Localism Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I rise in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Given the range of the amendments that are about to be debated, having the context to them is very important in understanding the strategic problem around housing and homelessness. We have a rising number of households. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is absolutely right; we should be building somewhere between 200,000 and 250,000 new homes a year to keep abreast of new household formation. We got half the figure—around 139,000—last year.

Meanwhile, the housing market is volatile. There is a rising number of mortgage repossessions. There is 1 million more people renting their homes now than were renting six years ago, largely because of the economic situation and the difficulty of getting a mortgage. There are now more people wanting to rent than there are vacancies. In some parts of the country, rents are rising much faster than inflation, reducing individual capacity to save. Disposable incomes are declining, which adds to the problem. While short tenancies might be acceptable for many single people, they are not at all good for families where continuity and security matter, or for neighbourhoods where continuity builds social cohesion.

There will be very great pressure on the rented sector over the next few years. It is crucial that we ensure the protection and rights of tenants rather than seeing everything from the perspective of supply. We are not building enough homes, which is a failure of successive Governments over many years. This situation must be addressed urgently. It is the context of my view that we need to have local housing strategies because each part of the country will be different. Unless we understand the problem that we are trying to solve, we will not have the evidence base, making housebuilding programmes, the modernisation of homes and so on more difficult to achieve in the right numbers.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for his kind words from the Government Front Bench. They are much appreciated. The Opposition fully support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty. The proposal is strategic and practical. It sets up a context for the debate and other sections of the Bill. It provides both the Government and the local authority with valuable information for assisting the planning for housing need in the future. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to accept my noble friend’s amendment. If not, I hope that she will feel able to take it away and look at it over summer, maybe in the terms referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, in the previous amendment.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. He was sharp, swift and brief—brilliant. We will have more of the noble Lord, if we might. On the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, I am once again going to say that we do not need it. While I admire the verve with which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has presented his case, there are already statutory provisions.

Local authorities are already under statutory provisions to provide plans for the housing needs of their population and to discharge their housing functions in accordance with their strategic priories as detailed in their housing strategies. Section 13 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires local planning authorities to keep under review matters that are likely to affect the development of their area, including size, composition and distribution of the housing for their population. In addition, planning policy statement 3 and the associated guidance on strategic housing assessment make clear that local authority plans should be informed by a robust evidence base of housing need and demand in its area for market and affordable housing.

Section 87 of the Local Government Act 2003 provides a power for the Secretary of State to require all local housing authorities to have a housing strategy, so the provision is there already. It is well understood that local authorities should be more than clear about the requirements in their area in this regard. The current guidance on local housing strategies in England stresses that the local housing strategy is the local housing authority’s vision for housing in its area. It should set out objectives, targets and policies on how the authority intends to manage and deliver its strategic housing role, and provides an overarching framework against which the authority considers and formulates other policies on more specific housing issues. That is the strength of my argument in saying that we do not need the amendment. However, I understand the concern that lies behind it and behind the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. We are dramatically underhoused.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has drawn attention to the limited housebuilding that has occurred over a number of years. Last year we had one of the lowest housebuilding programmes since 1923. We are trying to boost housebuilding. We have introduced the new homes bonus and are trying to encourage building through various means such as shared ownership and buy now pay later schemes. There are all sorts of plans to increase housing but you cannot do it overnight; it takes time to develop. However, there is no misunderstanding on the part of this Government that housing and a housing strategy are needed. With the assurance that this amendment is not necessary for the reasons I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

170CM: Clause 127, page 119, line 16, after “(4)” insert “and (7A)”

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, on behalf my noble friend Lord Patel of Bradford, I beg leave to move Amendment 170CM and speak to other amendments in the group.

The Opposition have considerable concerns with this section of the Bill as presently drafted, and we hope the Government will be disposed to accept a number of the amendments that have been tabled by noble Lords. Local authorities will no longer be required to maintain open lists for persons seeking housing assistance. Instead, they will be able to impose qualifying requirements for applicants. They will also be able to discharge their housing duty by securing an offer in the private rented sector. Existing tenants seeking a transfer will no longer be required to go through the local authority allocation scheme.

