Energy: Biofuels

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 27th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, we take the biofuels industry seriously; it is an important industry. However, we must have regard to the fact that we are regulated by EU and World Trade Organisation free-trade rules, and we therefore cannot put in measures specifically designed to protect the UK biofuels industry.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, what does the noble Earl’s department intend to do to support small companies that make biofuels from locally sourced used cooking oil?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I know that the noble Lord is a great supporter of the used cooking oil biofuel industry, and it is important. In a previous exchange, he raised the dual obligation to avoid the problem of large-scale ethanol imports disrupting the market for used cooking oil for the biodiesel market. I have raised this matter with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State but I go back to the point that I made to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw: we have to be careful to avoid setting regulations that favour UK industry, because we will rapidly come unstuck if we do so.

Enterprise Act 2002 (Part 8 Domestic Infringements) Order 2013

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

The noble Lord’s fluency in so many matters suggested that he wanted to make a contribution. I am sad that he will not do so.

We on this side welcome the regulations. They are a good step in a direction that many noble Lords will recognise has been a source of considerable annoyance and concern to consumers over many years. In that sense, I want to understand better the approach that the Minister is taking here. He quite rightly explained that there are requirements because of the European Union directive to move in this direction. In many senses today is interesting because the earlier order that we considered also relates to a European Union directive. The choice there was to do something at the latest possible moment whereas the choice here is to take forward the timing of the European Union directive and use it to solve a problem that is, as he said, a domestic rather than a European one. That aside, it is still a good decision.

Underneath this is a history that the Minister touched on but is worth recording. This comes from a civil complaint from Which? that was referred to the OFT, and the OFT generated the momentum behind this. Yes, it could have happened because of the European Union directive but there is sufficient pressure internally. That also shows that the measures brought forward under the previous Government to try to provide for more active consumer protection in this area have been successful. As a result of that, we are seeing these changes today.

In the impact statement, to which the Minister referred, the assertion is made that these drip-pricing approaches—you do not know the full cost of what you are buying online until you get to the final screen and suddenly some additional charges are put in—are, of course, a frustration and an annoyance. It is interesting, however, that the impact assessment is quite coy about whether it will be to the long-term benefit of consumers. It is effectively saying, if you read between the lines, that while the changes in the regulations and the consequences of what is being proposed mean that companies will not be allowed to add these additional charges, or drip charges, to the price that they are quoting and we will therefore be able to compare prices better and get more for our money, in fact, the money that is being taken out of the system through drip pricing will probably re-emerge as additional charges within the main cost. The impact assessment says that,

“the overall price level may fall; however this is considered unlikely”.

I wonder whether the Minister has any more information on that. I looked carefully through the impact assessment and I could not see much documentation about what will happen to prices. Does he think that my assertion is overstated or about right?

My final point is that the CRD—and the regulations implementing it—covers most retail sectors, but does not include some. Will the Minister please explain what is going to happen in areas which are not covered by the CRD or by these regulations? What measures are the Government considering to bring forward in future years to deal with those?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that. I should have jumped in before him, so I apologise for not getting this right. I wanted to ask one question about the impact assessment and the opt-out for small businesses. I do not believe in extra burdens and regulation for businesses, but it seems odd to me that we seem to be saying that, by allowing business with fewer than 20 people to opt out, they can carry on overcharging customers. It seems odd and unfair that they will still be able to make these charges, but generally I think that this is a great order and I am delighted that it is being brought in.

[Lord Popat]

I thank the noble Lord. He is quite correct that this order will prohibit traders from charging consumers above-cost payments; in other words, the charges will not exceed the real cost of the goods or services bought from the trader. We are implementing this in December 2013, largely due to our own research and that of Which? magazine, which brought this to our attention. The European directive will be enforced in 2014, so it will be good for consumers. The European Commission is looking at the payment separately under the financial services regulations. We will obviously get this information in due course. It is our policy to exempt microbusinesses from the new regulations until 2014. They are small businesses that employ probably fewer than 10 people, but they are crucial for growth and we have to support and encourage them. That is my response to the questions about small businesses.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

May I push the Minister a little further on that? It just seems very odd to me; I want to see small businesses and the economy grow, but if I am running a small business, I do not see why I should overcharge my customers. That does not seem like good practice and we should not allow it because it is not fair. I hope he will explain the point he is making. Why should small businesses be able to overcharge when big businesses cannot?

[Lord Popat]

As I said earlier, microbusinesses are crucial to growth. As a small businessman myself, I want to give value for money to my customers and do not want to make them pay any unnecessary charges, because I want to make sure that I get my repeat business. It is our policy is to exclude microbusinesses. The regulations will apply from June 2014 and not from December 2013.

Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation in order to support businesses that make biofuels from locally sourced waste and sell it close to where it is produced.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the Government strongly believe that the renewable transport fuel obligation delivers effective and sustainable market-based support to the biofuels industry. The RTFO provides additional support for biofuels made from waste by awarding two renewable transport fuel certificates for each litre supplied. The Department for Transport has committed to a review of the double certificate scheme and the support provided by the RTFO in 2013.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Earl for his response. There is a real problem here in that small, green businesses making biodiesel from waste products collected locally and sold from their premises are just not getting a fair deal. Will he agree to raise the matter with the Secretary of State for Transport, and will he facilitate a meeting for me with the Secretary of State and relevant officials on this matter?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, one of the concerns I have identified in private conversations with the noble Lord is the possibility of distorting the market in UCO and biodiesel by importations of ethanol. I will happily raise that with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.

Railways: Franchises

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 9th October 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of the cost to the public purse of cancelling the contract award for the West Coast Main Line railway franchise.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport will make a full Statement in the other place at the earliest opportunity. The department will remunerate fully bidders for the direct and reasonable costs of putting together their bids and expects this cost to be approximately £40 million. The department expects additional costs from mobilising Directly Operated Railways, reissuing the tender and carrying out two independent reviews. The department will monitor these costs closely and be fully transparent in keeping the House informed.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, it is very regrettable that the noble Earl has not taken the first opportunity in Parliament to say sorry for this fiasco. He should be truly ashamed of what has gone on so I invite him to take the opportunity to apologise. Why are the Government saying there have been regrettable and unacceptable mistakes and yet no Minister is accepting responsibility?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, some noble Lords express disappointment that a full Statement has not been made. Nobody asked for a full Statement. I was very willing to answer a PNQ yesterday afternoon but there was not one because we have the topical question today. As for ministerial responsibility, noble Lords know perfectly well that this was a highly regrettable mistake by officials, not by Ministers.

Energy: Biofuels

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Monday 8th October 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the ending of the duty exemption for biofuels and the implementation of the renewable transport fuel obligation on companies in the United Kingdom that manufacture biofuels from recycled food waste.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the Government strongly believe that the renewable transport fuel obligation—the RTFO—delivers effective and sustainable market-based support to the biofuels industry. The RTFO provides additional support to biofuels made from waste by awarding two renewable transport fuel certificates—RTFCs—for each litre of fuel supplied. The Department for Transport has committed to a review of the double-certificate scheme and support provided under the RTFO in 2013.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I would like to draw the noble Earl’s attention to the SME producers who recycle local food waste into biodiesel which has a remarkably low-carbon footprint. These companies have had to cope, in effect, with a 20p per litre reduction in their income because of the current value of certificates. It is clearly a difficult issue for these smaller companies, some of which have actually gone out of business. Will the noble Earl agree to facilitate a meeting between me, representatives of SME producers and the relevant Minister?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am well aware of the difficulties being experienced by these SMEs with their commendable work in producing biofuels. I would of course be delighted to invite the noble Lord, and any other noble Lord who would like to come along, to a meeting with the Minister and officials—the experts who understand these quite complex issues.

Roads: Private Investment

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what lessons learned from the privatisation of British Rail they will apply to any plans for increased private investment in the United Kingdom’s motorway and trunk road network.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, we are considering a number of options for the future ownership and financing of the strategic road network, looking at a greater role for private funding to provide more investment. This feasibility study is considering a wide range of possibilities, and it will be taking account of the experiences of water, electricity, telecoms and gas as well as rail and other transport sectors.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

That is a rather disappointing response from the noble Earl. I was hoping for “We’ve looked at it, it’s a stupid idea, and we’re not going to do it”. What words of comfort does the noble Earl have for the motorist, the small business and the taxpayer that they are not going to have additional costs to bear if proposals to introduce further private capital to our road system come to fruition?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the first comfort that I will give is that the feasibility study will consider the role that tolling can play, but it will not consider tolling existing capacity or road pricing. The purpose of the feasibility study is to look at how we can better run the strategic road network into the future so that investors can make long-term decisions rather than the short cycles that we are experiencing at the moment.

