes are met, is of considerable concern also. Depending on what the regulations say, this could have a very damaging effect on the supply of other tenures of social and affordable housing.

We heard a lot about localism in the last Parliament, just as we did about the big society, but it has gone the same way and is rarely mentioned from the Government’s Dispatch Box these days. My understanding of localism is that it surely must be right for local authorities to be able to utilise their understanding of local housing markets to reach agreements with developers to ensure that planning obligations are met that deliver local housing need as part of a wider duty to ensure that there is a wide range of housing tenures to meet housing needs.

We have heard that there could be a loss of up to 71 affordable homes of every tenure for every 100 starter homes. The Government, of course, talk of working in partnership with local authorities, but the worry is that the Secretary of State will use extensive powers of direction to override any local development documents identified as incompatible with starter home duties. Can the Minister comment on how the Government will work in partnership with local authorities to deliver this policy and also satisfy other housing needs and not just ride roughshod over genuine concerns and a desire to deliver housing tenures that meet identified local housing needs? Also, by exempting starter homes from the community infrastructure levy, the policy reduces the scope of local authorities to secure the necessary contributions towards funding infrastructure.

The first amendment in this group is Amendment 37 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham. It adds the words,

“new homes across all tenures”,

into Clause 1. It is fairly straightforward and takes account of the point that I have made that promoting one particular type of tenure at the expense of other types, regardless of local need, is not a sensible policy. The amendment would put in the Bill a more sensible statement with respect to the starter homes programme and other housing tenures.

Amendment 47 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and other noble Lords, is one that I am very supportive of. It would make clear in the Bill the duty of the local planning authority in relation to starter homes and other tenures. Amendment 48 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham qualifies the duty of the planning authority to promote starter homes where that would prevent other types of affordable housing being built. This is important, as the local authority would have a better understanding than the Secretary of State of the local housing need in a particular area.

Amendment 48A would require the local planning authority to take proper account of housing need and viability for particular groups of people—those of pensionable age, below average income and those in need of a statutory duty to house. The amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, would put in the Bill a requirement for an adequate supply of affordable homes for key workers and families requiring temporary accommodation from the local housing authority. There are other amendments in this group, which will be spoken to by the noble Lords who have tabled them. I am supportive of all the amendments. Their aim is to ensure that proper account is taken of local housing need in considering the building of starter homes. I am sure that this will be an interesting and wide-ranging debate. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 37, to which my name is attached. I declare at the outset that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I shall also speak to Amendment 47 and, in practice, several others.

The overriding concern in this group of amendments is that the Bill must be about renting as well as home ownership. That is why we have two separate groups—the last group looking at ownership and this one looking at all tenures. The principle is very simple. Renting must still be supported for lower-income households where it is not possible for them to buy their own property. I remind the House that there are some 1.3 million people on social housing waiting lists in this country. So I hope that the Minister will understand and accept that the Bill cannot just be about starter homes for owner occupation but must include social renting.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, Part 2 of the Housing Act 2004 repealed Part XI of the Housing Act 1985 and introduced a new definition of a house in multiple occupation and, in April 2006, a new scheme for controlling and licensing such houses that were deemed a high risk. Houses in multiple occupation include bed-sits, shared houses and hostels but not self-contained flats. They share one or more of the basic amenities, such as the toilet and the washing or cooking facilities. Those properties which met certain conditions had to be licensed. These conditions included the building being three storeys or more high and occupied by five or more tenants, in at least two households. The regulations have worked well but more needs to be done. The private rented sector is increasing, as we have all heard, and so are houses in multiple occupation. We need to provide protections to this growing group of tenants, who are particularly at risk.

The purpose of Amendment 19 is to go further and bring more properties into scope. To be part of the mandatory licensing scheme under my amendment, the only two conditions which would need to be met are that the property has to have five or more people living in it and in at least two households. As I have said, houses in multiple occupation pose the greatest risk to the tenants living there. It has been established by research undertaken that people living in bed-sits are six times more likely to die as a result of fire than people living in an ordinary house. A number of factors can be at play here, from a vulnerable person living in the accommodation to the quality of the construction or conversion of the property. The time has come to extend these provisions and I hope that we get a favourable response. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I do not wish to detain the Committee but I simply want to say that this is an extremely interesting proposal, which I hope the Ministers will look at very carefully. We have a lot of experience in recent years of HMOs and the legislation about having three storeys. We need to look carefully at this because the proposal as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, seems to be one meriting some further close attention.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I have not spoken to the leaders of Chesterfield or Bassetlaw councils but I have spoken to the leaders of Derbyshire County Council and Nottinghamshire County Council. It is an area I know quite well, but I accept we are not going to agree on all our points.

This is also an area of considerable natural beauty with a thriving tourism industry. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could talk about the devolution deal for Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. Discussions are taking place with those councils, but there are concerns. They are worried that any deal there will be potentially undermined by having further discussions about other councils leaving that area. This is not a good way of going forward.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, there are advantages and disadvantages when this House considers a Bill in advance of the House of Commons. The advantages are that we can take an early view of proposals and make suggestions for the other place to consider. Among the disadvantages is that we can be asked to consider a very large number of amendments from the Government at a very late stage. This afternoon, we have 87 government amendments, of which 59 are in this group alone. This adds to the complexity and means that we have to be very careful in agreeing to amendments, as we have not had fuller consideration of them in Committee.