As currently drafted, the legislation could lead to existing tenants with reasonable preference in England being disqualified from seeking a transfer under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996, the only route to which such tenants may transfer according to Clause 126 of the Bill. For example, if Mr A had been a tenant for two years, having moved to the area shortly prior to his tenancy starting, and a local housing authority then introduced a new local connection rule stating that applicants must prove local links to the area going back at least five years to qualify for housing, then Mr A could find himself trapped in unsuitable accommodation and unable to transfer or apply for other areas with similar long-term local connection requirements. This would be the case even if he were willing to downsize to a similar home and free up much-needed family accommodation for another household.

This amendment, adding a new subsection to new Section 160ZA, would ensure that whatever qualifying criteria local housing authorities apply to new applicants, existing tenants with reasonable preference would be deemed to be qualifying by default. Existing tenants without reasonable preference are being taken out of the allocation scheme under Clause 126 of the Bill so will be able to transfer without competing against households with more urgent needs, and would therefore already be protected from this potential trap. It should be noted that the amendment would lead to existing tenants qualifying for housing even if they were guilty of serious unacceptable behaviour. However, it would be straightforward for local housing authorities to design their transfer policies in a way that would prevent tenants with good behaviour losing out as a result of this important protection.

I move to other amendments in the group. Clauses 129 and 130 will enable local authorities to discharge their homelessness duty by placing people in the private rented sector without due regard for the wishes of homeless applicants. At Commons Third Reading the Minister, Andrew Stunell MP, said:

“I recognise that there are some concerns and I am prepared to consider further the need for additional protections for homeless households placed in the private rented sector”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/5/11; col. 408.]

Homeless households should continue to have a choice of whether a private rented sector tenancy is appropriate for them. If this choice were removed, vulnerable homeless households, who may most need the stability of a social home, are unlikely to be in a good position to advocate for themselves. This may result in local authorities discharging their duty into the private rented sector, whether or not this is the best option for the household concerned, particularly in areas of high housing demand. Amendments supported by Crisis were tabled in the Commons in Committee to introduce a two-stage discharge of the homelessness duty to the private rented sector, strengthening the duty to help homeless people not in priority need, to require local authorities to discharge the duty only to accredited landlords, and to ensure that any property a homeless household is placed in is affordable.

Despite the fact that large numbers of vulnerable households are being placed in private rented accommodation, often at a considerable cost to the taxpayer, there remains very little assurance of standards in the sector. A number of local authorities have raised concerns about the standard and suitability of some private rented sector accommodation. They feel that some form of protection should be put in place to ensure that the properties are of good enough quality to meet the needs of their clients. As homeless households are likely to be offered accommodation in the cheapest third of the private rented sector, there is a risk that they will be placed with private landlords who are wholly unsuitable to be letting homes to vulnerable people. In the past, this included landlords who have consistently breached housing legislation and undertaken other forms of unlawful practices.

Research by Shelter—the summary of its survey of environmental health officers—found that 47 per cent of respondents had encountered examples of landlords engaging in the harassment of illegal eviction, or both, of tenants, and 99 per cent of respondents had come across landlords who persistently refused to maintain their property in a safe condition. Moreover, 36 per cent of respondents said they frequently came across such cases. Private rented accommodation is often of poor quality; according to the English Housing Survey, 40 per cent of private tenants live in non-decent homes, compared with 23 per cent of social tenants and 29 per cent of owner occupiers.

As I said at the start of my remarks, the Opposition have considerable concerns about this part of the Bill as presently drafted. We hope that the Government will listen carefully to your Lordships’ House and accept a number of the amendments, or indicate that they have heard the concerns, take them away, reflect on them over the summer and bring amendments back on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

I am conscious that I have not mentioned everybody and that I have probably not covered all the aspects I should, but over the next few weeks I will look at this, because I appreciate that it is an extremely important issue in the Bill. I hope that we will be able to do justice to it, if not now, then at the next stage. I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham for her response. As I said at the start, the Opposition have considerable concerns about this section of the Bill as presently drafted. That has been reflected in the contributions we have had in the debate this afternoon from across the Chamber. I agree very much with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about vulnerable people in need of housing and also his comments about the environment and the suitability of accommodation. The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in moving his amendment to change the “reasonable preference” category, were absolutely right and very welcome. I pay tribute to the work he has done on behalf of Mencap over many years. The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, was absolutely right to highlight the problems of the 12-month tenancy. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, supporting the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, brought her professional expertise and her experience as a carer to the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, was able to share his experience of 25 years as a local councillor and the problems of people falling between the cracks. The noble Lord, Lord Best, was right when he said that we have enjoyed important contributions today from your Lordships. I agreed with his comments about the private rented sector and the need for regulation.