Localism Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, as a cyclist in London, I have come to know the London Pedicabs Operators Association quite well. Yes, pedicabs irritate taxi drivers—and they irritate me because they are wider than my bicycle and I cannot always get past them. However, taxis, cars and white vans irritate people. At some stage, we all have to live together and hope that it all works well for the benefit of the community and for people who want to go somewhere late at night. Of course, tourists love pedicabs.

However, I agree with the noble Baroness that there is something wrong with the current situation. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, mentioned the private Bill debated here in, I think, 2009. My understanding is that there was a voluntary registration scheme that the pedicab association was prepared to sign, given that Westminster City Council apparently made specific undertakings in Committee to provide pedicab ranks around Westminster. That has not happened and the whole idea seems to have evaporated.

Perhaps I may move on to early this year, when a new plan came from the mayor’s office, Transport for London, the Metropolitan Police, Westminster City Council and the London Pedicabs Operators Association. They were asked to draw up a framework mechanism, documentation and software to satisfy the requirements of a formal licensing scheme that would include a partnership agreement, and to write a code of conduct—which is important—and a memorandum of understanding between those parties. However, again, nothing seems to have happened on this.

The pedicab association says that many of the issues listed in the noble Baroness’s amendment would in fact be in some of the agreements that it was setting out to achieve. The one thing that it says would be very difficult—and I agree—is to have, as suggested in the amendment, a separate agreement for each borough in and outside London. Most pedicabs operate in Westminster but I live in Camden during the week and they certainly move into Camden. Therefore, I believe that any such registration has to be London-wide and I am not sure why Transport for London is not picking this up and running with it, so to speak.

There is an issue here but I believe that licensing by TfL on a reasonable basis would work well. I know that taxi drivers do not like pedicabs because they see them taking away business, but we are not really here to preserve the monopoly of taxis in taking people around London. There is also the TfL cycle hire scheme, which seems to be doing quite well.

I believe that some of the issues that the noble Baroness lists in her amendment should be in some kind of agreement, but someone has to take that forward and I think that it should be TfL with everyone else’s agreement. However, every time there seems to be a step forward, something stops it. Perhaps, as the noble Baroness has suggested, people do not want a registration system because that would legalise pedicabs.

I think that pedicabs are here to stay. They are good fun. If they are registered, there will be some control over them, and I hope that that will get rid of those who do not comply with the regulations and that it will allow a good service to be properly enforced, with vehicles that have back red lights and front white lights, which are important. The noble Baroness makes a very good point with this amendment but it is probably not the right way to go forward at this stage.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, first, I think I should make it clear to the House that my father was a licensed London taxi driver and that both my brothers are licensed London taxi drivers. In fact, one or two noble Lords have mentioned to me that they have been picked up by them and taken home after a busy day in your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

If the noble Lord would give way, I have suddenly realised that my eldest grandson was for a time a pedicab driver and I should have declared that.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

As far as it goes, I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. Pedicabs, and the way in which they operate, can be a nuisance, and it is only by licensing them that we can get some control over them. It would therefore be good if local authorities could establish local by-laws for the licensing of pedicabs in their area. If people are going to travel in them, we should make sure that they are roadworthy, that there is proper insurance cover for passengers, that there are rules about where they can stand when waiting for business, that the people peddling them comply with traffic legislation and that, where breaches occur, there is provision to get them off the road.

I accept that at present they seem to operate only in central London, so Westminster council faces the biggest problem. However, like my noble friend Lord Berkeley, I would have preferred to see London-wide licensing of pedicabs. They will no doubt move elsewhere, with Camden, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Southwark and Lambeth all likely to have them in parts of their boroughs. By-laws that differ from borough to borough just risk confusion and it would be better to have a London-wide option. However, as I said, the Opposition support the thrust of the amendment and I hope that the Government can indicate what they will do to deal with this problem.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I can understand why my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has moved this amendment. She has explained the problem and other noble Lords have made sensible and balanced contributions. However, Transport for London and ultimately the mayor are responsible for pedicabs in London. The Government take the view that issues surrounding pedicabs in London should be dealt with at a local level, which this amendment would provide for. After all, this issue only really affects London. However, the mayor, Transport for London and the London local authorities are already taking the initiative to address the matter with straightforward measures that avoid the trap of overregulation. Noble Lords will be aware that Westminster City Council is currently working up a voluntary—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, I am slightly concerned by this amendment as I think there is an international problem occurring of people buying things online to such an extent—I heard this in Australia while I was there and I believe it is the same everywhere—that people are closing up small shops because there is simply no way they can afford to compete with online purchases. I do not know what will happen in these instances. What will local authorities do? Will the people who own the shops be encouraged to convert them into residential accommodation or would it be considered very damaging to the whole high street suddenly to find that instead of shops in continuity in a row suddenly two or three were houses? In the past there were lots of little shops that were once houses. Would we be prepared to see the reverse of that happening?

I think it is a very complicated issue, and, if the landlord simply cannot get a tenant now, what does he do? Does he allow the property to fall down? I do not know what the answer is, particularly with the shop premises.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raises a significant issue. I can clearly see the point that he is making. If the Government are not minded to accept it, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us some insight into the Government’s thinking on how they intend to deal with this problem. My noble friend Lord Beecham raised a significant point about residential property, which is probably just as important as the point about commercial property.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who moved it. The amendment would give authorities the power to reduce the liability for empty property rates. Our ability to take action on empty property rates needs to be balanced against the costs involved, the targeted support that we already provide on business rates and the overriding need to reduce public expenditure and support the economy generally by reducing the deficit. This Government have already doubled small business rate relief for two years, which will benefit about half a million rate payers, with about one-third of a million paying no rates at all for that period. We are also taking powers through this Bill to waive £175 million of backdated business rates demands levied on businesses, including some in ports.

Unfortunately, in taking these matters into consideration, support for empty property rate measures is currently simply unaffordable. While the Government have no immediate plans for reform, we are certainly keeping this matter under review. However, the Bill does give local authorities powers to provide discounts on business rates bills as they see fit, provided they fund the relief themselves. So authorities will be able to reduce bills in the way suggested by the amendment.

I hope that the noble Lord is willing to withdraw the amendment, but I assure him that the matter is under review. It is quite interesting, because I have within the papers here a note about the reliefs. In 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, changes were made.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord has made those comments. I think that the officials had difficulties with this, and quite frankly so did I. I sought out the Local Government Finance Act 1998, but I am afraid that it has been amended, because the reference that he makes is not there. Immediately before speaking, I tried to check this myself, because I had some doubt about this. The whole area is under review, as it seems to have been for four years on the trot, because Chancellors and local government people have changed the position. So it is still the fact that the area is under review, but it is one that does impact on the economy. Having heard what the noble Lord said in his latter remarks, clearly, we will need to reflect further. But I cannot make any commitments at this stage. Perhaps a few tender words here and there might help us to understand exactly what he is about.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Can the Minister give the House an indication that he will come back before Third Reading? I would not want the noble Lord, Lucas, to have to come back again on Third Reading on this matter.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

I will certainly use my best endeavours to see that we can write to the noble Lord and that copies are placed in the Library so that other noble Lords with an interest can see the results of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I have Amendments 197FA and 197FAA in this group, and I am well aware that my noble friend at the Dispatch Box will tell me that what I am proposing is not lawful. What I am proposing is that a local authority can apply its own criteria essentially in assessing the expressions of interest, and include whatever restrictions and requirements it thinks appropriate—to very much the same aim, the same end, as my noble friend. I have no expectation about the amendments being accepted but, like him, I am looking for reassurances.

My noble friend the Minister said in response to the previous group of amendments that an expression of interest by two or more employees would not be a proxy for a commercial organisation, and referred to that in terms of abuse. I wrote down what he said about that but confess that, having printed off the policy statement to which he referred some weeks ago, I have completely forgotten about it, and it is probably somewhere in a pile of papers on my desk at the moment. What he said was that those expressing an interest would have to show that they are capable of providing a service, that they had engaged with the staff, and that what they were doing was not vexatious or frivolous. I have to say that I would have thought that any commercial organisation will very easily satisfy those criteria.

A concern to which my noble friend Lord Greaves has not referred is that having set up the arrangement—and this of course is not just something that would apply to the two employees; it could apply to a community body as well—it could then sell the business or dispose of the shares in the company which it had formed to run the service. I have not seen any way in which this could be prevented. I suspect that I would be told that it would be improper to prevent it. But it concerns me that it is taking this proposal a good deal further than appears on the face of the Bill.

