Business and Planning Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 20th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock [V]]

There are two related but separate amendments in this group concerning off-sales. The first, to limit the time for off-sales, was the subject of extensive debate in Committee and a commitment from the Minister to bring forward a government amendment on Report. The government amendments achieve that by limiting to 11 pm the latest time by which off-sales can be made. As this exactly replicates the proposal from these Benches in Committee, obviously we support these amendments and thank the Minister for responding so positively to the arguments made.

The second element is that of off-sales in open containers. My noble friend Lord Paddick has made another powerful case for limiting off-sales to closed containers, be it in cans or bottles. The reason is to prevent unruly scenes that may follow drinking from beer glasses in the street. Broken glass in the hands of those worse for wear is a nasty weapon. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, seeks to limit such off-sales to non-glass containers, but that misses one of the critical arguments entirely, which is that off-sales in open containers, whether glass or plastic, can lead to anti-social behaviour. There have been plenty of such incidents before sporting events that resulted in drinking limits being made. My noble friend Lord Paddick’s amendment seeks the same protections for local communities and, indeed, other sensible drinkers. We do not wish to see a Bill designed to help businesses becoming one which, as a side-effect, encourages irresponsible and unsafe drinking. My noble friend’s amendment is important for individuals, communities and policing, and it clearly has the full support of these Benches.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for tabling the government amendments. As other noble Lords said, a convincing case was made for the ending off-sales at 11 pm under these new licences. This was first raised in the other place by my honourable friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, Meg Hillier. She raised the problem she is having in her constituency even before these powers will come into play. There were huge problems in London Fields, and she raised the concern that if the Bill as it was then had been passed, it would have exacerbated the problem. I thank the Government for listening to that. I also thank the Covent Garden Community Association and the Soho Society. Weymouth Town Council was also concerned about this, as was everybody else who got in touch with me. It was also pleasing to see that we had the leaders of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the City of Westminster, Camden and Southwark, two Conservative and two Labour boroughs, coming together because they had a number of premises that would be affected by these proposals. It is good that the Government listened and I thank them very much for that.

On the question of containers, I see the point that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is making, but there is also the issue of buying beer to drink outside, which the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, touched on. I sometimes go to the Shipwrights Arms in Tooley Street, and if you go in there and ask for two pints of bitter, they will ask, “Inside or outside?” If you say “Outside”, you will get it in two plastic containers—you do not get glasses outside. You will meet a big, burly security guard, and you will not get past him if you are carrying glasses. I take the point that glasses are dangerous and can be used as weapons, and we need to be mindful of that. However, in many cases we have those plastic containers, which you often see at sporting venues. However, I see the point the noble Lord is making.

My noble friend Lord Mann made a point about policing resources. I remember being a young councillor in Southwark in the 1980s. At that point, the council gave the music and dance licence, and the magistrates gave the alcohol licence—of course, that has all changed now. I remember that the police came along to us, exasperated, and said, “You’ve granted all these music and dance licences, then of course the pubs are getting all these licences. On the Old Kent Road on a Friday and Saturday night, we have to put in a huge amount of resources when we do the weekly rosters. Then at the same time you’re moaning at us that you want more officers on the beat. We can’t physically manage it all.” I remember how that was important at the time.

However, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the government amendments that she has spoken to, I am delighted that the Government have listened, and I look forward to her response to the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock [V]]

[Inaudible.]—and related amendments, including one tabled by my noble friend Lord Addington that seeks to give sports clubs, which often rely on bar takings, the same facility as pubs and other bars to provide off-sales. An amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, seeks to achieve the same extension for small breweries. These amendments support small businesses and give essential support to community clubs, and as such we on these Benches support them both.

Another very important amendment, Amendment 52, would enable digital age verification. It is surprising that that does not already exist. A very strong case has been made for this change by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. In the light of the experience throughout this crisis of a significant shift being made across society to digital means of providing services, this proposal should surely be accepted by the Government. Perhaps the Minister will be able to indicate when that move to digital age verification will be enabled—as come it will.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Holmes of Richmond and Lord Addington, relating to small breweries and sporting clubs. I am a bit disappointed that the Government have not found a way to do something here. We hear lots of talk about supporting small business, but we seem to be in a rigid situation, where we cannot move out of where we are. I do not see why we could not do something and it is regrettable that we could not find a way. I accept that breweries do not have licences now, but they could be given something temporarily. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, made the point that sports clubs are often open only a couple of nights a week. Why have we not sorted them out? In this emergency Bill to deal with Covid-19, we have chosen to ignore them, and that is regrettable. I do not see why the Government have done that. They could have moved a bit more on that. I support the amendments, and it is regrettable that there will be no progress on them.

A convincing case has been laid out for Amendment 52, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and other noble Lords. I supported the idea in Committee. Equally, I see some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and I accept that this is a temporary Bill; perhaps doing something permanent in a temporary Bill may be a problem, but the least we should get tonight is a commitment. Technically, this can be done and the Government should get on and make sure that it happens.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly for the interest in Amendment 52, tabled by my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Bourne and the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Clement-Jones, on digital age verification. I could agree with virtually everything said in the debate on this amendment. I am very keen to progress this agenda, and it was in discussing this that my noble friend and I realised that we had a mutual interest in moving this agenda forward—she as a former Digital Minister and me dealing with data and identity in the Home Office.

The Government have carefully considered the concerns raised by this amendment. We support its aims, and we believe that a more holistic approach is needed to enable the use of digital identity in compliance with age-verification requirements in the Licensing Act for the sale of alcohol. As I explained in Committee, the protection of children from harm is an objective that all licensed premises should promote. Age verification plays a critical role in this and it is essential that we have confidence in the forms of identification presented as proof of age to promote this licensing objective. As my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering said, the PASS accredits a number of national and local suppliers of ID cards, offering retailers flexibility to choose an appropriate card to fit their needs and fulfil their licence condition.

At present it is not possible to use a digital ID as proof of age for the purchase of alcohol in the UK due to the lack of an agreed industry standard for digital ID. Without trusted digital identity standards in place, licence holders cannot know that market solutions are fit for purpose. This would make it very difficult for them to meet the reasonable precautions and due diligence requirements described in Amendment 52. The lack of an equivalent national standard for digital ID would lead to uncertainty.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, was correct in saying that movement on this is slow. I share his frustration and I know that my noble friend, a former Digital Minister, does too, but we do not think it is right to place licence holders in a position in which they are being asked to accept proof of ID without a set of agreed standards, even on temporarily. To do so may place them at risk of committing a criminal offence.