My noble friend Lady Wilkins was right in her comments and the noble Lords, Lord Newton of Braintree and Lord Cormack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, reflected the concerns felt right across the House today. I hope that the Government will take due note of that. The Opposition and, I am sure, many other noble Lords, will look carefully at what comes back from the Government and, if necessary, bring these issues back on Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 170CM withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of Amendment 173B moved by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and on other welcome amendments in this group.

Amendment 173B adds an important protection to exempt vulnerable and older people from flexible tenancies. Amendment 173CA in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, adds an additional protection to extend those terms from two to seven years. Amendment 173CB in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, seeks to have protection regarding previous tenancy arrangements. In his Amendment 173D the noble Lord, Lord Best, also seeks to add a protection for the review decision so that it proceeds,

“on the basis of a presumption that a new flexible tenancy for a term at least equivalent to the current or previous”,

terms of the tenancy. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, highlighted in his amendment the exemptions for vulnerable or older people from flexible tenancies.

As I said in my previous remarks, the Opposition are very concerned about this Bill, and particularly this housing section. We very much hope that the Government are listening to what has been said in the House today. I hope that the Minister can either accept these amendments or give the House an assurance that she is going to take them away, reflect on them, and bring these matters back at Report.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, before I respond to the debate, I move the government amendments that are in my name—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rix]

Amendments 175, 176, 177 and 178 regard the Government's intention to remove succession rights for carers and relatives, which are currently provided by a secure tenancy. In contrast to the Government, I believe that this right should be preserved and extended to all new tenancies in the social housing sector. The original provisions in the Housing Act 1985 gave recognition to the role of carers who had given up their own homes to look after a parent or a relative. We already know that unpaid carers make a significant contribution to the welfare of disabled and older tenants and dramatically reduce the demands on social services, the NHS and, of course, the Treasury.

The provision in the Housing Act 1985 also ensures that a disabled son or daughter living with parents, often into old age, would be protected after their parents have died. In 2006 the Law Commission recommended a single social tenancy that would allow a “reserve successor” on the death of a “priority successor”. A priority successor would be a spouse or partner, and a reserve successor would be a relative or carer living with the resident before their death. At the end of the Report stage in the House of Commons, the Government made some amendments to the clause on succession rights that will allow for succession rights for tenants other than spouses or civil partners, where,

“an express term of the tenancy makes provision for a person other than such a spouse or a civil partner of the tenant to succeed the tenancy”.

I welcome the Government’s acknowledgement that restricting succession rights to spouses and civil partners alone is not appropriate. However, I am still concerned that the changes proposed do not go far enough, and I do not believe that the government amendments which follow mine affect my concerns. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I am sorry; I was too slow in getting to my feet. I support Amendment 175 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and other amendments in the group. Clause 139 removes the statutory right of succession of those other than spouses and partners to succeed to secure tenancies granted after the Bill comes into force, except where an express term of tenancy makes provision for this. I understand that this clause has been inserted to assist local authorities in dealing with under-occupancy of social housing following succession against the background of a chronic shortage of social housing and correspondingly long waiting lists.

There is concern on these Benches that these proposed changes are likely to have a disproportionate effect on vulnerable people. Presently, close family members are able to succeed to secure tenancies. In addition, local authority tenancies sometimes contain an express provision to provide succession rights to close family members. The proposals under Clause 139 would mean that any family member other than a spouse or a civil partner would not be able to succeed to any form of secure tenancy unless there was an express tenancy term making provision for this. Even then, that person’s succession would have to be in accordance with that term. This provides considerable discretion to social landlords to operate a term in their agreement that may make it virtually impossible for a member of a family, other than a spouse or a partner, to succeed to a tenancy.