I turn to subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 71, the first dealing with an expression of interest, the second dealing with a procurement exercise. Both talk of the authority considering—and I will come back to that term—whether the activity would,

“promote or improve the social, economic or environmental well-being of the authority’s area”.

Well indeed, and well and good. But consider: it is not bound to apply those factors. It needs to consider them. I dare say that means that it must be able to show how it has considered them.

Turning to subsection (7), we are told that this,

“applies only so far as is consistent with the law”.

There is no particular assurance at all here, if I may say so. Subsection (7) refers to the procurement exercise but I am worried that an authority may well read this as applying to the expressions of interest as well. In general, I suspect that local authorities will need quite a lot of reassurance over how they apply these provisions.

I speak only for myself in this. I am finding it difficult to articulate some of the unease that is almost more instinctive than technical. However, general expressions of reassurance and consolation may not go quite so far, technically, as to amount to real reassurance. I have rambled enough. I hope that the House has a sense of my unease.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I shall be brief. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, raises important concerns. The other amendments in the group seek a process to deal with these concerns. Without these amendments or something else, it is all rather open to interpretation, which is not a good place for us to be. I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the sense of unease.

The amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Tope, and my noble friend Lord Beecham, are absolutely right. They make provision for a consultation process with the users of a service, their representatives and residents of the area. If the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, is unable to accept these amendments, will he tell the House when he responds how he squares that with his previous remarks about localism? I genuinely feel that the Bill is confused. In some cases it gives power to the local community, in some cases it takes it back. There is a lot of regulation. It is all a bit confused here. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could address that point in particular.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

I thank the noble Lords who have spoken to this set of amendments. I have notes on these amendments and will do my best to deal with them. Frankly, I am not certain that there is an absolute assurance, but let us see how we go with these amendments.

Amendment 197EZA would give the Secretary of State a power to specify in regulations a service value threshold above which an expression of interest may be rejected. It further provides that this threshold will be set at or above the level at which a full, open tendering process is required to take place by any Act or regulations. I understand that the intention here is to focus the right on those contracts where it is perceived that community groups might have a greater advantage in the procurement process. However, it is worth being clear that while only contracts valued at more than £156,000 must currently comply fully with processes set out in the public procurement regulations, procurement below this level will still be subject to requirements of openness, transparency, freedom to provide services and non-discrimination.

Furthermore, it is not right to limit the range of services open to challenge in this way. It is not true that the voluntary sector delivers only small-value services. The right ensures that good ideas for improving any services get a fair hearing and gives those groups the opportunity to go for it. A threshold that prevents consideration of ideas for better or more innovative delivery of higher-cost service contracts seems unnecessary, given the safeguards that I have already mentioned, and a shame.

This amendment also risks discouraging growth and partnership. For example, a consortium of Holy Cross Centre Trust, Mind and Camden Volunteer Centre won a £2 million contract to deliver mental health daycare services. Would this consortium not be able to challenge? Or take the example of Hackney Community Trust, which started off as a small social enterprise delivering local community transport and has expanded into a highly successful social enterprise. At what point would we say “Sorry, you have grown too much, so your ideas no longer deserve a fair hearing”?

Finally, it could also limit opportunities for larger charities and communities of interest to challenge for higher value services. Nobody would argue, for example, that Age UK does not represent the interests of older people. Yet if Age UK wanted to challenge to deliver the meals on wheels service alongside other services in a large authority area, this amendment could prevent it from doing so. It would be inflexible to set a threshold for service value above which an expression of interest could be rejected, and we would not want to reduce the scope of services that could be challenged.

Amendments 197EA and 197EB would enable relevant authorities to carry out a service review instead of a procurement exercise following the acceptance of an expression of interest. Amendments 197EC and 197ED would require relevant authorities to consult widely in carrying out such a review. We have introduced the community right to challenge to ensure relevant bodies with good ideas for how they can deliver services differently or better get a fair hearing and a chance to compete to run the service. These amendments would put at risk both of these aims.

It is unclear what a service review would constitute under these amendments, and the authority would not be compelled to take any action as a result. Many of you will have received the briefing from 10 leading voluntary and community sector groups, including ACEVO, NCVO, NAVCA and Locality, which states:

“Giving local authorities the choice whether or not to respond to an Expression of Interest with a procurement exercise would negate the right to challenge entirely, by effectively allowing local authorities to ignore Expressions of Interest”.

We are supportive of authorities reviewing their services and consulting widely as part of that activity. This is what good authorities will be doing regularly anyway. But that should not detract from or obstruct these important new rights for communities and I do not agree that they should be watered down in this way.

Having said that, if a local authority and any groups that had submitted an expression of interest can agree together that a service review is the most appropriate course of action, there is nothing to stop those groups withdrawing their formal interest and working with the authority to conduct such an exercise. Leaving the power in the hands of the community group ensures that the right is protected but gives the flexibility—where there is a good and proactive local authority—that noble Lords are requesting.

Amendments 197EC and 197ED impose an onerous duty and go beyond, for example, the best value duty consultation requirement, where the duty is to consult representatives of people who may be affected. Contacting every individual resident and service user would constitute a significant new burden. Again, good authorities already engage a wide range of service users and their representative groups as part of the commissioning and engagement process, and should be designing and commissioning services that best meet the needs of their communities.

Amendment 197FA seeks to enable relevant authorities, when assessing bids in a procurement exercise, to apply any criteria they consider appropriate relating to how they might promote or improve the social, economic or environmental well-being of their area as a result of the procurement. This amendment is unnecessary as it is already possible for relevant authorities to apply such criteria within the limits of procurement law. Any criteria applied beyond these limitations could be unlawful and subject to legal challenge.

Amendment 197FAA would require relevant authorities carrying out a procurement exercise following the acceptance of an expression of interest to consider,

“whether it would be appropriate to include particular restrictions on or requirements of persons bidding in response to the exercise”.

I can reassure noble Lords that this amendment is not necessary to ensure that a local authority can control the identity of the service contractor to which it lets the contract during the life of that contract. It is already standard practice for public contracts to contain a term that any purported transfer by the service contractor of its performance of the contract to another person will lead to termination of the contract.

Local authorities will want to retain control over the identity of the person providing services and will already do that in their service contracts. Even if that were not the case, EU procurement law is strict about a change of identity of the contractor. The substitution of a new contractual partner for the one to which the contracting authority initially awarded the contract could be regarded as a change to an essential term of the public contract in question. This could trigger a new procurement exercise.

We have not sought in these provisions to tell relevant authorities how they should design contracts, and nor should we. We have heard many times in these debates that we should be less prescriptive in what we ask of authorities, while ensuring power is really pushed down to communities. A local authority may already impose restrictions or conditions that apply to all persons bidding, as long as such restrictions or conditions are lawful and do not discriminate between bidders. Any attempt by a local authority commissioning a service to impose conditions or restrictions on some but not all persons bidding in the procurement exercise would risk being unlawful as being discriminatory.

I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments. Yet, I understand the concerns that many noble Lords have about the Trojan horse issue—whether employees, a charity or someone else is challenging just with the idea of someone else coming in on the exercise. Clearly, all that has been proposed is a community right, and it is all about communities. The question comes when the community has challenged—I suspect that the community will have done that because of dissatisfaction—and the authority then says, “Well, we had better have a procurement exercise”. Certainly, if that exercise is beyond the EU figures there is no question that the exercise will be open. People will have put work in, as will have the community bodies and so forth. However, I do not see circumstances in which that procurement exercise can somehow be limited, because that would be outside the law of the land because of our involvement with the European Community. We must be careful not to kid ourselves about that.

However, having said that, everything in these proposals is about the community’s right. In my view, the community would be exercising that right because it thinks that it can do things better and that the service that it is getting would be better in the future than it received in the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I am pleased that the noble Lord understood the concerns raised on this important group of amendments, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Is there nothing that the Minister can offer us in terms of looking at this further? Perhaps he may agree to consult with colleagues and come back at Third Reading.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

What I will say is this: I have been giving some thoughts regarding guidance, to which there has been reference all along. Guidance will be given and notes will be available from the department, but there may be circumstances where that guidance will be, “This is something on which you make your own mind up”. I am sure that the department will cull the debate and look at where offers ought to be made. Certainly, if guidance is required, guidance will be given. However, there will be instances where, because we are talking about localism, local people and people on local authorities will be making their own minds up.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before the noble Lord sits down, can I ask whether there is any possibility of guidance being available by Third Reading, even in draft?