Although the Government are resisting this amendment, we do not disagree with—in fact we are very supportive of—the principle of digital ID. I set out in Committee some of the steps we are taking to progress work in this area. A call for evidence was launched last summer and the responses overwhelmingly agreed that the Government have a role in developing a framework for digital ID use in the UK. Respondents stressed the need for legal certainty on how to use digital identity. The Government will consult on developing legislation to set provisions for consumer protection relating to digital ID, specific rights for individuals, an ability to seek redress if something goes wrong and where responsibility for oversight should lie. The Government will also consult on the appropriate privacy and technical standards for secure digital identity. Sufficient oversight of these standards needs to be established to build trust and to facilitate innovation, which will provide organisations with a handrail to develop new, future-facing products, which I know is exactly what my noble friend seeks.

The Government plan to update existing laws on identity checking to enable digital ID to be used in the greatest number of circumstances. However, it is only when the framework and, most importantly, the standards are in place that we can expect industry and citizens to trust and have confidence in using and accepting digital IDs. Now, knowing our mutual interest in this subject, I hope that the Government and I will be able to draw on my noble friend’s considerable experience in this area as plans develop. I invite her to engage with Ministers and officials on this work as it develops. I am happy to give a commitment, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Barran, that we will work together with my noble friend towards our shared aspiration. To be honest, after four years in the Home Office I am glad that I have found someone interested in my policy area of digital ID and data. I hope that, with that commitment, my noble friend will support me in my longer-term vision for digital identities and will not move her amendment when it is reached.

I now turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Holmes. As noble Lords will be aware, the provisions in the Bill add permission for off-sales to most premises with an existing on-sales premises licence. It is not a mechanism to amend the process by which premises licences are granted.

I shall deal with Amendments 42, 43 and 50, tabled by my noble friend Lord Holmes, first. My noble friend has spoken passionately in support of small breweries. He is right to say that they have thrived over the past few years and we do not want to lose that. They are important. I note his point that his amendments could help breweries to sell alcohol to the public. However, as I said in Committee, we feel that any proposal that a business should be given a full premises licence without proper scrutiny by the local licensing authority, the police or the public is a step too far.

Similarly, with regard to Amendment 51, we are not currently seeking to make changes to the number of temporary event notices available for application in one year. Temporary licences granted for a limited period should not be used as a route to a permanent licence. As I have set out, there are crucial scrutiny mechanisms in place for granting them to ensure that all premises are selling alcohol responsibly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 56. I spoke in Committee on the need to avoid any unintended consequences of extending construction hours. There will be cases where an extension is entirely justified, and we should support that. But it is reasonable to expect that an impact assessment from the applicant with a description of how any adverse impact can be mitigated is provided. Secondly, an assessment of any impact on the environment and how that can be mitigated should be produced. Thirdly, there could be an explanation of any mitigation that would be put in place to minimise disturbance, particularly where a construction site is close to houses and other local buildings. To be clear, these need not be complex requirements and they should in practice speed up the process if that process is followed effectively. That would help the planning authority.

As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said, we do not want to undo the good that has been achieved by the planning system. Where there have been agreed planning permissions and where restrictions have been put in place, those restrictions and conditions will have been justified and should not be undone.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, when I first spoke this evening, I should have mentioned that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association, so I mention it now for the record. I will be very brief. If the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, are successful, I will be the first to congratulate him.

In respect of meetings of mayoral development corporations, I am pleased that the Government listened to the points that I and other noble Lords made, and I thank them. I have only one question: can the Minister confirm that, when we agree the government amendments tonight, they will come into effect on Royal Assent and the required regulations will be laid quickly so that we do not have to wait for weeks and weeks before they can take effect? With that, I am happy to give way to the Minister.

[Lord Greenhalgh]

My Lords, I rise to speak to government Amendments 84, 88 and 89—tabled by my noble friend Lord Howe—which are grouped with Amendments 85 and 86, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, Amendment 56, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lords, Lord Campbell and Lord Shipley, and Amendments 61, 62, 64, 68, 69, 70, 72, 76 and 77, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley.

I turn to Amendments 84, 88 and 89, government amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Howe, and Amendments 85 and 86, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. The purpose of these amendments is to secure that mayoral development corporations, Transport for London, urban development corporations and parish meetings are subject to the power in Section 78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020, which enables the making of regulations to allow these bodies to meet remotely until 7 May 2021.

They correct the omission of these bodies from the Coronavirus Act, which was an accidental oversight due to the pace at which the Act was drafted. It is wholly consistent with the current policy of the Government that bodies such as local authorities—in the broadest sense—should be able to meet remotely, carrying on their business while protecting the health and safety of members, officers and the public. The Government have received representation on this matter from, among others, the Mayor of London—particularly on behalf of the London Legacy Development Corporation—Transport for London and the National Association of Local Councils with regard to the inclusion of parish meetings.

I will answer both the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, by saying that the Government’s intention is to make the amended regulations with urgency following Royal Assent. In fact, Amendment 89 specifically allows early commencement of Amendment 84 and, in addition, we will move at pace to ensure that the regulations are in place in a matter of days, as opposed to the typical 21 days. This is a similar pace to the laying of regulations following the passing of the Coronavirus Act.

I note Amendment 85 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, which would have put the change to Section 78 of the Coronavirus Act in the Bill in respect of mayoral development corporations, and Amendment 86, which seeks to include a specific reference to the highway authority for the Greater London Authority in the local authority remote meetings regulations. We support the spirit of these amendments but, in the light of the government amendments, we hope that noble Lords will not move those amendments. I hope that will also be the case for the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lords, Lord Campbell and Lord Shipley, for Amendment 56. We agree that local planning authorities should have sufficient information about the impact of extended construction hours on the community and environment to enable them to make a timely decision. We believe that the most appropriate way of ensuring that this happens is through guidance. There is likely to be a range of possible responses from the construction industry to this measure and variation in what will be requested—from an additional hour or so on some sites, so that workers can have staggered start and finish times, to longer evening extensions on others. Therefore, we need a flexible and proportionate approach that can be tailored to the circumstances.

However, we listened to noble Lords’ views during Committee and we hear their concerns. We recognise the need for balance and to ensure that safeguards are in place to protect amenity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lords, Lord Campbell and Lord Shipley, have asked for. We have strengthened the draft guidance so that it also lists an assessment of impacts of noise on sensitive uses nearby as something that local planning authorities may wish to encourage an applicant to provide to aid swift decision-making. This is in addition to providing a justification for extended hours and mitigations to aid swift decision-making, which were already covered in the guidance.

We have also taken the advice of the Institute of Acoustics, the Association of Noise Consultants and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, and gone further still to make other changes to strengthen the guidance, including that applicants provide information on the primary construction activities expected to take place during the extended hours, including the plant and equipment expected to be used. Taking into account these changes, I beg noble Lords not to press their amendment. I also assure my noble friend Lord Balfe that the legislation is temporary and we will not see any diminution to the environmental gains that have been achieved by the planning system.