Local authorities are under pressure to ensure that their housing stock is fully utilised. The removal of the right of succession beyond spouses and civil partners is potentially damaging. Many of those currently eligible to succeed a close family member may have remained living at home with good reason—perhaps because of a disability or some other vulnerability. No doubt local authorities also see remaining in the parental home a number of single adults who have no vulnerability or disability but simply have no inclination to move out. However, we are concerned to ensure that protections for the vulnerable are not removed unwittingly. Restricting the right of succession under the Bill to a spouse or civil partner goes too far, as other potentially vulnerable family members may be living at the property and have little choice about their living arrangements. If the change under the Bill goes ahead, there will be no prospect of anyone close to the deceased who may have lived in the tenancy all their lives securing such a succession unless it is specifically stipulated in the tenancy terms.

There will be little incentive for local authorities or landlords to include an express provision in their tenancy agreements. Local authorities, which currently make such express provisions for succession by non-spouses—with unsecured tenancies, for example—may well cease to do so once the statutory succession rules are changed, with an increasing number of new tenancies being granted without express provisions on succession. The Government should carry out a more detailed impact assessment of the removal of such a provision and of the extent to which the removal would affect the construction or granting of secure tenancies.

Amendments 175, 176, 177 and 178 would create a condition allowing close family members to become qualified reserve successors to a secure tenancy, as per the current system. Reserve successors would be qualified to succeed only if, at the time of the tenant’s death, the dwelling house was occupied by a spouse or civil partner of the deceased tenant as his or her only or principal home. There are alternative measures for addressing under-occupancy following succession, by making existing grounds for possession under-occupancy function more effectively.

In conclusion, I look forward with interest to the noble Baroness’s response. I hope that she is able to give the Committee some reassurance on these important matters.

Railways: Thameslink Rolling Stock Contract

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will review their decision to award the Thameslink rolling stock contract to Siemens.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the competition for the Thameslink trains was designed and launched in 2008 in accordance with EU treaty obligations and UK public procurement regulations. I am satisfied that the proper process as originally advised to the bidders has been complied with. Both bids have been treated equitably and fairly in the process. The Siemens bid demonstrated that it offered better value for money against the published criteria and consequently the Government will not be reviewing the decision.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Earl for his response. When the Prime Minister and his colleagues came to Derby recently we heard lots about supporting engineering and manufacturing and creating jobs, but there is a wide gap between the words and the deeds. Why were the credit ratings of the two companies such a determining factor? This decision means that the last train maker in the UK—a maker of quality products and inward investor to this country—and the 1,500 people who will lose their jobs, whose families live in and around Derby, never stood a chance. That is a disgrace.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, it is not for me to comment on the ability of bidders to raise the finance. However, the model selected by the previous Administration is a good one and we support it. It is important to remember that the Siemens bid will also create employment in the UK, although I have to accept that it will not be as much.

Localism Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Beecham’s comments on Amendment 64. I am not a supporter of term limits. I think that it is up to parties and their candidates, and then it is for the voters to tell them who they want to elect. If the Minister can give us some clarification about term limits, that would be useful.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for this little exchange. I will see what I can do. Amendment 64, as the noble Lord said, seeks to remove the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations changing the term of office of elected mayors. This is an important power that allows for transitional arrangements to be made following the first election of mayors. In October 2001, when a number of mayoral elections were held, the Secretary of State was able to vary the mayors’ terms of office so that the second elections were held in May, and in some local authority areas the mayor’s term was varied to enable the mayoral elections to be held at the same time as local government elections. We believe that it is important that this power, which has been available to the Government since 2000, is retained.

Amendment 65 is unnecessary as regulations made under new Section 9HN can relate only to the conduct of mayoral elections, and changes to electoral law or regulations cannot be made for any other purpose under this power.

The noble Lord has queried the provision at new Section 9HN(5). The Secretary of State is able to make regulations placing limitations on election expenses. However, in most cases he must do so only following a recommendation from the Electoral Commission. The only exception when a commission recommendation is not necessary is where the Secretary of State makes changes to any limits in line with inflation. That would mean an upgrading of the mayor’s election expenses owing to the fact that there had been inflation, which of course we do not have at the moment so it would not be necessary. The noble Lord asked what “money” relates to here. It means election expenses, which can be uprated by the Secretary of State. Again, this replicates provisions in the Local Government Act 2000.