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

It is extremely unlikely that the noble Lord will get it as quickly as that, but I believe that it will be available before 31 March.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I thank the Government for listening to the debate on this matter in Committee and for coming forward with amendments which, by and large, are very sensible. I particularly appreciate their picking up the ancillary use point that I raised in an amendment, a great deal of which makes sense. Furthermore, I think that we all owe a debt to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, for the hard work that he put into this part of the Bill—not least because it meant that we could leave it to him and concentrate on other parts of the Bill.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, we have had an interesting debate at this late hour on this group of amendments. I can offer the Government some measure of support tonight, as there is lots to welcome in their proposals here, and they have clearly listened to the concerns expressed in the House.

The origin of some of the proposals can, of course, be found in the previous Administration. Amendment 201A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, is not an amendment that we on these Benches can support, although his Amendment 202A , requiring the Secretary of State to publish criteria by which an asset must be assessed in order to be defined as being of community value, could be of some merit, as is the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the more or less general support for what we have done, and, in my turn, I thank all those who have diligently attended meetings—not only the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, but my noble friends Lord Gardiner, Lord Cathcart and Lord Howard of Rising. I fear that I may have forgotten someone but there have been great consultations, mostly over the summer, and I am very grateful for the time that noble Lords have put in to ensure that these provisions do not have the unintended consequences that were anticipated.

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, was the only person to pose questions and perhaps I may turn to those. His amendment would give landowners 60 days to request the local authority to carry out an internal review of its decision to list an asset. We are now going to move from 28 days to six weeks, which is a bit longer, but we think that that will give a landowner time to decide whether he needs to appeal the decision. The details of the procedures for carrying out an internal review, including who can do it, will, I am afraid, be in regulations. I am sure that we will have an opportunity to talk about this further before then, but it is anticipated that that is what will happen.

The process will be that the landowner will first be contacted by the local authority if the land has been nominated by a community group. Therefore, in practice, landowners will have been aware of the process well before they receive the formal notice of the local authority’s decision. Once a review has been requested, it is proposed that the local authority will have six weeks to conduct the review. We also intend to provide in the regulations that, if a local authority and the landowner agree, this period can be extended. Therefore, I think that flexibility is built into that system.

I was also asked who can nominate an asset and about the voluntary and community body. Conditions will be set out in the regulations to demonstrate a local connection. The intention is to ensure that such groups are genuinely concerned with the social well-being benefit of their community and that they are based in the relevant community or neighbourhood. This may include unincorporated groups, so as to allow groups that have recently been set up to help save an asset. There are many examples that have already taken place where people have set up a group to try to save their pub or an asset. We know that that can and has happened. We do not feel that we ought to stand in the way of such groups. However, we will look to see whether we need to place stricter requirements on them as to whether they need to be incorporated or recognised, very much as the noble Lord has said. I will come back to him on that as we make those regulations.

I am extremely grateful to all those who have given their time to do this. I hope that we have more or less answered their concerns. I know you can never be 100 per cent sure—there is bound to be somebody round about who does not think we have quite gone far enough—but I think we have addressed all of the concerns that were raised.

Localism Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 108, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, is an interesting amendment, on which I look forward to the response of the noble Earl. As a Londoner, I always thought that the London Transport Users’ Committee did quite a good job standing up for Londoners and, as my noble friend Lord Whitty said, for people travelling through London who have no vote in the GLA or any other elections in London. Having proper GLA input into what goes on in London transport is obviously very important. It has not happened in the past and that is very regrettable. What worries me, though, is where people will go to have their voice heard if this body is abolished. I know that the body is appointed by the London authority. I have some concerns, as a south Londoner, that there is very little experience of south London on the board. That needs to be addressed in the next round of appointments. One member may have been to Putney once or twice, but there is very little involvement in south London.

Another thing that worries me is the performance of London Underground. Noble Lords may not be aware that since April this year performance statistics have ceased to be published, so we have no idea what is going on in London Underground. I think we all know that it is getting worse, for sure, and this is something that needs to be addressed by both the users committee and the London authority pressing the mayor to release those figures again and to say why they have been stopped.

In conclusion, I am not against reform at all, but we need to hear more about how this will improve the situation. We in London all find that things are getting much worse, so we need to hear more about improvements. This may be something for the future, but not now.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I should explain that our official Front Bench position is that we support the amendment, which means that, should it be put to a vote, I, at least, will be obliged to vote in favour. I am not sure how many of my colleagues behind me would follow me into the same Lobby. Our position was formulated because of strong support from the GLA, but I take it as implicit in my mandate that supporting the amendment would be conditional on the Government being able to answer a lot of the very robust challenges that have come, particularly, from this side of the House during this debate.

My noble friend Lord Whitty spoke about the importance of preserving a strong consumer interest. Points were also made by my noble friend Lord Faulkner about whether this will benefit passengers, some of whom do not live in London and are not London voters. Indeed, it covers rail travel from such places as Luton. If we were to separate rail from other modes of travel, how would that work? I understand the thrust of the movers of the amendment, but these are questions that need to be satisfied before it could proceed. Perhaps in responding the Government can confirm that there was overwhelming support for the proposition among transport operators and rail user groups. Will the Government let us know, for the record, whether any alternatives to transfer to the GLA have been considered and on what basis they were rejected?

The Government have acknowledged the considerable amount of casework undertaken by London TravelWatch and are presumably satisfied that this could be handled under the proposed new arrangements. The London Assembly review of TravelWatch, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, spoke, recommended that the reorganisation be folded into the assembly but with rail functions distributed between the assembly and the national independent passenger watchdog Passenger Focus. Have the Government undertaken an analysis and will they support that as an appropriate way forward?

I look forward to the Minister's reply and hope that he can dig me out of my dilemma on this issue. Powerful issues have been raised that need to be answered before the proposition can and should proceed, much as we love the thrust of it. In particular, there is a mood that the status quo should not necessarily be accepted. There may be ways in which it can be improved and cost savings may be generated. I would be interested in the Minister's views on that as well.

Localism Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

83: After Clause 172, insert the following new Clause—
“Homes and Communities Agency: annual report
In Schedule 1 to the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (the Homes and Communities Agency), after sub-paragraph (1)(a) of paragraph 11 insert—“(aa) state within the report, in particular, the total number of new properties delivered during each year, also specifying, in respect of new properties in the area of each local housing authority—(i) how many are located within a settlement of fewer than 10,000, and fewer than 3,000, inhabitants;(ii) the number let on long leases, fixed-term shorthold tenancies, and periodic tenancies;(iii) levels of rent;(iv) the number designed for use as housing for older people;(v) the number designed for use as housing for other vulnerable groups;(vi) the size as defined by the number of bedrooms;(vii) information on such other categories as may appear to the HCA to be appropriate or may be specified by the Secretary of State.””

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, my amendment is quite simple and seeks to place an obligation on the Homes and Communities Agency to produce certain information in its annual report. All the information, I understand, is available, some I accept is already published at least every year, and in some cases at least every six months. Having said that, I do not accept that this would be an unmanageable burden or that it is unnecessary or inappropriate to require the agency to produce such information in its annual report. I would contend that this is just the sort of information that the HCA should be including in their annual report. It is also valuable in the review document for the organisation that they clearly detail the number of new properties they have delivered on, what the level of rents are and who they are serving.

This amendment was tabled in Committee but not taken. If the noble Earl is not minded to accept it, in what other ways will the Government ensure that this important information gets out there? While it is one thing to say that the information is already out there, if you are not sure where it is, how it is collected or where it is located in the first place—or whether it is in a number of different places—then getting all the information, making comparisons and being able to comment with an informed mind becomes much more difficult. I beg to move.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord described his amendment as simple; experience shows that simple amendments can sometimes be the most dangerous. The information that this amendment would require to be included within the annual report is either reported on already or is available to members of the public, should they request it. For example, information on the total number of homes delivered each year is provided in the HCA’s official statistics, which are published every six months. The HCA also collects information on the number of habitable rooms per property and reports this to my department. No doubt if other types of information became desirable to collect, they would be collected without the need for any legislation.

I do not believe that it is necessary to prescribe in statute that these specific information requirements are included in the HCA’s annual report when the information is either already being collected and reported on or can be made available through existing channels. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his response. Again, we are not going to agree on this. I am very worried that sometimes if the information is out there but you cannot find it or do not know where it is, there is an issue. People should be able to use and comment on it. Having said that, in this case I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 83 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, Newcastle is once again united. We are even more united now than we were under the previous Administration. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on tabling these amendments and equally congratulate those who have briefed him so thoroughly with the material that he has brought to your Lordships’ House today. He has highlighted an important area of the national housing debate which has been subordinated in recent times to the simple question of household numbers, housebuilding and the long queue of people denied access to accommodation, including first-time buyers and their problems. Much of the emphasis has been simply around numbers and the owner-occupied sector.