I turn to the nine amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, which relate to Clauses 17, 18 and 19, and the extension of planning permissions and listed building consents. These amendments would extend the time limit for relevant planning permissions and listed building consents to 1 May 2021, instead of 1 April as currently drafted. I note that he has tabled these amendments as a compromise given my concerns about accepting his amendments in Committee, which would have introduced an extension to 1 June 2021.

I agree with my noble friend that any extension of unimplemented planning permissions or listed building consents needs to be of sufficient length to aid the development industry, given the impact that Covid-19 has had on development. We certainly think that it will take time for many developers to commence new residential and commercial development. I thank him in particular for his insightful points during the debates on these measures, particularly on the potential impacts of the winter months on the productivity of the development industry.

I am pleased to say that the Government will accept my noble friend’s nine amendments. They will provide a modest extension into the more accommodating spring months. I also recognise that this additional time would be welcomed by developers and local planning authorities, given that the development industry is experiencing a slow and cautious return to full operating capacity. We accept that this is appropriate in the circumstances.

The amendments would, in effect, give any eligible planning permissions and listed building consents nine months, or three-quarters of a year, from now to take steps to implement the permission. We will, as previously mentioned, keep the use of powers to extend certain dates in the legislation under review if the impact of the coronavirus continues.

These are modest amendments, but I agree that they will give additional certainty to developers in these exceptional times. I trust that they will be well received by your Lordships’ House, as well as by the industry. On this basis, I am happy to accept my noble friend’s amendments.

Business and Planning Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

3rd reading & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 20th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, this Bill has passed through your Lordships’ House at greater than usual speed, and all noble Lords understand the reasons for treating it with such urgency. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their constructive engagement with the Bill and for raising many important topics. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the Government have considered and responded to the concerns of noble Lords and have made suitable changes to provisions where appropriate. We have had good debates and the Bill is now in a much better form than it was when it entered your Lordships’ House.

I thank the other members of the ministerial team: my noble friends Lady Penn, Lord Greenhalgh, Lady Williams and Lady Vere. I congratulate especially my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, who made his first Second Reading speech when introducing the Bill to the House. As my noble friend said in that speech, the Bill supports businesses in four key areas of the economy. It has been a pleasure to work with this team on such a wide-ranging set of measures.

I also extend my appreciation to the Front-Bench spokesmen and spokeswomen on the Benches opposite —for the Liberal Democrats, the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock, Lady Doocey, Lady Northover and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lords, Lord Shipley, Lord Addington and Lord Paddick; and for the Official Opposition, the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe, Lord Stevenson and Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox—whose constructive and consensual approach has ensured that the Bill is fit for its intended purpose.

Once again, I extend my thanks to all noble Lords throughout the House for scrutinising the Bill with such care, and for their constructive engagement. The Bill is needed urgently, before the summer, so that its provisions can reach their full potential. I hope, therefore, that the other place will promptly accept the amendments we have passed so that the Bill can come into force without delay. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark(Lab-Co-op)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his kind comments and join him in thinking that the House has worked very well in dealing with this important Bill. We send it back to the Commons in a much better state. Members from all around the House raised important issues; the Government considered them carefully and listened. We have passed many good amendments over the last few days. I am very grateful to the noble Earl and all his ministerial team for their work.

Standing Order 46 having been dispensed with, the Bill was read a third time and passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Business and Planning Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 6th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I first draw the attention of the House to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

This has been an interesting debate on important issues contained in the Bill. The position of the official Opposition is that we support the Bill in general but have reservations on a number of issues, which we will raise during the Bill’s passage through the House. At the outset, I want to make it clear that if we fail in our endeavours to persuade the Government, we will seek to Divide the House at Report on our amendments that deal with issues that we think are important.

The balance to be struck here is one that supports businesses in the hospitality sector and elsewhere to get back on their feet but, at the same time, gives a voice to local residents and does not lead to a second spike in Covid-19 infections. That is very difficult to achieve, and the Government do not have a good record with regard to the pandemic: the worst death rate in the whole of Europe; the scandal of care home deaths; the testing shambles; the track and trace app that was to be world-beating by 1 June, but does not work; and the procurement offers that were turned down. The devastation caused to families by the loss of loved ones has been heartbreaking.

Moving on to specific areas of the Bill, Part 1 deals with the consumption of food and drink outdoors. The Bill introduces a new legal framework for issuing licences which will enable food and drink businesses to put removable furniture on the pavement adjacent to their premises in order to sell food and drink. What is important here is the ability to manage carefully a number of different and conflicting issues and objectives. These include the need for the business to reopen, the desire for customers to enjoy meeting friends and family in a local pub or restaurant in a socially distant and responsible manner, the need to maintain the accessibility of the public highway for all users, the concerns of local residents about excessive and unreasonable noise causing nuisance and annoyance, litter, poor behaviour in general, and the ability of the local authority enforcement teams and the police to take effective action.

There are resource implications for these changes, and the proposed £100 licence fee that local authorities can charge will of course not cover the costs that they will incur. In responding to the debate, can the noble Earl explain how local authorities will be reimbursed for the additional costs they incur? The Government have a track record of loading additional burdens on to local authorities and providing woefully inadequate resources. Local government finances are in a perilous state, and this is just not acceptable.

My noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara raised issues of concern about street vendors and small breweries, which have, in effect, been left out of the provisions of the Bill. I fully support the points he made.

My noble friends Lady Goudie, Lady Wilcox of Newport and Lady Kennedy of Cradley highlighted the role that local authorities will play in delivering the vast majority of the proposals in the Bill and the need to properly support local authorities, and the police, in delivering the framework in order to get it right.

There are similar concerns about Clause 11 in Part 1, which many noble Lords have highlighted. It deals with alcohol licensing, off-sales and getting the balance right between supporting business and protecting residents from additional nuisance. What we have before us fails to do that at present. The problem is that, when you have a number of licensed premises together, as many noble Lords have mentioned, local residents already suffer that nuisance. In many ways they accept it, but the off-sale proposals could make it even worse. The issue is not confined to Soho—I know there was a lot of coverage there over the weekend—but applies to other parts of London and many other cities and towns, which all have their entertainment areas and high streets where people go to enjoy themselves.

We must be clear that the problem is not just noise; it is people urinating in the street, defecating in bushes and behaving disgustingly. The Government need to restrict off-sales to 11 pm. That is more than reasonable. I endorse the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Randall of Uxbridge; no matter how long the on-sale licence is for, 11 pm should be the end for off-sales. That is a reasonable, proportionate measure that I hope the Government will embrace.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, also has my full support. He referred to the unacceptable behaviour that has taken place in London Fields in the London Borough of Hackney. I endorse all his comments; we must ensure that people are not subjected to more disgusting behaviour. My noble friend Lord Whitty rightly raised the similar concern that we are encouraging more drinking on our streets but not dealing with its possible consequences.