Amendment 67 seeks to require regulations made by the Secretary of State under new Section 9ID on the election, terms of office and filling of vacancies of executive leaders to be subject to the affirmative procedure. We envisage that any regulations made under this section would be used for transitional purposes when a change in governance arrangements takes place. Furthermore, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, having completed its review of the Bill, is satisfied with the level of parliamentary scrutiny of regulations made under new Section 9ID. We are therefore not convinced that the existing arrangements in the 2000 Act, whereby such provisions have been subject to the negative procedure, should be changed. That remains the situation.

On the question of deputy mayors, Amendments 86 and 87, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seek to require the mayor to gain the agreement of his or her cabinet when appointing their deputy mayor. The Government’s view is that the decision about who to appoint as their deputy mayor should be a decision for the mayor alone. It seems unnecessary for a directly elected mayor, accountable to the electorate of an entire local authority area, to have to seek the agreement of a cabinet, the members of which they themselves have appointed, to determine who the deputy mayor should be.

Amendment 87ZA seeks to remove an elected mayor’s ability, if he or she wishes, to appoint an assistant. Such assistants can currently fulfil a similar role to those carried out by political assistants to the main political groups on the council. Given the significant role that elected mayors play in their local communities—taking key strategic decisions, acting as ambassador for the area and facilitating effective partnerships are just part of what they do—then, in the same way as leaders are supported by political assistants, elected mayors will need an assistant to effectively carry out these roles. There are currently four independent and local authority mayors in England. As such, independent mayors are ineligible to have a political assistant who works only to the main political groups on the council. Amendment 87ZA may have the effect of leaving such mayors without any access to any political support or assistance.

However, we are not saying that an elected mayor must appoint an assistant. The appointment of a mayoral assistant is entirely optional and we would expect mayors to have regard to existing support structures within the council, both political and administrative, and its financial resources when reaching a decision on whether it is necessary to appoint an assistant. The Secretary of State has, of course, no involvement in a mayor’s appointment of an assistant.

I hope that these responses are helpful and will convince the House that these amendments are unnecessary and need not be pressed.

--- Later in debate ---

A committee system which enables the public to see what is happening and in which other people have a role is much sought after. All this amendment seeks to do is to allow local authorities to take the relevant decision when they want to rather than having to wait three years in the case of London, or possibly four years in other authorities, until the next local elections. I support the amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, made some very welcome points. Many years ago I was a councillor in the London Borough of Southwark. I left the council in 1994, so I experienced only the traditional committee system. Many years later as a Labour Party official I attended Labour group meetings at which many members said that they were not so keen on the present system and would prefer to go back to the committee system. My noble friend Lord McKenzie made an important point about younger councillors getting fully involved in the council’s business. It is not so easy for them to play a scrutiny role. I hope that the Minister will explain why the three-year period is necessary and why the relevant matters cannot be dealt with more quickly.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I do not want to prolong the philosophical discussion about which system is better but given the principles behind a Localism Bill, clearly the matter should be decided locally and as soon as possible. I am not speaking as a representative of London Councils, but the matter came up at a recent meeting of the leaders’ executive of London Councils and the leaders of all the parties unanimously agreed that they would like the Government to think again about this proposal. We hope that the amendment spoken to by my noble friends Lord Tope and Lord Palmer will gain favour in the Government’s eyes. I submit that what goes for London goes for authorities outside London as well.

Postal Services Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 4th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

47: Clause 11, page 6, line 29, at end insert “, and
( ) until delivered, the progress of developing the back office integration with credit unions”

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the link-up with the Post Office is one of the most exciting innovations for the credit union movement and my amendment places a requirement on the Government to report back on the progress to achieving this until such time as it has been delivered. Getting people on the lowest incomes into the habit of saving and giving them access through the Post Office network to affordable credit is something that we can all support. Would this not be the big society in action?