The real problems addressed by the noble Lord’s amendments are to be found essentially in the private rented sector, which has received insufficient attention for many years under Governments of both parties, with the result that, as the noble Lord pointed out, far too many people are living in unsatisfactory accommodation. We are living in a letters’ market, as it were. Demand for rented accommodation is going up all the time and obviously property numbers are not going up to match. Reputable organisations are anticipating additional problems when changes in housing benefit come in, and already there is some indication that private landlords are reluctant to let to housing benefit tenants. There is huge pressure within this sector. As the noble Lord pointed out, that sector has much the highest rate of disrepair and the least degree of modernisation through to decent home standards. Therefore, there is a huge need for concentration on these problems. The very basic matters to which the noble Lord referred must be an essential part of the responsibility of any landlord.

There will be a slight irony if the Government resist the amendment. If the exterior of a property was at issue, Town and Country Planning Acts would apply. Owners can be made to tidy up the outside of their property, and even paint it, whatever the length of tenure or even if it is owner-occupied; but when it comes to the inside, as the noble Lord pointed out, these powers do not exist for far too many properties. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in principle with imposing obligations on owners—in this case, renting owners—because they are applicable to all owners as far as concerns the property exterior. One might have thought that, from the point of view of safety and health, the interior is more important. It is perfectly logical that legislation should be amended in the way proposed by the noble Lord.

I will sound a cautionary note. The noble Lord referred to the availability of civil proceedings once the measures pass into law. Again, I remind noble Lords that access to the courts by this group of potential litigants is likely to be affected by the pending changes to legal aid. If current proposals go through, only under exceptional circumstances will legal aid be available to assist tenants in enforcing repair obligations of this kind. Perhaps that should be borne in mind in future debates. I hope that the noble Lord and his colleagues will join Members on all sides of your Lordships' House in investigating those steps very thoroughly, because these matters are not divisible. If we are looking at the housing situation holistically, we must look not only at obligations but also at methods of enforcement. The noble Lord touched on them. We must be sure that those methods remain available to the people who will need them.

I hope that the Minister will respond sympathetically to the suggestions contained in the amendments. I represent an area that has a significant private rented accommodation sector. There are a number of very poor landlords and a licensing scheme that is beginning to have some impact. I hope that that experience, which is reflected in many places, will be improved by the Government giving fair wind to the noble Lord's proposals.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I will speak only very briefly in this debate as the Newcastle duo—the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and my noble friend Lord Beecham—have covered the matter thoroughly. We support the thrust of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. They address real issues and I am grateful to him for raising them. I look forward to the response of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Well, my Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and I know that when the Toons are on the run we are in a bit of trouble. However, I welcome the chance to address my noble friend’s amendments, because the debate draws attention to the very important issue of the quality of our housing stock, in particular the rented sector. My noble friend's amendments are all interrelated. They argue a case that unfortunately the Government cannot accept. We believe that the current division of responsibilities and obligations between landlord and tenant is the right one. Having said that, we are not complacent on the issue.

The main focus of my noble friend's amendments is to allow tenants to take action through the civil courts against a landlord who fails to provide safe accommodation. His proposals draw attention to concerns about the condition of some of the housing offered for private rent. There is some evidence that the stock is improving, but we are all keen to see more improvements. However, a mechanism already exists by which tenants can be safeguarded. It has not been mentioned by any noble Lord contributing to the debate. The Housing Act 2004 introduced the housing health and safety rating system—HHSRS, as it is commonly known. The HHSRS applies to all private sector housing regardless of tenure. It provides a framework within which a local authority can inspect a home and assess it against 29 hazards. I shall not list them—I do not actually have them to hand—but they include exactly the sort of situation which my noble friend is talking about: damp and mould, dangerous fumes, hazards of falls and matters concerning the facilities for domestic and personal hygiene. It therefore largely covers the types of hazards which are of concern to my noble friend. Where a local authority discovers such a hazard in someone’s home, depending on its severity, it has a range of powers at its disposal. It can make a hazard safe and charge the landlord or require the landlord to make repairs. Where a landlord does not comply, he can receive a heavy fine and a criminal conviction can follow. All this can be triggered simply by a tenant complaining to the local authority, in contrast to the legislation which my noble friend seeks to amend which is dependent on the tenant taking the landlord to court. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to the cost, time and difficulty of any legal process. Given that these safeguards already exist as a result of the measure introduced by the previous Government, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

Localism Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I apologise to the noble Earl. As I am so anxious to persuade him to agree with me, I will happily take extra time in spelling out the acronyms.

If indeed housing benefit is the issue—because an increase in rent of £5 would be covered by housing benefit—I put it to the Government that any increase in rent above the target rent for such purposes should not be covered by housing benefit, quite simply. That way the housing benefit bill to the Government would be protected and the tenant could choose whether to proceed with solar panels by way of co-payment. If the tenant did so choose, the tenant would enjoy reduced fuel bills and contribute to lower energy consumption in this country. The choice would be with the tenant, there would be no additional cost to the Government, but the reduction in conventional energy and the substitution of green renewable energy would be a gain to us all. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady Hollis is most interesting and has considerable merit. She has considerable experience in the local government and social housing sectors. Where tenants want to make major improvements or improve other amenities, I can see the case for this being financed by an increase in the rent paid on the property. My noble friend makes compelling points in particular regarding fuel poverty and green energy and also dealing with the issue of housing benefit. If the Government are not able to accept the amendment, will the noble Lord at least agree to take it away and reflect on it? It could be explored further and perhaps introduced at another time following discussion with relevant departments.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their contributions. It is more complicated than I thought. The amendment is clearly about additional facilities requested by the tenant, yet the points made by the noble Baroness have been about solar panels and, basically, energy. Clearly the amendment is about any form of enhancement required by a tenant. All I would say on the detail is that my noble friend Lady Hanham has shown me a letter that she wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on 9 August offering to discuss this matter. She may not have got the letter or something may have gone wrong, but this offer has not yet been taken up. My noble friend Lady Hanham would be happy to discuss the matter and that could well be a helpful way forward. I cannot give a commitment on where that would lead, but I think it would be a good thing if that offer were taken up.

I cannot accept the amendment because it would allow landlords complete freedom to charge rents above the target rent for particular properties in order to fund the cost of additional facilities. This would lead to an unacceptable rise in the housing benefit bill. There are two types of landlord to whom the amendment could apply: local authority landlords and housing associations. Both sectors are able to exercise some flexibility over rent setting but are subject to important constraints. In the case of local authority landlords, there is the “limit rent”, which is the maximum that the Department for Work and Pensions is willing to pay in housing benefit. This cap is vital to control the welfare bill. For housing associations, a direction on rent is set each year by the regulator in order to achieve a degree of consistency in rent levels across the sector and to protect the housing benefit bill. Noble Lords may not be aware of this, but for two-thirds of all tenants in council and housing association properties, the rent comes from housing benefit. So it clearly would be significant.

The noble Baroness’s amendment would remove an important control by Government over rents, which they will largely pay for. While this could pay for some improvements, it would result in uncontrollable increases in the housing benefit bill that we can ill afford. Furthermore, there would be no assurance that the taxpayer was obtaining value for money from the additional public expenditure. For this reason, I must reject the amendment. Councils and housing associations can charge affordable rents of up to 80 per cent of market rents as part of an agreement with the Homes and Communities Agency to build new homes. The extra rent must be used entirely to fund the new homes, which will produce a housing benefit saving as they are still at rents below those charged in the market.

I hope that, in the circumstances, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, will take up the offer from my noble friend Lady Hanham and that on this occasion she will not press her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

Yes, I accept that and I think the noble Lord is quite right. All I would say is that I would expect that most Members of Parliament are used to dealing with that kind of sensitive information, and if they are not, they are not fit to be Members of Parliament. I think also that there are councillors who are prepared to help and are experienced in dealing with that kind of information. I do not entirely take the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that they have to be skilled in the processes of assessment, conciliation and so on. All they have really got to do is say, “You have a reasonable case. I will sign this and you can send it on”.

The objections to going to a councillor can be overstated. As the noble Lord said, the legislation states that you can go to any member of the housing authority, so you will have a choice of 40, 50 or 60 people to approach. I would have thought someone could be found who would pass it on, and not necessarily knowing all the details. Sometimes people come to me as a councillor and say, “I want to tell you all about this”. I say, “Look, I am not an expert in this. It seems to be very personal and I really do not want to know. What I will do is put you in touch with the people who can help you and with the authorities who might be able to sort it out”. So I think that this can be overstated.