In preparing for this debate, I talked to a number of organisations, including USDAW and the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers’ Union. There are huge concerns about the safety of staff working in the sector, who risk dealing with people who have consumed too much alcohol and are incapable of socially distancing. Keeping staff safe from the risks to their health when at work, from the handling of cash to the role of door staff, needs to be dealt with by the Government. It is very difficult, as we all know, when someone has had too much to drink to get them to understand how they need to behave. My noble friend Lady Wilcox referred to that in particular.

We need some clarity from the Government on the situation regarding toilets. The law is very limited here, with only four provisions in the Public Health Act on keeping toilets clean in establishments serving food to be consumed on the premises. Local authorities do the enforcement work through visits to premises, but we need a clear commitment from the Government to provide guidance on the cleaning and maintenance of toilets with sufficient frequency to ensure the protection of customers, and staff, who are always the ones doing the cleaning. This is not easy because, as I have said, people who are drinking will want to use the toilet more. We need to ensure we get this right.

There are also issues around public toilets, as considerable numbers of them have been closed in recent years and with this Bill we are encouraging more off-sales and off-the-premises drinking. We need to ensure that that there is clear guidance from the Government or other bodies, ensuring that we get this right. They should seek advice from organisations such as the British Toilet Association. I think it is very clear what can and cannot be done.

Regarding Part 2, my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara referred to the bounce-back loan scheme. I endorse his comments and will not speak further on that part of the Bill. Similarly, I endorse the comments of, and concerns raised by, a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, regarding Clauses 13, 14 and 15.

Part 3 deals with the planning system and puts in place temporary measures. I welcome most of the proposals before us—I actually had an Oral Question on planning issues a few weeks ago. I first want to raise an important omission also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, about mayoral development corporations and bodies such as the London Legacy Development Corporation and TfL, which are planning authorities but have not been included under the definition of a local authority and so will have real difficulties moving forward. That is an unintentional omission by the Government; I hope the Minister can look at that before Committee. I hope we can get an amendment agreed which corrects that error.

I was pleased to learn that these measures are not a precursor to further changes to the planning system. Many in this House and elsewhere are of the view that certain parts of the Government are strangely obsessed with planning and reform, rather than dealing with the hundreds of thousands of planning permission applications that have been approved and are sitting there, with not a single brick being laid or a single shovel being put into the ground.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, raised concerns that future reforms will include extensions to permitted development rights, which would not get more affordable or green homes built, or address the real problems. We have said we need to “build, build, build”, but we must also build well, build green and build with a long-term future in sight.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, that the environmental considerations of our planning system are vital and should not be lost in any future reviews. My noble friend Lady Andrews outlined the problems facing local authorities, businesses and the high street. I hope the noble Earl will address those points when he responds shortly. I agree with my noble friend Lord Blunkett that we need to strip away any plans to support entrepreneurs and innovation to the detriment of residents and communities. This false premise should be resisted and is no basis for achieving what the Government want to achieve.

My noble friend Lord Blunkett, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, and others raised the concerns of the RNIB and wheelchair users. It is important for the noble Earl to respond to those points in respect of how we move forward. We should also be aware of the blight that extended hours of construction could cause residents, the noise of construction sites working many more hours than normal and the problem of vehicle movements. Again, I hope the noble Earl assures the House about what the Government are doing.

In conclusion, we support the Bill but want to see movement from the Government on a number of issues highlighted by me and other noble Lords in this House today.

Extension of Franchise (House of Lords) Bill [HL]

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 2nd reading (Hansard)
Friday 7th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, on securing a place so high up in the Private Members’ Bill ballot and on his Second Reading today. At the outset I should say that I support what the Bill proposes, though it is a very small measure, affecting, I think, only the 800 or so people who are Members of this House. As many noble Lords have said, there are always many more pressing matters that we could deal with in this House. All of us on different sides would say that the issues we discuss every day in the House are not always the ones that we want to discuss at that time.

Although I accept that we are in a privileged position in this House, that in itself is not an argument for denying us a vote in a general election. I am well aware that successive Governments of all colours have proposed this measure in the past. As we have learned today, Peers have been prevented from voting in general elections since 1699 by the passing of Sessional Orders, and since 1999 by the passing of the House of Lords Act.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Blunkett: I would have voted Labour in the election if I had had a vote, but I did not vote Labour because of course I was not allowed to. I will vote Labour in May when I vote for Sadiq Khan in the Mayor of London elections, and I look forward to that very much. However, to suggest that we somehow represent ourselves—we might hear that argument in a moment—and that that is a reason not to give us a vote, is a complete nonsense.

The noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury, made a number of important points. He demolished the arguments against this very well and I congratulate him on that. I agree particularly with the point about taxation. It is a fact that we here all pay our taxes but have no way of affecting that at all, and that is not right. He also made the point that just because something was deemed right in 1699, or on the other dates he mentioned, that is not a reason why it is right today. By that measure, we would not have life Peers today and I certainly would never have made it into this House from the Aylesbury estate at Elephant and Castle. Things need to change, and we should look to change them progressively.

It is a fair point that the 800 of us would probably have had no effect at all on the result of the general election, not even in one constituency. We may have had an effect in one in 2017, but I do not think there was a single constituency that would have been affected this time. Certainly, in the constituency that I live in, Lewisham Deptford, votes from me and my wife would have had no effect at all.

There are other important things which have huge implications and we should look at in the future. My noble friend Lord Adonis made some very valid points about things that need to change in how this Chamber operates and how we do things outside the Chamber. Those need to be looked at by the Government in the future.

Other issues were raised, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, which are very important but not in the scope of the Bill, so we cannot get them in. One point that he mentioned was people’s right to vote at the age of 16 or 17. In Scotland, people have the right to vote at that age in the Scottish Parliament and local authority elections and in referendums. People now have the right to vote in Welsh Assembly elections at that age and will shortly get it for local elections. The Scottish Parliament led the way in this and the Welsh Assembly followed. At some point, the Government will equalise this right to vote at the age of 16 across the whole of the United Kingdom. The sooner they do that, the better. It is much better if the Government get up and do it, rather than dragging their feet and avoiding the inevitable outcome—equalising the voting age at 16 across the whole of the United Kingdom.

The other matter—again, I believe this will not be in the scope of the Bill and so cannot be addressed—is the completeness and accuracy of the register. It is certainly not complete or accurate at present. This has been shown by many studies and research from several bodies. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, referred to the Electoral Commission, which found that up to 9.4 million people are either not registered to vote or are registered incorrectly, with major errors. This is wrong and the Government should put it right for the very reason of having an accurate and complete register.

Not being on the register affects many other things, particularly your credit rating, which then has a huge effect if you want to get finance. You might be refused finance altogether, or the more attractive deals might not be available to you, because one major way of identifying you is not there. It can also affect things such as being able to rent a property, because your identity cannot be verified effectively. This is very important.