What we do have is some of our poorest and most vulnerable people who are unable to get affordable credit. They are either put into the hands of illegal loan sharks or into the payday loan shops with their exorbitant interest rates. The Government need to take action, and take action quickly. The noble Baroness is fully aware that I have pursued this issue with questions to her and other Ministers, as well as in debates such as this one. It is something that I feel very strongly about. It is an area for which I think there is considerable support around the House in all political groups and on the Cross Benches, but it does require the Government to take action to move it forward.

I look forward to the noble Earl’s response. If he is not able to accept the amendment, can I refer him to page 11 of the House of Lords’ Proceedings covering the Questions for Short Debate and my Motion on a similar subject? Any help he can give me with the Government Whips’ Office in getting that Motion brought forward for debate will be much appreciated. We could then spend a little bit longer discussing these important issues and the progress being made by the Government on them. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment. Each week something like 6.5 million visits are made to the Post Office network with a view to withdrawing funds from the Post Office card account. It has been calculated that those aged under 65 who hold such an account are 28 times more likely to be unbanked. These same people, those in receipt of state benefits and tax credits, are the most likely to use high-cost credit. That is evidence of the justification of the point being made by my noble friend Lord Kennedy about the valuable contribution that credit unions can make. The Post Office product range is such that it will not make personal loans of less than £2,000, yet evidence shows that sums of between £300 and £600 are the primary amounts sought by those using high-cost credit.

In short, the Post Office has the facilities and credit unions have the ability. Would it not be good if we could bring these two groups together to serve the public?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, since he arrived in your Lordships’ House the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has spoken passionately about the role of credit unions, and with good reason. We all know about the activities of loan sharks. As my noble friend the Minister said in Committee, the Government place a high importance on access to affordable credit and believe that the use of credit unions should be encouraged as a means of saving and obtaining access to short-term loans.

Co-operation between Post Office Ltd and credit unions is already very strong and we support an even closer link-up between the Post Office and credit unions. We have demonstrated clear progress against this aim. The noble Lord’s amendment seeks details on that progress and I hope that I can give him some reassurance today. The Department for Work and Pensions recently announced a significant package of support for the credit union sector, including funding set aside for a shared credit union banking platform, which will be subject to a feasibility study, in which the Post Office will participate fully.

The Post Office also continues to develop individual services and assistance to facilitate close working with credit unions, including a new pay-out service which allows people to collect their credit union loans at their local post office branch, and guidance to facilitate local arrangements between post offices and credit unions where both parties wish to participate. These developments build upon existing arrangements whereby many credit union current account holders can access their accounts at post offices through arrangements with the Co-operative Bank. Post Office Ltd expects that around 170,000 credit union transactions will be carried out in post office branches in this way in the coming year. Facilities are also available at post offices whereby credit unions issue customers with a payment card, which they can use to pay off the loans they have received via the electronic bill payment facilities that are available at every post office. More than 60 credit unions have established this facility.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, referred to the possibility of a debate. As he will understand, I can give no assurances on that because it is a matter for the usual channels.

As my noble friend the Minister said in Committee, we recognise the worthy intention behind the amendment and I hope the noble Lord will be reassured by the good work that is already under way in these areas. We will continue to encourage co-operation between the credit unions and Post Office Ltd and to support the Post Office in its provision of wider financial services. However, placing this reporting requirement—and, indeed, others tabled by noble Lords—in legislation would simply increase bureaucracy, and the greater the reporting requirement imposed on the Post Office the greater the cost and, therefore, the impact on its competitiveness.

With the reassurance that I have given today, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his response; he has provided some reassurance. I shall return to this issue again but, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 47 withdrawn.