Nevertheless, we are absolutely clear that we would like to support an amendment along the lines of that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. We have a compromise amendment in an attempt to help the Government to resolve this in a way that is not as damaging as perhaps it otherwise would be, and perhaps not very damaging at all. However, we would really like an assurance from my noble friend the Minister that between now and Third Reading she will think seriously about this so that it can be considered again at that stage, either through a government amendment along the lines of our amendment or perhaps something a bit better. That is the assurance we are looking for and I hope that she will be able to give it. I should say that if we get it, I will not move my amendments when we get to them later on.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I am pleased to support my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town in the amendment she has moved in respect of the Housing Ombudsman. I have known my noble friend for many years and we have worked together on numerous matters. As usual, she has hit the nail on the head, identified the problem and provided us with a sensible and reasoned solution which I think should command widespread support across the House. The Housing Ombudsman provides a free, independent and impartial service to the tenants of social housing providers. It is a respected organisation which provides resolutions for problems as well as valuable advice and guidance to the providers of social housing on how to get it right by developing effective complaints procedures.

As noble Lords are aware, tenants currently have the right to complain to and deal directly with the Housing Ombudsman where a complaint has not been resolved to their satisfaction. The Government propose to take away a tenant’s right to make a direct complaint to the Housing Ombudsman. That is just wrong. It serves no purpose other than making matters more complicated for everyone concerned, and especially for tenants, who will feel that they have already suffered an injustice and are seeking independent redress for their complaint. If this amendment is not accepted, as we have heard today, tenants will in future have to go through their local Member of Parliament, a local councillor or a tenants’ panel. Again, that is wrong. If the tenant wants their MP or local councillor to be fully involved and to make the complaint or support them, that is absolutely fine. I would welcome that. But to take away an individual’s choice in this matter is bizarre in the extreme. Can the Minister tell the House why the Government think that this is the right approach? Also, what happens if the local MP or councillor refuses to take the matter to the Housing Ombudsman? Where can the tenant go then?

There is also a practicality issue in that, in more cases than not, the complaints the Housing Ombudsman deals with are complex issues, often evolving over many months or years. Local MPs or councillors, who are working hard for their constituents, may not have the capacity in their offices or the town hall to deal with these complex matters as effectively as the ombudsman could. No criticism of anyone is intended—it is just an observation. In conclusion, I congratulate my noble friend on bringing this matter forward and other noble Lords who have spoken in support of this amendment, and I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, to think again and accept my noble friend’s proposal.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, it has been a very interesting and helpful debate, mostly coming from people who understand the process in place at the moment. There has been a lot of talk about arbitration. However, this is not about arbitration; it is about resolution. It is about somebody having a problem and needing it resolved. They need somebody to write a letter to the housing chairman. They need somebody to write a letter because they have been through the process and they have not got a reasonable answer. As former councillors, we have all done precisely this and made sure that there is some means of resolving a problem for tenants. To say that councillors, MPs, and now tenants cannot do this seems absurd.

One of the reasons for suggesting that people take their complaints through one of those filters—if that is what they are—is, as my noble friend Lord Tope said, that there is a strong belief that removing housing by and large from the direct control and interest of councils and taking it to ALMOs and housing associations means that councillors and MPs become disconnected from the problems. Councillors in particular ought to know what is going on in the housing stock in their borough. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, knows exactly what she is doing and has a very good complaints procedure. I am not sure that is true of every ALMO or even of the way council properties are run. So we want to reconnect councillors and MPs with what is going wrong within their area. Can we dump the suggestion of arbitration? Nobody is asking them to arbitrate. We are asking them to resolve a problem. If they cannot resolve the problem, they would be required to pass the matter on to the Local Government Ombudsman with the agreement of the complainant.

I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. We recognise that the Housing Ombudsman does an extremely good job. There is no doubt about that. It is responsive and it knows what it is doing. This is not about trying to exclude the ombudsman from the system. But the Housing Ombudsman has an enormous case load which went up by 72 per cent between 2007-08 and 2009-10. Maybe that reflects the fact that there are more complaints coming forward about housing, which could be dealt with locally if there was the opportunity to do so. An additional 11 per cent of complaints have been made in the past year.

We want to ensure that the ombudsman is not the first port of call. We do not want the immediate response to be, “Oh, I’m going off to the ombudsman”. There should be a step before that; namely, going to one’s tenants panel, a councillor or an MP and seeing whether the matter can first be resolved through them.

A dual-track model currently applies to complaints to the Local Government Ombudsman. In practice, although the ombudsman does not collect detailed statistics, complaints are almost always submitted directly to the ombudsman and not via local councillors. Therefore, we are not convinced that this model will help local complaint resolution.

I have listened carefully to what has been said and I know that these matters have been raised over a number of weeks. I understand what has been said about discussions passing a last barrier point between the council or tenants panel to the ombudsman. I am not clear that dual track increases the number of ways of resolving complaints, but I have heard what has been said. Bearing in mind what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Tope, and my noble friends Lord True and Lady Eaton, who all see the advantage of an initial stage, I am happy to look again at the second stage and how a matter would get to the ombudsman. I give a commitment to do that before the next stage of the Bill so that we can discuss how we think that could take over. We feel that this would be a good way to proceed. I hope that both my noble friends and the noble Lords opposite will be content for us to see whether there is a way through here without absolutely undermining the provisions that the Government wish to introduce. The Government believe that local people who are associated with local housing and have become disconnected from it should be aware of what is going on and be capable of dealing with a lot of the problems that tenants have without them having to approach the ombudsman.

My offer is one of discussions to see whether there is a way through. If we have not found one by Third Reading, we will be able to deal with the matter then. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that what has been proposed would enable tenants to keep their right to decide whether they want to go through their councillor or MP or go directly to the ombudsman? What the Government are proposing denies them that choice. That is the problem that we have on this side of the House.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I do not think that it denies them the choice. I am happy to look into how the passing from one to the other can be done. We think that there should be an initial stage. Often, those initial stages work: a councillor intervenes; they see what is going on; and the matter is resolved at that level. If that does not happen and somebody goes directly to the ombudsman, it is very difficult for councillors and tenants panels to know exactly what people are thinking. People do not always want to go to the ombudsman and would quite like somebody to deal with the matter at a local level. That is why we think the initial responsibility for getting matters put right lies with one of those three groups. I am very happy to look at how we can deal with the question of whether it is a requirement for the MP or local councillor to be the final arbiter of when a matter is passed on to the local ombudsman.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

52B: Clause 163, page 152, line 8, at end insert—
“( ) In section 36 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (information in relation to social housing) in subsection (1) after paragraph (c) insert—
“(d) any accreditation or standards to be held by landlords of social housing.””

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 52B, I shall speak also to Amendment 85. During the course of deliberations in this housing section of the Localism Bill, we have referred on a number of occasions to the private rented sector, which plays an important role in providing accommodation to individuals, couples and families. There are some excellent private sector landlords—there is no doubt about that. We should always be concerned with driving up standards and making provision better for all. Good quality housing that meets the needs of tenants in the private rented sector is an aim we can all sign up to.

However, as with all types of housing, there are landlords who are not quite as good as they should be, and property that is not up to the standard that it should be. The proposal for a landlord accreditation scheme is an attempt to address this serious problem. The proposal is for local authorities to operate one or more voluntary—and I stress the word voluntary—landlord accreditation schemes. The amendment also gives the Secretary of State the power, if he wishes to use it, to make regulations in this respect, in consultation with the local authorities. This proposal will have the effect, when the schemes are operating, of highlighting the good landlords—those who manage their properties well, deal with their tenants properly and provide a reasonable product for a fair price. That will give tenants more confidence, as they can have information on the landlords on the scheme and have a procedure for taking action if they are found wanting. It will also shine much needed light on those landlords who do not always come up to the mark and in a number of areas can be found wanting, who are letting down their tenants and providing a poor product for what they are charging. Those landlords will be registered and shown to be poor or, because they offer a poor product, they will seek to avoid participation in the voluntary scheme.

If the Minister is not prepared to accept my amendment, can he give us an assurance that the department will keep the matter under review, as this is a genuine attempt to address a problem which we know all too well exists. I beg to move.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, these amendments focus on the potential impact of accreditation schemes, both in the private rented sector and the social rented sector. I turn to the social rented sector first.