The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said that the Government now have four years in power, which is one of the advantages, I suppose. The Government have quite a long period in which they are under no threat in the House of Commons and can do what they want. They should use that time to address a number of issues regarding elections and how we conduct ourselves in them. These include the right to vote, as I mentioned, fake news, democracy, the threat to our democracy from digital advances, the use of data, the role of the Electoral Commission, the threat to democracy from foreign Governments and many others. I hope the Government will use these four years to address those very important matters, which need to be looked at.

I have one more point. The other implication of the electoral register being wrong is that our boundaries are wrong. Whether the Government stay with 650 seats in the House of Commons or make it 600, if millions of people are not registered to vote, the boundaries are wrong. We need to get that right as well. Getting the boundaries right is very important and we need to get people properly to register to vote.

In conclusion, I suggest one possible reform to the work of this Chamber, which the noble Earl might take back to the Government Chief Whip, who is no longer in his place. We will give the Bill its Second Reading shortly and then move that it goes to a Committee of the whole House. That will carry on. We have 30 or 40 Private Members’ Bills, which will all go to Committees of the whole House. They will sit here and that is as far as most of them will ever go. Government Bills sometimes go to a Grand Committee. I have checked with the Clerk of the Parliaments and we could move this to a Grand Committee. If we did that, we would get more Bills through this House. There are many good Private Members’ Bills that do not challenge government policy but propose good, sensible things and, if we looked at that, we could get more Bills through this House and off to the other place. That is one of many reforms that we could make.

I leave my comments there and I wish the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

The noble and learned Lord has raised a very interesting constitutional point. It is so interesting that I think it is appropriate for me to write to him about it, and copy that to noble Lords who have spoken. As noble Lords who have stood where I am standing will be aware, there is a point at which the brief in front of a Minister runs dry. That is the case in this instance, but I reserve the right to produce some arguments.

Another issue raised was about the well-worn principle that there should be no taxation without representation. My noble friend Lord Young’s comments on that issue in the debate on 19 July last year were cited. I can understand why the point about a Japanese citizen could be attacked, but a British citizen of voting age who is not a Member of the House of Lords but who pays no income tax retains the right to vote. The point my noble friend was making on that occasion, which I echo today, is that there is not a direct connection in law between people who have paid tax and people who have the vote.

The reason why Members of the House of Lords cannot vote on Finance Bills goes back a long way. The financial primacy of the Commons dates back many centuries and was formalised by two Commons resolutions in the late 17th century. The first, from 1671, states

“that in all aids given to the King by the Commons, the rate or tax ought not to be altered by the Lords.”

That is quoted in Erskine May. The second resolution is more detailed, from 1678—I would love to read it out, because the language is wonderful. Noble Lords suggested that this is an anomaly or even an affront, but none of it prevents this House debating money Bills or tabling debates on a financial matter.

As many noble Lords have pointed out, Peers who are Members of this House can also vote, where appropriate, in elections to the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly; in local government elections; in police and crime commissioner elections; and in both national and local referendums. The difference in those instances, I say in particular to my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, is that those are forums or offices in which Peers do not have an automatic right to represent themselves.

Noble Lords therefore have a say in local, devolved and national decision-making. Enfranchising noble Lords to vote in general elections would give Peers two ways of being represented in Parliament—it would give them double leverage as citizens. My noble friend Lord Sherbourne suggested that there is no possible downside to such a change. The Government believe, on the contrary, that conferring such an exceptional privilege cannot be right.

I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and others to say something about the commitment in the Conservative manifesto to review the relationship between the Government, Parliament and the courts in a constitution, democracy and rights commission. I wish I could provide him with further and better particulars on this commitment at this juncture, but, as I have said on two occasions recently, it is still too soon for me to do so. The scope of the commission will be announced in due course. However, I can tell him that the aim of the commission will be to develop proposals to restore trust in our institutions and in how our democracy operates. I hope I need not say, although I will, that we will continue to promote the UK’s interests and its values, including freedom of speech, human rights and the rule of law. It is clear, I hope, to most noble Lords that careful consideration is needed on the composition and focus of the commission.

In light of all that I have said, I must end with a disappointing message to my noble friend. Even if the Government supported the principle behind this Bill, and I hope that I have set out clearly our reservations about it, they do not think that spending further parliamentary time on it is justified when other, more pressing electoral reforms—reforms which the Government are working hard to bring into being—have been so widely called for.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I have just been looking at the Companion. The Minister said that we do not need any representation because we represent ourselves in Parliament—I accept that we are Members of Parliament in a sense—but the Companion and the Code of Conduct talk about acting on personal honour and in the public interest rather than out of private interest. There may be some conflict there. I do not want the Minister to comment on that now, but perhaps he can have a look at it and respond to us in a letter.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I would be glad to look at those passages in the Companion. I simply observe that they do not relate to our right to sit in this Parliament; they are much more about how we should behave when we come here.

European Parliamentary Elections Etc. (Repeal, Revocation, Amendment and Saving Provisions) (United Kingdom and Gibraltar) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2019

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hooper (Con)]

My Lords, I recognise that these regulations are a necessary formality, as so clearly explained by my noble friend, but I am someone who campaigned long and hard for the right of the people of Gibraltar to have the vote. It may be remembered that, when we had our first direct elections to the European Parliament in 1979, the people of Gibraltar were actually disfranchised until the single-member constituency system was changed to a regional list system, which enabled them to vote in the south-west region of England. As a result, the people of Gibraltar exercised their right very adequately—in fact, rather better than the people of this country.

I simply wish, at this stage, to express my deep regret and sadness—I fully support everything my noble friend Lord Deben just said—that, as a result, we have lost our right, and not just the right of the people of this country but the right of the people of Gibraltar, to have a democratic voice in the European Union after Brexit, or after 31 December 2020, as has been stated. I deeply regret the necessity for these regulations.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Earl to his Cabinet Office brief and look forward to our exchanges in the future. I join the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. He certainly had an encyclopaedic knowledge of these matters and was always very courteous in all our dealings. He will be missed from the Government Front Bench.

I thank the noble Earl for going through the regulations. He explained them very carefully and I read them and the report of the JCSI carefully. He elucidated them well for the House and I thank him for that: it was very helpful. I agree with everything said by all noble Lords who have spoken. A number of points were raised, and I know that the noble Earl will come back to us on those points. It is very regrettable that we find ourselves in this situation. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, made reference to the work of the Law Commission in respect of electoral law. This is slightly different from the main body of the regulations, but he said that it is looking at our electoral legislation.