That said, in many cases, the amendments proposed by the Government improve the Bill. They clarify and enable, and they promote localism. We will shortly, I hope, have a further discussion about Amendments 31A and 36A, but the Minister has moved that we agree with Amendments 1 to 18 at this stage, and I want to say one or two things about the overall content and context of the amendments under discussion. The promotion of localism has to be a partnership if it is to be successful, which I think is what the Minister has said. For that reason, the additional powers now being proposed for the Secretary of State need to be used very sparingly, and I hope we will hear from the Minister further confirmation as the afternoon progresses that this is indeed the Government’s intention. In that context, Amendments 31, 31A, 36 and 36A are extremely important, and I support the amendments which will be moved later this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham.

We have also received the advice of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which published its comments on 22 December. That committee rightly pointed out that when we considered the Bill in the summer, the Government gave assurances that the powers of the Secretary of State over brokering bespoke deals would be constrained by the need for all councils in a given area to consent. That requirement no longer has to apply, at least until March 2019.

On these Benches we have always been strong advocates of localism and the further devolution of powers to local authorities or combinations of them. But partnership and consent matter if devolution is to work. For that reason, I hope that we will hear assurances from the Minister that the powers will be used very sparingly, that they will only be used in circumstances that promote effective localism and that the procedural guarantees sought by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, will be followed so that local authorities are encouraged to work collaboratively together.

I have two further points. The Minister referred to the fact that there will be an annual report. I am very pleased about that in the context of all our debates in Committee and on Report. Although not all of the amendments proposed by your Lordships’ House were agreed in the other place, the annual report will give a focus for clarifying and sharing what has happened, what good practice has been promoted and which pilots have proved successful. It is very important that that does not stay in Whitehall with Ministers but is shared with the whole country. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that not only will that annual report be issued but this House will have the opportunity to debate it.

The second issue I want to draw attention to from the Minister’s opening speech is her use of the words strong governance. She said that an elected mayor model is a model for strong governance, so that the public know where responsibilities lie. I have expressed doubts about the single-leader model and the ability of a single person to do so many things—perhaps, to be the police and crime commissioner or to take on responsibility through the combined authority structure for fire and rescue. If NHS matters or responsibility for children’s services are to be devolved to a combined authority level, it seems difficult for one person to do so very much and remain democratically accountable. I can hear the Minister’s reply, which will be that those matters will then be devolved to other leaders within the combined authority. We have had these debates before in the summer. Of course, we do not have elected mayors yet in most places and will not for the next two or three years, but it will be very important to review how they are performing as part of the annual report.

I have two concerns about this in a democratic sense. One is that councillors of constituent authorities will know less and less about what is actually happening in their areas because more and more decisions will effectively be centralised. Secondly, the general public may not understand who will be responsible for a decision and where it should be challenged if they do not agree with it. Reviewing that constantly seems very important.

That is all I want to say at this stage. I may say a bit more when the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, moves his amendments to Amendments 31 and 36 but, for the moment, I think that there is a different mood in England now about devolution. There are problems and, in some places, occasional conflicts, but, in the main, there is a willingness to accept devolved powers from Whitehall and Westminster—indeed, a very strong desire to do so. The moves of the previous Government and this one have demonstrated that the appetite is there for those devolved powers to be granted.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, earlier today I spoke about the need to ensure accountability in this new layer of local government. I said that one way to increase public confidence in this structure would be to reduce the likelihood of a one-party state being created in a local area. The best way to prevent it is to introduce proportional voting through the single transferable vote for local elections, which Scotland, of course, already has.

Whenever power has been devolved in the UK in recent years, it has been accompanied by a change to a more proportional voting system. I believe, and have said several times during our debates on this Bill, that further devolution of powers will be put at risk if they are not matched by improved legitimacy, accountability and strong scrutiny and governance arrangements.

In Scotland, STV was used for all council elections in 2007 and 2012. There are no longer uncontested seats there and no council is controlled by single parties with huge majorities that do not reflect that party’s share of the vote. In England and Wales, however, there are more than 100 councils where one party commands more than two-thirds of the seats. In Scotland, there is none. Compare that situation with what the Government now propose for this new tier of local government. First past the post elections are what generates the one-party state. With a more proportional voting system, legitimacy, accountability and public confidence in the new structure would be enhanced. Given that multi-party politics is now firmly established in the UK, voters’ wishes at the ballot box need to be translated proportionately into seats at the local government level. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 75 is not one which we on these Benches can support. I declare an interest as an elected local councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham.