Amendment 52B would give the Secretary of State the power to require the Homes and Communities Agency, and from April 2012 the Greater London Authority, to supply information about any accreditation or standards to be held by landlords of social housing. I assume that the amendment relates to the HCA’s future role as a regulator of social housing. The noble Lord nods. However, under the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 the regulator is already obliged to consult on its own standards for social housing landlords and to bring those standards to landlords’ attention. In practice, of course, the regulator’s standards are freely available for everyone to view on its website, so I do not see a need to empower the Secretary of State to require that this information is published by law.

The amendment could also encompass accreditation or codes that might be adopted by social landlords on a voluntary basis. It is important that this kind of voluntary activity is owned by the sector itself, so I am not convinced that the regulator should be required to publish information about it. Indeed it is important that there is a very clear distinction between the regulator’s standards, which are compulsory, and any codes or accreditation arrangements that are adopted by landlords on a voluntary basis. Of course, we would encourage such voluntary activity in the sector, but we do not believe that it would be helpful for the regulator to police it or to report on it.

Turning to Amendment 85, which deals with accreditation in the private rented sector, I think that we all agree that a good accreditation scheme can play an important role in developing a local authority’s relationship with their local landlords. Many local authorities already run successful accreditation schemes, but as with the social sector, accreditation works best when it is owned by those involved. One of the main strengths of voluntary accreditation to date is that local authorities have been able to tailor their schemes to local needs, and experience shows that accreditation works best when it matches local circumstances.

Instead of allowing that local discretion, the proposals in front of us today would impose top-down burdens on all local authorities, including those who, quite legitimately, decide that accreditation is not appropriate for their area. Worse, they would force all existing and effective accreditation schemes into a straitjacket designed by central government. Schemes that did not match up would have to be, quite pointlessly, dismantled and reassembled at considerable administrative cost. This does not seem to make much sense and we cannot support it.

My Lords, these amendments are intended to support accreditation—and the noble Lord explained why he believes them necessary—but unfortunately they would have the opposite effect by undermining effective schemes that are already in place. Given this, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. However, I still think that there is an issue here that needs further consideration, so I hope that this will be kept under review. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 52B withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

55: Schedule 16, page 374, line 4, after “means” insert “the Regulation officer of”

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I will be as brief as possible in speaking to this group of amendments. My Amendment 55 seeks to designate an individual within the Homes and Communities Agency to be responsible for regulation. The amendment has the support of the National Housing Federation, and it is important because it seeks to avoid a conflict of interest between the HCA’s regulatory and investment functions. It will help to ensure that regulatory issues can be addressed, even to the extent of formal legal proceedings, without compromising the investment function of the HCA, and vice versa. The HCA would of course still be required to appoint a regulatory committee to oversee the regulation officer. The Government may say that this proposal will diminish rather than enhance regulatory independence but I do not accept that that is the case at all. I am in fact arguing the exact opposite. If that is the Government’s position, I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give the House additional words of assurance on this matter. I beg to move.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, succinctly moved his amendment. The Government are committed to ensuring the continued independence of the regulatory function once it transfers to the Homes and Communities Agency. However, our view is that the nomination of a single individual as a regulation officer would diminish rather than enhance regulatory independence. Rather than vesting the regulation function in an independent committee, these amendments, as the noble Lord explained, would confer the statutory powers on a single member of the HCA’s staff. In moving his amendment, the noble Lord talked about the problem of a conflict of interest. However, this person could presumably be dismissed at any time by the HCA on normal employment grounds. It could prove difficult for a member of staff in that position to take decisions that were demonstrably independent of the HCA’s other functions. In addition, where formal regulatory decisions are made by a properly constituted board or committee, there can be greater confidence that those decisions are broadly based and take account of the full range of relevant factors. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment in view of my explanation.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his response. Clearly we are not going to agree on this. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 55 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I cannot resist it, especially since I am well known to be classified as unsuitable by my Front Bench. I have some sympathy with the argument that has just been advanced. It is quite difficult to see what is not included in “unable” or “unfit” that is then covered by “unsuitable” that ought not to be covered. It depends on matters of judgment that could include political or personal judgment that would not be a proper consideration. I just want to know what is thought to be desirably covered by unsuitable that is not covered by the other words.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the Opposition fully support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Best. The amendment seeks to correct the use of what can only be described as an odd and unnecessary use of the term unsuitable. Like the noble Lord, Lord Newton, we ask the Minister to address that specific point of why unsuitable is being used. There is much concern that the Government are taking a much wider view and a much wider power and have additional intentions of using it. I hope that the Minister either accepts the amendment or that we have a very clear explanation about what this does and does not mean.

The Secretary of State already has the power to remove someone who is unable or unfit. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, this is adequate for the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, so we on this side certainly think that it is good enough for the HCA regulation committee.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, it is important that the regulation committee is able to function effectively in order to retain the confidence of investors and the social housing sector. In extreme cases, it may prove necessary for the Secretary of State to intervene to remove a member of the committee to ensure that its crucial work is not jeopardised. “Unable, unfit or unsuitable” are fairly standard grounds and a nearly identical provision exists for membership of the boards of the existing social housing regulator and the Homes and Communities Agency.

In answer to my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, a member may be able and fit to carry out his or her functions without being suitable to exercise them. This might arise, for example, if there was an irretrievable breakdown in the relationship between the member and the rest of the committee. A member might engage in activities such as filibustering deliberately to disrupt the committee’s work, but that falls short of being “unfit”. He would be being very effective in disrupting the work of the committee, so I am sure that noble Lords can understand the need for “unsuitable”.

Government Amendment 61 is a minor amendment that will update the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 and the Equality Act 2010 to reflect the planned abolition of the Tenant Services Authority.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, does he see the problem that we on this side see: that somebody can be deemed unsuitable just because they are making a point that the others happen not to agree with? It is not filibustering but that they are making a perfectly valid point, which is not agreed with.

[Earl Attlee]

No, my Lords, that would not meet the test of what is unsuitable. If the Secretary of State tried to use his powers to say that someone was unsuitable because he or she disagreed with other members of the committee, he would leave himself vulnerable to judicial review.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Would the noble Earl like to suggest the number of times you have to disagree before you are deemed to be unsuitable?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I would imagine that a committee could have very free and frank discussions, perhaps lasting all afternoon, without falling foul of the test of unsuitability. On the other hand, if a member of the committee regularly interfered with the operation of the committee so that it could not function, the Secretary of State would have to step in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley]

Amendment 62 relates to the transfer of trusteeship of almshouses. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for writing to me in the Recess to say that she was sympathetic to the case for this amendment and would be happy to consider the matter and discuss it further even though there was a need to be cautious about extending the scope of state regulation in relation to charitable bodies. I hope that discussions can continue between today and Third Reading.

At present, if a regulated housing association sells occupied social housing, that housing association requires the consent of the regulator, who in turn requires the housing association to consult its tenants. By contrast, when the control of an almshouse is moved from one corporate trustee to another, the ownership of the property remains with the Official Custodian for Charities. For that reason the regulator’s consent is not required for the change even if the residents’ homes are in effect being sold against their express wishes. The amendment would ensure that if a registered provider wanted to transfer the trusteeship of occupied dwellings, the consent of the regulator would be required. The regulator could in turn require the housing association to consult residents.

I move this amendment because a housing trust—the Anchor Trust—is transferring the corporate trusteeship of 11 almshouses spread through London and south-east England to another charity. Many residents oppose this proposal and would prefer to be transferred to a more local charity instead. The issue here is about the rights of tenants. If this was a stock transfer, say, of local authority housing, tenants would have the right to be consulted and, indeed, to give their consent to a transfer of their properties. The question that lies at the heart of this is: if there has to be consultation and consent given for a stock transfer, why when almshouses are being transferred is there not to be full consultation and consent? The legal situation is complicated because of the charitable status of the almshouses. I understand that in this specific case there have been meetings between Members of Parliament and the chief executive of the Anchor Trust and with the Charity Commissioners. However, we need to address this issue in Parliament because I cannot see why a different system should apply to tenants of almshouses as opposed to tenants in other forms of social housing.

I recognise the need for further work to be done on the legal issues. I also recognise that we are still on Report. However, I hope that there is time to look further at those legal issues to see what might be done about this situation. In the mean time, I hope that it might be possible for full consultation and consent to be obtained from those tenants affected by this and any other proposed transfer of almshouses. I hope that it will be possible for that further work to be presented to your Lordships' House at Third Reading.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I offer my support and that of the Opposition to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, as I have done on a number of occasions on Report. He has identified a problem that needs to be addressed. It involves real people with real concerns. If the matter requires further work, as he says, and it can be done—I hope that the Minister will comment on that—the issue may be sorted out. Given that we are discussing a charity, I understand that the issue may be more difficult than it at first seems, but I hope that the government Front Bench will give a positive response.