I have raised these matters many times standing here. Usually the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, would answer them. I would say that our law is not fit for purpose, and he would say, “I agree entirely with the noble Lord that it is not fit for purpose”. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has been great; we have had meetings with the noble Lords, Lord Tyler, Lord Rennard, Lord Hayward and Lord Gilbert, from the Conservative Benches, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley. We have sat there in meetings, including with Chloe Smith, and everybody agreed that our laws are not fit for purpose and we have to do something about it. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, says, we do nothing about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler]

There is a specific issue about transparency of online campaign messaging, which was a major issue in May and was a big issue in the referendum and the subsequent general election. The Cabinet Office consulted about it many months ago. Evidence was taken from the Information Commissioner’s Office; the Electoral Commission also looked into it. I would be grateful if the Minister could take back to the Cabinet Office the concern from all over your Lordships’ House that there seems to be very little action taking place on this. It remains a very sensitive issue, not least because of the important report from the DCMS Select Committee.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I take the point that the Minister made about the work of the Law Commission. It is doing its work and will come back with some comprehensive reports. However, when I have sat in a room with Chloe Smith and the noble Lord, Lord Young, we have all agreed that there are things we can do now. They have never said, “We can’t do anything because we need this Bill going forward”. There are things that can be done. I would ask the Minister to talk to his officials. He would certainly be encouraged by all of us around this House to sort this out quickly, notwithstanding the much more detailed work of the Law Commission; that cannot be used as an excuse for saying, “We do not know enough about that, so we have to leave the electoral system as inadequate as it is now”.

[Earl Howe]

I take the points made by both noble Lords. There are some tremendously important areas that we need to address. The online issue is one of them. All I can say at the moment is that the strength of feeling that has been articulated this evening will not be lost on my officials: I shall make sure of that. We are committed to implementing an imprints regime for digital election material. This will ensure greater transparency. It will make it clearer to the electorate who has produced and who has promoted online political materials. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that we will be bringing forward proposals in this area in the coming months.

The noble Lord asked me whether the progress of the withdrawal Bill might invalidate this statutory instrument. I can reassure him that it will have no effect at all. We simply need to ensure that the European parliamentary elections legislation is not repealed on exit day, in all circumstances—or in any circumstances—so we still require this statutory instrument to be agreed. If it is, the correct result will be achieved, namely that the repeal of the European parliamentary elections legislation will happen not on exit day but rather, as I said either, on 31 December 2020. The SI is needed simply to provide certainty to electoral administrators and to maintain the integrity of our domestic electoral processes.

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, asked whether I was a permanent or temporary spokesman for the Cabinet Office. I wish I could quantify the length of the piece of string that we are dealing with here. I am but a pale imitation of my noble friend Lord Young, whose presence on the Front Benches is sorely missed. Currently, I respond for the Cabinet Office. It is my privilege to do so and I will continue to do so until requested not to.

Housing and Planning Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as this is my first contribution today, I refer Members to my interests and declare that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham. At Second Reading and in Committee I expressed concern about the abandonment proposals. Taking the courts out of the process leaves tenants, especially vulnerable tenants, in a potentially very difficult situation. We are creating a court-free process to enable landlords—again, we are talking about rogue landlords—to potentially get rid of tenants they do not like. Noble Lords on these Benches, like many noble Lords on all sides of the House, are not fans of large parts of this Bill. However, one point that is generally welcomed are the provisions for the private rented sector. Often, we would like to go further, but we will keep at it and progress has been made. The abandonment clauses, however, are not good for tenants and could even be seen as a rogue’s charter.

The amendments in this group include Amendment 40, proposed by myself and my noble friend Lord Beecham, which is the same amendment that we proposed in Committee. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, will shortly tell us that anyone who is illegally evicted can seek redress in the courts afterwards. I would respond by saying that, with all your possessions on the pavement and no legal aid available, the chances of actually doing that are probably next to nothing.

The other argument deployed is that with limited resources a local authority may not be in a position to pass judgment in these cases. I see that point very well. However, I would say that the lack of resources and lack of ability for the council to act is the reason we brought the “homes fit for human habitation” amendment to your Lordships’ House on Monday. In opposing that, the Minister said that local authorities have the powers but with no recognition that a lack of resources was undermining the ability of local authorities to carry out this duty. The inconsistency in the Minister’s argument is there for all to see.

The other amendments in this group are proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and me. These amendments seek to add an additional protection for tenants by including the deposit payer as someone who can respond to a notice from a landlord to confirm that the property is not abandoned. This is a step in the right direction and gives additional protection where a deposit has been paid by a different person or organisation. In some cases there will not be another person, but where there is, this is welcome, and we on these Benches are very happy to support these amendments, as have been outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. I hope the Minister will accept these amendments. I will not be pressing Amendment 40.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I will briefly intervene as a member of the London Councils Leaders’ Committee. I will not follow my noble friend Lord Deben, who occasionally joins us for our deliberations on this Bill to launch an attack on local authorities. Perhaps he could bring a different 1990s LP next time he comes to us, as we have heard that little speech before.

I am very grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench and to the Secretary of State. They have listened—I want to address this in a positive way—and are seeking to deal with a very real problem within the context of a clear manifesto commitment. In Committee, we teased out significant issues that needed to be addressed. This is manifest evidence that the Government wish to address some of those problems. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, put the worst construction on it and said that 51% or, in some cases, 100% of the relevant property might have to go. In all generosity, I do not think that is what my noble friend intends or is what she said. She said in her letter that she was “clear” that she wished to see,

“at least one new affordable home for each dwelling that is sold”.

I accept what she said in writing.

There will still be things that we have to consider as we go forward—for example, whether in some large boroughs the social housing in one ward could be more expensive than that in another ward not too far away, so a local element will be needed if we are to sustain mixed tenure and mixed communities, which is important. The drafting of the regulations is not a question on which to detain your Lordships today but we could look at the implications of higher value within local authority areas. However, I unequivocally welcome what my noble friend has laid before us and I know that many people in many parts of London—local authority leaders of all parties—also welcome it. I am very grateful to her.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, it is good that we all agree that we should build more homes and have more housing. We often fire at each other the records of previous Governments as regards what Governments are or are not doing, who built the most houses when, and what type of houses were built. I am sure that we will carry on doing that in future debates, but it is good that we all agree that we need to build more houses.

As I have told the House before, I grew up on a council estate in Southwark in south London. I have always been very grateful to the council that gave us a house that was clean, warm, safe and dry. Our family was very happy there and we kids were able to do our homework and not do too badly in the world—I hope. However, I have some concerns when we talk about affordable housing. I want to see more social housing built, such as council housing and housing association housing. I worry sometimes that we get into debates about affordable housing when homes at 80% of the market rate in some parts of London do not seem very affordable to me. That is a worry I have and I will come back to it. I also think that communities, whether in rural areas, small towns or villages or big cities, need homes for people on modest incomes, low incomes or high incomes to live side by side to make sure that our communities work. Whatever side of the House we are on, we should ensure that we work to do that.