Postal Services Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 4th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

9: Clause 2, page 2, line 5, at end insert “, and
( ) how the name “Royal Mail” will be protected and used by the universal postal service provider”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this is a similar amendment to one that I tabled in Committee. I was not convinced by the Minister’s response then and said I would bring it back. I hope that the Minister has had time to reflect on this. As I said before, people do silly things all the time and doing nothing is, in my opinion, unwise. This amendment would only require the Secretary of State to report on how the name “Royal Mail” will be protected. If the noble Baroness is not minded to accept the amendment, can she explain how we avert another Consignia debacle? Saying that this is such a well-known and recognisable brand name that no new owner would ever consider getting rid of it just does not stack up—Consignia proved that. Future owners may decide to change the name to some other well-known name and Royal Mail as a brand would be lost. That, I contend, would be a matter of much regret. I beg to move.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I listened to the noble Lord with some interest, but I should have thought that, if ever a brand name would be of immense value to anyone who bought the business afterwards, it is that of Royal Mail. I hope that I am not being indiscreet but when I discussed privatising Royal Mail while I was in the Department of Industry in 1981, I was told brusquely, “It’s royal—we can't touch it”, so it has been delayed for my noble friends to bring to the point now which I would really have liked to have seen a long time ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Wilcox]

I will get a note and come back to that. I will continue with my point for the moment. Amendment 55, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Clarke and Lord Christopher, would amend Amendment 54 to require the Royal Mail company’s report to include details of financial support, both in cash and in kind, for the museum collection and its archive. In tabling Amendment 54 we have not been prescriptive about what should or should not be included in the report. As I have said, we fully expect a Royal Mail company to continue to recognise the importance of its heritage. How it chooses to support the museum and archive will be a matter for the company. However, any support that it gives to the museum and archive will be an intrinsic part of its activities, and it follows that the report will include these details. It is not, therefore, necessary specifically to include this requirement in the new clause.

The Government want to see the heritage of Royal Mail preserved. Amendment 54 provides the right balance and places a sufficient spotlight on Royal Mail’s activities to ensure that the Government and Parliament have the opportunity to scrutinise those activities, and for Royal Mail to demonstrate its ongoing commitment to its heritage. I hope that your Lordships will be able to support Amendment 54. I ask the noble Lords, in view of the reassurances that I have given, kindly to withdraw Amendment 9 and not to move Amendment 55.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I also thank the Minister for her response, although it was disappointing. My amendment does not seek to affect the disposal of Royal Mail; it seeks merely to protect the name. I will not press the amendment to a vote, but the Government have taken an unnecessary and risky decision. I hope that they are right, but if they are proved to be wrong a tragedy will result which could so easily have been avoided. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

Postal Services Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 6th April 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

27: Schedule 12, page 129, line 6, at end insert—
“( ) A postal operator wishing to exercise the power to impose surcharges on or detain items where the postage is unpaid or underpaid shall take steps to identify items priced and posted over the counter at a post office or such other designated access point provider.”

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Whitty is unable to be in your Lordships’ House today and I have agreed to move this amendment on his behalf. The provisions in the Bill allow Royal Mail to detain postal packets and to impose a surcharge in respect of non-payment or underpayment. When the correct amount is not paid or no payment is made that is absolutely right—I have no problem with that whatever—but the Bill is too one-sided. This series of amendments seeks to redress the balance so that the consumer who, through no fault of their own, finds themselves in dispute with the Royal Mail about whether the correct price or any price has been paid has the basis of making a case to be considered.

Presently, the burden of proof rests entirely with the consumer. I am sure that all of us in this Committee would accept that mistakes happen. This amendment seeks to take account of that fact and that, on occasions, people have gone into Post Offices and paid the correct fee to send their packet through the system but the appropriate stamps have in error not been affixed. The packet goes on its merry way and the intended recipient at the other end has it delayed and can only get their hands on it on payment of a surcharge, even though the packet’s delivery has been paid for. This is not fair and not right.

Noble Lords may ask, “Where is your evidence?”. Well, I have it and I will happily give it to the Minister later. The evidence is a special delivery, signed-for packet to Consumer Focus from Royal Mail itself. Royal Mail forgot to put a stamp on the packet, then surcharged Consumer Focus for the pleasure of receiving papers from Royal Mail. The Government need to look carefully at this area. Maybe such a detailed provision does not need to be included in the Bill at all. If it is retained, there needs to be some protection for consumers from unjustifiably imposed surcharges. I beg to move.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, as we have discussed, for the universal service to be sustainable the provider must be able to cover its costs. The nature of our postal network means that it is possible for users, inadvertently or otherwise, to put items into the system without the correct postage. In such situations, to prevent the system from unravelling, it is vital that postal operators can recover the postage that should have been paid. Paragraph 35 of Schedule 12 to the Bill gives postal operators the right to detain items with insufficient postage until the correct amount has been paid and allows them to impose a surcharge. Importantly, Ofcom may limit the amount of the surcharge and the length of the detention period. Once the correct postage and any surcharge have been paid, the operator may no longer detain the item.