Amendments 65 and 67 in this group stand in my name. Amendment 65 would ensure that a parent company of a group of housing associations can be registered even if it owns no housing itself. This would allow the regulator to regulate group members via the parent rather than directly if he thinks that that would be more effective. Amendment 67 concerns the appointment of members to housing association boards. The law as it stands allows the regulator to make unlimited appointments to a registered provider’s governing body provided that they remain a minority. For a 10-member board, it would allow the regulator to make nine appointments. My amendment limits the number of appointments the regulator may make to no more than four. This is a proportionate number of appointments and would enable the regulator to strengthen the board by adding members with sufficient skills and abilities to deal with any concerns that they may have about the board’s performance. However, the number would not be too overbearing as this sort of appointment would be of a temporary nature to help the housing association board discharge its duties more effectively.

[Lord Best]

Amendment 67 stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. It concerns the appointments made by the regulator. It is important to note that this amendment relates only to appointments made by the regulator where the housing association has not failed in any way. It is not a disciplinary measure but constitutes a voluntary helping hand for the organisation. In a number of cases that I know well additional members have been appointed by the regulator as new members of the board and have been very helpful. However, there are limits to the number of appointments that the regulator ought to make to the board. We suggest that these be limited in future to a maximum of four. In my experience three new people are usually appointed to strengthen a board that has become weak—four is quite enough. We are trying to protect the independence and sovereignty of these organisations.

--- Later in debate ---

I am also concerned that this change could reduce the effectiveness of the regulator’s response to a serious problem in an association. For example, where an association has no officers, as has occurred in the past, but its constitution does not specify a minimum number of officers, the amendment would permit the regulator to make up to four appointments only. That may not be sufficient to put things right and protect tenants and the taxpayer.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I know that the Minister was not tempted by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, but can he give the House any assurance that the issue the noble Lord raised will be looked at seriously by the Government? I accept that this involves charity law, which is complicated stuff, but it also involves real people with real concerns and the Government should look at this seriously.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am confident that my department will continue to monitor the situation, but we cannot do anything further with this Bill.

[Earl Attlee]

With regard to the evidence, if I can give the noble Lord some more evidence I will, but I am not certain that I can. I believe there are some difficulties with his second request.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before the Minister sits down, I shall press him on this point. In order to get time for this to be resolved, would he be able to facilitate a discussion between representatives of these organisations, the almshouses and their residents with officials and Ministers in the department?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, we will do whatever we can to assist a resolution of this problem. We will continue to monitor it, but my particular point is that there is not much more we can do with this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Best]

This amendment is about the new powers for the ombudsman to apply to a court to make its rulings legally enforceable—in other words, to insist, having made a judgment through the courts, that the landlord complies with the ombudsman’s decision. This is quite a big jump from the current scheme, which is based on informality. At the moment it is an inexpensive scheme. It is very accessible to complainants and people do not come with their lawyers. It is not part of the legal processes. It is feared that the new scheme will rather change the nature of the way in which the ombudsman works. It also carries the same risk that I have been harping on about today, that housing associations will slide into the public sector and become indistinguishable from public sector agencies, which has the effect thereafter that all of their borrowing will become part of the public sector debt, which I know the Government are very anxious to avoid. There is a risk that if housing associations are subject to legally enforceable decisions based on the opinion of a public authority—the ombudsman—they may not be regarded as being outside the public sector. That would be a calamity.

Once again, this is about trying to retain the independence and non-statutory nature of the sector. The removal of these new legal powers would be helpful in sustaining that independence and the success of the ombudsman’s scheme to date, without making the ombudsman’s rulings legally enforceable.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendments 75 and 76. They would ensure that the ombudsman’s service is not damaged by unintended consequences. What is wonderful about the ombudsman’s service is that compared with the courts, proceedings are informal, inexpensive and accessible. It is respected as its rulings are complied with by registered providers. The Government are proposing to solve a problem that noble Lords on this side of the House do not believe exists. We should be careful not to undermine the service. Will the Minister tell the House where the proposal has come from? Who has asked for it? How has it arrived here?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the proposals relate to the proposed order-making power for the Secretary of State to enable the housing ombudsman to apply to a court or tribunal to enforce his determinations. One of our aims through our package of reforms to social housing regulation is to give a greater role to social housing tenants in the scrutiny of landlord performance. The Bill supports that by providing a clear role for tenant panels in the complaints process. In parallel, we are currently consulting on draft directions to the social housing regulator that will result in tenants having stronger tools with which to scrutinise landlords’ performance. The regulator’s consumer regulation role will be focused on setting clear standards and responding to failures that cause actual or potential serious detriment to tenants. Alongside these reforms we want to ensure that we continue to promise tenants an effective right of redress. The proposed power to enable the housing ombudsman to enforce his decisions through the courts—although I hope it is never needed—gives tenants confidence that effective redress will continue to be available.

The noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Kennedy, give an accurate description of the current situation. There is not a problem. The Government would use this power only if levels of compliance with the housing ombudsman determinations declined significantly. At present compliance is high, as noble Lords have recognised. Only one recommendation has been rejected in the past seven years. We hope and expect that this will continue. If so, we have no intention of using this power.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Am I right that the noble Lord is saying that the Government are taking a power that they believe they do not need?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, it is wise to make sure that we have the order-making power should we need it. It concentrates the mind. As I said, we have no intention of using it unless the situation deteriorates. I suspect that it will not, but it is always advisable to have something in your back pocket.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

That is a very interesting response. I have heard the exact opposite from the government Bench on many other proposals.

[Lord Beecham]

I remind the Minister of the thrust of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Best—the risk that because an order is enforceable, the RSL sector is regarded as being within the public sector, with consequential adverse effects on the financial status of its expenditure in relation to the Government’s expenditure requirement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 78 and speak to Amendments 79, 80 and 243. These amendments are four minor and technical amendments to the new clause that we introduced in Committee. These combine to remove a lacuna in the clause as currently drafted. They would mean that Section 214(3A), which enables the court to order that the deposit be repaid in part or in full to the tenant, would apply if the tenancy had ended at the date of the application to the court but not if it had ended after that date. Clearly this is not the intention of the legislation and I ask noble Lords to support this amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the Opposition accept that these are minor technical amendments and are happy to support them on that basis.

Amendment 78 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The noble Earl was a bit too quick for me. The Opposition gives its full support to the noble Lord, Lord Best, in moving his amendment on the exclusion of certain rural dwellings from the preserved right to buy. He is seeking to deal with an unintended consequence of the planning system. Many social homes in rural areas are built through Section 106 agreements. An issue can arise where housing is transferred from the local authority to housing associations. In these cases, existing tenants are given a preserved right to buy. When Section 106 agreements are used to build new social homes in rural areas, there is often a planning obligation which means that they must remain for social let. In those cases, tenants with a preserved right to buy are unable to move into these properties.

The amendment fixes an unintended consequence and the tenants would then have the right to acquire, which does not apply in rural areas. Therefore, the problem would not happen and the tenants in those situations can seek to move to social housing in rural areas if they wish. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, can see that we are trying to be constructive and sort out a problem for everyone’s benefit.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Best, in moving his amendment suggested that his point was not fully understood. He alarmed me somewhat because he talked about Section 106 and its consequences. Unfortunately, my notes do not refer to Section 106 and nor do the Q and As. If my response does not fully answer his question, I will of course write to him with further details.

Tenants who have been involved in a stock transfer from a local authority to a registered provider would have agreed to this transfer on the basis that they would retain their right to buy. We do not think that it would be proper to remove this right from the tenant. Equally, we do not think that it is right that secure tenants who are part of a future stock transfer should have their longstanding right to buy taken away simply because they live in rural areas and their homes have been transferred to a new landlord.

However, while we wish to ensure that transferred tenants are not denied their existing rights, there is statutory provision to ensure that the new tenants of these properties do not get the right to purchase their homes in order that the properties remain available to those in need of social housing. There are existing measures in place to ensure that homes in rural areas, which are sold under the preserved right to buy, remain available to people at affordable prices.

Landlords can already impose restrictions requiring owners who wish to sell to either resell only to people who have lived or worked locally for at least three years, or first offer their home to the landlord, giving them the opportunity to return the property to their existing housing stock if they wish to do so. These restrictions on reselling are already in place in a very significant proportion of our countryside and remain in place in perpetuity. In our view, this is sufficient.

I hope that I have met the noble Lord’s points. If I have not, I will urgently have a meeting with him and officials in order to further examine the issues.