Some of the government amendments in this group seek to replace the word “high” with “higher”. I am sure the noble Baroness knows that this concept initially caused alarm and that people wondered what was going on. It will be no great surprise to her to hear that some people were a bit suspicious about what the Government were up to and why they wanted to insert the word “higher”. So her clarification is very welcome and I thank her very much for it.

Her general comments were also very helpful and useful. As the noble Lord, Lord Porter, outlined, no one knows better than he and his colleagues in South Holland the needs of South Holland—as is the case with my noble friend Lord Beecham in Newcastle, and other noble Lords in relation to their areas. It is important that we ensure that local councils, councillors and council leaders are fully involved in whatever measures we bring forward as they are aware of the needs of their area. It will be helpful to do that at Third Reading. It would also be helpful if the noble Baroness would clarify again what she intends to bring back at Third Reading—but generally I very much welcome her comments.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for explaining why he tabled Amendment 61A. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, for tabling Amendment 56. While I always respect the views of former Ministers in my department, I will first address the concerns of noble Lords opposite as they are not seeking to remove a manifesto commitment from the Bill.

I turn first to Amendment 56. The changes proposed through this amendment would transfer the onus of defining “high” or “higher” value from the Government on to local authorities. This would lead to local authorities coming up with different methodologies, which would undermine fairness, consistency and transparency. Instead, by using the local authority data that we have collected to set the threshold, we can ensure that a consistent methodology is used to apply the definition across all local authorities. Rather than rushing to set a threshold for higher value, we need to ensure that we fully analyse the 16 million pieces of data that local authorities have provided, so that we set a definition that is fair and equitable. As I have said, the definition will be set out in regulations which will be subject to further parliamentary scrutiny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support, briefly, the double-headed Amendment 64A and to comment on the late news delivered by the Minister, of which more may follow, to the effect that the Government have broadly accepted the amendment in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake and Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell.

The key underlying theme of the Bill has been the desire to build more homes and to see a reversal in the decline of owner-occupation, to be accomplished, principally, by building starter homes sold at discounted prices and by enabling housing association tenants to exercise a new right to buy under this part of the Bill. The key underlying objection to both these measures has been that the very substantial cost involved—some £8.6 billion for discounts for those buying starter homes and probably a rather higher sum over the next five years for the discounts to housing association tenants who buy—is all to come through taking away resources from social housing for poorer households, including by selling the most valuable council houses. This cunning plan to spend billions promoting home ownership without the Government needing to find any new money sadly has unfortunate consequences: ultimately, someone has to bear the cost and that someone is the family in overcrowded accommodation, the elderly person, the household in desperate circumstances who would have got an affordable home to rent but will not now do.

However, damage limitation is possible. This amendment seeks to ensure that where vacant council houses must be sold, before the proceeds are dispatched to central government to pay for discounts elsewhere, funds from the sold homes are used to replace those lost on a one-for-one basis—one new home for every old one sold. The amendment adds that, where appropriate, the replacement should be like for like—a rented family home replaced by a rented family home, not a one-bed starter home. The Minister, thanks to the Secretary of State approaching this issue in a very open and helpful manner, has I think been able, first, to accept that one-for-one replacement should be in the Bill and, secondly, to go a long way to accepting that like-for-like replacement can be agreed wherever the local authority makes a convincing case for it. We need to see the actual wording of the Government’s alternative amendment but I hope that, if not tonight then at Third Reading, we will all be sufficiently satisfied with this. If so, I am grateful to the Minister and to Greg Clark, the Secretary of State, for listening to your Lordships and—I think and I hope—for acting accordingly.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the amendments in this group are concerned with the payments to the Secretary of State and the deductions from those payments of sums of money to build replacement properties on a one-for-one basis. I am supportive of both the amendments in this group. As I said in Committee, the clauses concerning the high-value levy and the sale of high-value council properties are a very damaging mechanism to deliver government policy. They make local councils foot the bill and risk having a devastating effect on council housing stocks. Both these amendments seek to put in the Bill that the payments to government must be made after the deduction of the costs of replacement on a one-for-one basis.

Amendment 64A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, to which I and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, signed up, would add a further clause giving the local authority the ability to set out to government what specific types of local housing are needed in their area. Again, this seems to be within the principle of localism and should not really cause the Government any problems at all. I understand we will hear from the Minister that they understand the issue and are sympathetic to the points raised by the amendments. I am very pleased to hear that: it is very positive news and very welcome. I will not say much more than that, but I am delighted that the Minister and other colleagues have listened. Until we see the text of the amendment concerned, we of course reserve our position, and may bring our amendment back at Third Reading, but from what I have heard I am very pleased and I thank her very much.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, who have all made powerful arguments about the importance of delivering new homes and meeting the needs of local communities, which is so important.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, that when government makes agreements with local authorities outside London about building new homes, we should ensure that at least one new affordable home is provided for each old dwelling that is sold. That has always been our intention, but today I am very happy to work to make that intention clear in the Bill. As I said earlier, I would like to consider further how we can best reflect that in the Bill, and I look forward to working with the noble Lord and others on it. The noble Lord makes powerful arguments about the different needs of different areas. Many noble Lords in the House—certainly many of those in the Chamber today—have, at some point or other, represented very different areas with very different needs. Reflecting this diversity and respecting the views of local people and local leaders is at the heart of the Government’s drive for localism, as several noble Lords have pointed out. I totally agree that in our dialogue with local communities, local authorities should be empowered to make the case for the right balance of housing in their area, and that there should be a strong expectation that the Government will listen. That is absolutely our intention; indeed, it reflects our broader approach.

The Bill enables dialogue through the provisions of Clause 72, which enables agreements to be made about the delivery of replacement homes. As I said, I am very happy to work with the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, to give local authorities with particular housing needs in their areas the opportunity to reach bespoke agreements with the Government about the delivery of different types of new homes in their areas.

With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake and Lord Kennedy, will agree not to press their amendments. I hope that this commitment will also enable the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, not to press her amendment, as we bring forward a proposal that ensures the delivery of housing in a way that specifies the cost of replacement, as a deduction to payments would not.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

71C: After Clause 77, insert the following new Clause—
“Composition of housing stock
(1) Three years after this Chapter comes into force, the Secretary of State must undertake a review and publish a report on the composition of local authority and housing association stock.(2) The report under subsection (1) must examine the tenure and affordability of any existing dwellings and any new dwellings which are, or are expected to be, built after this chapter comes into force.(3) The report must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 71C in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham. I think we can all agree, no matter what position you take on this Bill—whether you think it is right, positive and a great Bill or think it is wrong, negative and not a good Bill—that the proposals are controversial and not universally welcomed. That is because of the lack of regulation—I am not going to start a regulation speech, I promise—and the fact that it is a skeleton Bill with, it has been suggested, not all the bits of the skeleton in place. So I have begun to think that the Bill is just not right. There must be a mechanism in it to enable the Government and Parliament to understand fully the effects of the provisions that have been brought into law.