Amendments 28 and 29 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and ably—and, I have to say, wickedly—moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, with his knock-out argument, seek to prevent detention or surcharging if the item was priced and posted at a post office or other such designated access point provider. Amendment 27 would require postal operators wishing to detain or apply surcharges to underpaid items to take steps to identify items priced and posted at a post office or other such designated access point provider.

While I fully understand where the noble Lords are coming from, I do not think that legislation is the solution to this problem. I understand from Royal Mail that if a customer complains that they were surcharged for an item that was posted at a post office, the surcharge is automatically refunded.

In addition, I understand that this is a relatively small problem. Between October and December 2010, Post Office Ltd had around 300 complaints about surcharging of underpaid mail posted at a branch. In a typical quarter, however, the Post Office will conduct over 100 million label or stamp transactions. Complaints about surcharging to Royal Mail amount to 1 per cent of the total complaints received.

Given that there are effective systems in place to deal with these matters, I fear that imposing the regulatory burdens proposed by these amendments would be disproportionate to the scale of problem. I hope that the noble Lord will reflect and feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. These issues need looking at. I am happy at this stage to withdraw the amendment but my noble friend Lord Whitty may bring this back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 27 withdrawn.

Airports: London

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, we do not take a negative approach to the aviation industry at all, but we have maxed out the capacity of the population around Heathrow Airport to tolerate further expansion. We also need to constrain aviation-related emissions.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, will the noble Earl take this opportunity completely to dissociate the Government from the ridiculous plans of the Mayor of London to put an airport in the Thames estuary?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, we do not support any proposed airport in Kent or the Medway.

Airports: Heathrow

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, we have made it absolutely clear that we do not support the construction of additional runways at Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted. We believe that such runways would cause an unacceptable level of environmental damage, undermining our efforts to combat climate change and significantly damaging the quality of life of local communities. Instead, we have established the South East Airports Taskforce with key players from across the industry to explore the scope for measures to make the most of the existing airport infrastructure and to improve conditions for users of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords—

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

My Lords—

Railways: Heritage Sector

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester for securing this debate. I shall not detain the Committee for long, but this is an important debate at an important time, when we debate other matters in this House. I pay tribute to the Railway Heritage Committee and the work that my noble friend is doing to secure its future during the passage of the Public Bodies Bill. I wish him all success in that.

As a tourist in the UK, I have had many pleasurable journeys on railways with my wife Alicia, after introducing her to the heritage railway sector some years ago before we were married. I had the pleasure of travelling on the narrow-gauge Ffestiniog Railway some years ago, and only last summer I travelled on the steam railway in Antrim, Northern Ireland.

What is striking about all these journeys is the enjoyment to be had and the variety of people who are travelling—including teenagers, young couples, children with their parents and grandparents, and people from all over the world. I concur with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, in this respect. As my noble friend Lord Faulkner said, these railways boost the local economy by supporting the hotel and restaurant sectors and other parts of the local tourism industry.

I agree very much with the comments of my noble friend Lord Berkeley, who is well known for his expertise in the transport sector as a whole. His knowledge of and support for the heritage sector are evident. I concur with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. Some of my earliest memories as a child are of getting on the boat train from Euston to Holyhead on our regular family holidays to Dublin in the Republic of Ireland.

Roads: Cyclists

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

I am very grateful to hear that.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, will the Minister speak urgently to the Mayor of London? A consequence of his cycle hire scheme is a dramatic increase in the number of cyclists on the roads in London not in the correct attire, with no helmets or reflective clothing. Such circumstances dramatically increase the risk of serious injury or even death.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, it is very easy to overestimate the risk of accidents when riding a bicycle. The health benefits of riding a bicycle are very great indeed. For every year of life we lose to a cycling accident, we gain 20 years of life. Therefore, the bike hire scheme has great health benefits.