Although this amendment is concerned with elections to local councils in England, I mentioned in Committee that we had a referendum in 2011 on changing the voting system for elections to the House of Commons. That was wholly rejected and I have seen nothing following on from that result, or anything that has happened subsequently, which leads me to believe that the country wants to change the voting system for any elections. I also mentioned that we have got ourselves into a bit of a mess in recent years. We have managed to heap on voters a whole plethora of voting systems and that is not a good thing to do. I accept that, where a proportional system has been chosen, it should remain. However, I would like to see us use fewer systems.

I also referred to the fact that I thought that one of the worst systems was the supplementary vote system. I have observed many counts where people have only put a cross in the second column, which means that their vote is discounted. Therefore, I would like to see a reduction in the number of systems being used, and we certainly cannot support the amendment tonight.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, this amendment is about the voting system for local government elections in England and Wales. Like Amendment 73, it would introduce a fundamental change to these. As I explained in the case of the earlier amendment, we are clear that issues such as this need to be considered in a far wider context than this Bill. Even in terms of timescale, when STV was introduced in Scotland, the review of the 32 local authorities took two years, and clearly in England that would take much longer. Notwithstanding any of the arguments for or against the amendment, as I said in the previous amendment, this is not the Bill to be talking about changes to the franchise. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, pointed out, the people of this country said no to the alternative vote in 2011—I was one of the people who campaigned against it. Again, it is not the place of an unelected House to propose changes like this. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 29th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this proposed new clause to be inserted after Clause 10 gives effect to the policy of my own party and that of the Liberal Democrats to allow citizens upon reaching the age of 16 to vote in elections. In this case, the entitlement is for local government elections only. I suspect that this amendment is not going to receive a favourable response from the Government, which is most unfortunate.

The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, my noble friend Lord McKenzie and me is one that the Government really should have a more open view of rather than the all too familiar no that we have been getting when this issue has been raised in recent times. I am well aware that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who is not in his place at this late hour, is not a supporter of this policy. However, when we spoke in your Lordships’ House recently, he made some excellent points that I agreed with very much. They regarded the need for much more citizenship education, which I think is very important. I see a programme of that sort of education leading to actually being able to register and to vote at 16. We do not have that at the moment, which is very much to be regretted. The arguments for allowing people to vote at 16 have been rehearsed many times before. It has been a policy in the manifesto of the Labour Party and, of course, the Liberal Democrats. It is also a policy of the Scottish National Party, the Greens and, of course, the Scottish Conservative Party, whose leader, Ruth Davidson MSP, said that she was a fully paid-up member of the vote-at-16 club. I am not sure what the position of Plaid Cymru is, but I am sure that it would support the policy as well.

As the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said, the game changer was the decision taken to allow people at 16 and 17 to vote in the Scottish referendum last year. As he said, the young people embraced their civic duty with pride and a real sense of responsibility, and they were part of the decision on the future path that their country decided to take. It was the right thing to do and it is generally accepted across civil society that it was a good thing. After the referendum, the Scottish Parliament voted unanimously to allow votes at 16 for all elections to Holyrood, and next year 16 year-olds will vote for the new Assembly in Scotland. I am sure that the Welsh Assembly will take a similar view. We are in a position whereby, in different parts of the United Kingdom, there are different ages at which people can vote, which is not a good place to be. It is a mess, and one that this House should address.

What is also interesting is that in the three Crown dependencies close to Great Britain, you can vote at 16: in the Isle of Man and the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey. You can also vote at 16 at certain elections in Germany and Norway. I have no doubt that this change will happen, and sooner than most people think, and for me it cannot come soon enough.

Has the Minister seen the report from the Election Commission on the progress of moving to IER? Here we are talking about votes of 16 and 17 year-olds when, due to the action of the previous Government—who of course included the Liberal Democrats, so they cannot get away with this one—as of May 2015, the number of 16 and 17 year-olds actually registered to vote has dropped by 47%. There are now only 247,705 people registered to vote as of February 2014. That is a shocking figure and one that both parties in the coalition should be rightly ashamed of. Perhaps in responding the Minister would agree with me that EROs need to take the issue of engagement properly and work particularly to get these young people back on to the register, working with schools and colleges, as takes place in Northern Ireland. It was right when the Labour Party called for EROs to be given a duty to get everybody aged 16 and 17 on to the register.

In conclusion, I support the amendment, and I am sure that the policy change will happen. However, we have a real problem with young people not being on the register, and we need to do something about that.

[Lord Shipley]

I add two facts for ministerial consideration. One fact that really struck me about the Scottish referendum was the very high turnout rate of 75% of 16 and 17 year-olds, when for the 18 to 24 year-old age group it was only 54%. That is very marked. What it demonstrates is a clear interest in current affairs and their futures. The question is whether an age group that can demonstrate such a commitment to thinking about their future should be denied a vote generally.

Secondly, decisions are made regularly by local councils which impact on the daily lives of 16 to 18 year-olds. A very good example is the cost of public transport for young people—the cost of bus services, urban rail systems and so on. I have come to the conclusion that the voice of those young people is not adequately heard. I am in favour of votes at 16 and have been for many years, but I am even clearer now that the time has come to implement the change that Scotland has trail-blazed.