When we discussed the right-to-buy provisions in Committee, there were many contributions from across the House. I recall the contribution from my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, who told us about a council estate quite close to this House that had almost entirely been sold under the right to buy but, now, almost entirely entered the private rented sector. In fact, many rooms in many of the council flats are now being rented out. He said that there are door numbers on the rooms within flats, and people are paying hundreds of pounds a week to live there. I am confident that when the original right-to-buy proposals were introduced by the first Conservative Government after the 1979 election victory, that was never their intention. The intention was to increase home ownership—a perfectly understandable intention. Of course, its effects today can be seen in the situation up the road.

My amendment provides for a report to be compiled in three years’ time. Three years seems to me a sensible length of time. We will see what has happened with the proposals in the Bill and it will enable the Government—unless there is some unforeseen event, this Government will still be in office when we get the report, with one more year to go—to look at them and understand their effects. That is a sensible thing to do and on that basis, I beg to move the amendment.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 71C. As has been said many times during the passage of this Bill, its implications will have very wide ranging consequences. It is therefore necessary to monitor those consequences adequately and consistently, and not leave it to hearsay and conjecture. The Secretary of State should conduct a proper review of the composition of the housing stock of local authorities and housing associations after three years. By then, it should be possible to ascertain exactly how many new homes have been produced, the state of the affordable rented sector, and what measures will be needed to redress any gaps in the market or enhancements needed to fulfil the Government’s aim of addressing the current housing crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I hope the noble Lord will understand that I do not have telepathy regarding what might happen in various spending reviews et cetera, but as far as I know such data collection exercises will continue. If that is not the case, I will let the House know.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, as this is the last amendment we will discuss today, I put on record my thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Williams of Trafford and Lady Evans of Bowes Park, for the courteous way in which they have responded to questions and comments from Members in all parts of the House. They have been helpful, informative and willing to listen. I know that other noble Lords appreciate that, too.

Having said that, I am disappointed that the Minister has not taken up my very good offer to enable the Government to arm themselves with more information to convince us all what a great policy they are putting forward here. I picked a period of three years because, as I said, barring any unknown factors the Government will still be in office then to deliver their review. I am disappointed that they do not want to take up that offer, and therefore want to test the opinion of the House.

Housing Estates

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The right reverend Prelate makes a really good point about regeneration being about not just the physical structures that are in place but some of the social structures that are in place to support communities, and other amenities, as he said, such as schools, hospitals and GP surgeries, that so often are not thought about when we think about regeneration.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a councillor in Lewisham. The Government issued an Estate Regeneration Programme prospectus in 2014 that promised a £150 million fund from 2015-16 onwards, with all the funds being drawn down by March 2019. The PM recently announced a £140 million fund for estate regeneration. Will the Minister confirm that these are not the same funds being announced twice?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. These are not the same funds being announced twice. The fund that he is referring to was for regeneration projects that had run into difficulty and needed substantial support from government.

Business

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 29th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott]

On behalf of this House, will the Leader of the House undertake to explain to his colleagues in the House of Commons that the fact that they are not sitting does not mean that Parliament is not sitting? In passing, will he also let us know why this Government seem persistently to revert to a situation where one House is sitting and the other is not? The previous Administration, if I may say so, made determined efforts to work as a bicameral parliament, with both Houses sitting at the same time. The Leader of the House can find the records for this.

Even if the noble Lord is trying to tell us that somehow this business of pasty taxes and caravan taxes is trivial; and even if, being generous to the Chancellor, it was an oversight on his part that the House of Lords is sitting but that the House of Commons is not; and even if the Chancellor had a Eureka moment between the House of Commons rising last Thursday and midday yesterday, at the very least the Government could have righted the wrong by making a proper Statement to this House. Perhaps the Treasury Minister, who is in his place, could do it for us. Above all, the Government need to understand that when this House is sitting, part of Parliament is sitting and they are answerable to us.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords—

[Lord Strathclyde]

I am very happy to answer, but if any more want to join in this debate—

[Lord Peston]

I have a simple question. I have never eaten a Cornish pasty in my life and I do not propose to start now. I gather that the comparison is with boeuf en croute, which is another matter. Where I am a bit lost is that from the answer the noble Lord the Leader of the House gave to my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition I could not work out whether his argument is that this is a trivial matter and therefore we should not be fussing. Can we assume that no one from the Treasury will in due course say, “What a great thing we have done because it was a totally trivial matter”?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that yesterday HMRC increased the tax on skips depositing in landfill sites from £2.50 per tonne to £64 per tonne, with no notice? That is an increase of nearly 2,500%. I thought that those sorts of figures were from wonga.com, not HMRC. Is he not aware of the great risk to business that causes and that it should therefore have been brought to Parliament and announced here?

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, whatever the view of the noble Lord the Leader of the House about caravans and Cornish pasties, he must see that the changes that have been made to the courts and coroners proposals are highly significant. When my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition put her original question, she stressed that point to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. Unless I am mistaken, he did not address that very important point in his initial answer to her. I wonder whether he would be kind enough to take that point into account now in his reply to the House.

Office of Fair Trading

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Monday 13th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Wilcox]

The noble Lord was a very fine lawyer in his time, as I can witness, because he worked for me once and we won, wonderfully. I am inclined to want to agree with him, but at the moment the consultation is going through and I cannot make any statement at this stage. But I shall be interested in his views when the Government come out with theirs in the next few weeks after the finalisation of the consultation.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Will the Minister agree to speak to the Office of Fair Trading? One area that it could shed a bit more light on is payment protection insurance misselling claims. A whole industry has developed around it whereby people can put a claim in; they can go to a company, are given 25 per cent of the money that they have lost, and have to pay the companies. That is quite disgraceful.

[Baroness Wilcox]

The Office of Fair Trading is of course an independent body and is best placed to balance the work that it does; it is not the Government’s place to tell it what to do.

Summer Recess: Ministerial Cover

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what arrangements were in place to ensure appropriate ministerial cover during the summer recess.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, every department must have a Minister on duty in the United Kingdom for the entire Recess, including weekends. It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to ensure that sensible and comprehensive arrangements are put in place.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his reply, although I must say that I was hoping for a bit more and I am disappointed by that response. Does he not accept that when problems occurred during the Recess the Government were caught flat-footed, off guard and not on top of their game? Is it not time that they apologised for that?

[Lord Strathclyde]

I simply do not recognise the characterisation that the noble Lord has given to the last few weeks of the Recess, particularly given that the House was recalled and that the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister returned from holiday to take full charge of events. As far as I can see, they did a most splendid job.