Trade Union Bill
Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, although I welcome the Government’s movement on this, the original draft of the clause was, frankly, unworkable. This is definitely a step in the right direction, although my noble friend Lord Collins and the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, require answers to their questions.
Before the Minister replies, I will point out something which I have mentioned at earlier stages in the passage of the Bill. In the five years to 2015, £64 million was given by trade unions in political donations, but £80 million was given to various parties—predominantly the Conservative Party—by other organisations. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that there is a parallel requirement for reporting for all the other organisations which make political donations?
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I welcome Amendment 1. The Select Committee actually said there is a “lack of transparency” over how political funds are spent. Such transparency would assist union members in having an informed choice over whether to sign up to paying a political levy. The amount of money in political funds varies from £14.8 million in reserves for Unite to £8.2 million in UNISON and so on. While I welcome Amendment 1, which seeks to categorise payments, Amendment 2 would take away the whole point of the transparency that would allow union members to see how their money is spent when it is not being spent directly on political parties.
The move to transparency is taking place throughout all areas of our lives. In the Conservative Party manifesto—indeed, it is actually happening—the Government committed to disclose online any expenditure over £25,000. Given the amount of money the Government spend in a year, it does not seem unreasonable to look for similar transparency on union political spending.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, forgot to declare in his contribution that he was the treasurer of the Conservative Party. I support my noble friend Lord Collins’s amendment to the amendment. Of course we support transparency but Amendment 1 adds another section, which in our view is completely unnecessary.
Many years ago I chaired the general political fund committee of—I think it was NALGO then, before Unison came about—and the amount of information given was extremely elaborate. There was an annual report and a magazine. There was absolutely no doubt about where the expenditure went, and I have no doubt that that information is still communicated.
I just wonder why this “Lord Leigh clause”, as I think I am going to call it, is really necessary. It seems to me that it is the thin end of a wedge and could be utilised in future. Amendment 1 adds an unnecessary burden to the unions. Without proposed new subsection (2E), it would still provide all the information that the Select Committee asked for.
Trade Union Bill
Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leigh of Hurley
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, my amendment seeks to clarify the nature of the transparency sought within political funds. I believe that my amendment simply ensures the transparency that was intended but is not covered in the current wording of Clause 11. Noble Lords will recall that I asked the Minister to consider this matter during the debate on the Burns Select Committee report. I believe that the intention of Clause 11 is to ensure that expenditure from the political fund is fully disclosed so that members of the union who choose to opt in can see how their money is being spent.
We heard from evidence given to the Select Committee on 4 February by Mr Iain McNicol, general secretary of the Labour Party, that less than 50% of the trade union political levy is actually sent to the Labour Party. I believe that is correct and supported by the facts. The amendment deals with the rest of the money in the political fund that is not spent on political parties.
Following encouragement from noble Lords opposite, I have examined the accounts of the political fund of two of the largest unions: UNISON and Unite. They are somewhat vague. UNISON notes that its membership’s contribution is some £6.6 million in the political fund in its most recent set of filed accounts, but does not really break down how this is spent. It lists as national expenditure—it just uses the words “national expenditure”, with no further detail—the sum of £2.9 million, and that is the largest single item. Quite intriguingly, it discloses at the end of the year that it holds on its balance sheets some £8.2 million of reserves within the political fund. Whether we do opt-in or opt-out, that £8.2 million still sits in the political funds to be allocated at the union’s discretion.
Unite has £7.7 million of income in its political fund and simply states that, of this, £1.17 million is classified as political fund expenditure. Again, there is no further clarification. Intriguingly, that union had £14.9 million of reserves on its balance sheet for the political fund exclusively.
Given the substantial sums involved it would seem only fair that those who choose to opt in, hereon in, have some idea how this is being spent. The problem is that Clause 11 restricts the disclosure requirements to expenditure falling within Section 72(1) of the 1992 Act. This section essentially focuses on money spent to or by a political party, and only to or by a political party. It does not cover any other payments by the political fund.
No one is suggesting that there should or would be any control or influence whatever over how the money is spent, but simply that there should be transparency over these payments for the members. Indeed, I am sure that there are many instances of payments from the political fund that would not be in any way controversial and would be welcomed by all of us in this House. For example, money spent on HOPE not hate, sponsored by the GMB and the National Union of Teachers, which seeks to campaign against the British National Party, could not be seen as controversial. However, other expenditure might be considered more controversial, such as support for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Many people might be surprised to see that some unions support this, given the many manufacturing jobs that depend on the nuclear industry.
While we do not know the amounts, we know that there has in the past been specific funding for particular think tanks, and, controversially, campaigns to lobby local councils to divest their government pension schemes from companies linked with Israel. Unions that, for example, are affiliated to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign would have had to make a payment to achieve that affiliation. It seems only right that members should be aware of this and the amount. Some might wonder why their money is being used in this way. For completeness, I disclose that I am a supporter and member of the Conservative Friends of Israel, but this is a very small part of the issue.
In every area of our society, there is greater consumer choice and transparency in how other people’s money is spent. Amendment 16, which follows, discusses whether the sum of £2,000 is appropriate. I said in Committee and at Second Reading that I personally did not think that £2,000 was high enough. Leaving that aside, I hope the Minister will accept the amendment, which does no more than achieve the greater transparency that we all believe is sought by the clause. I beg to move.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I shall be very brief in supporting my noble friend Lord Leigh. I wish to bring up one point. In the last debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, reflected that the amounts we are talking about are trivial—less than 5p per member contributing to a pension fund a week. That is trivial, but the point is that the amount we are talking about is nearly £24 million a year, or nearly £125 million over the life of a Parliament. We should realise that these are not small amounts. They have an impact on the causes that my noble friend mentioned, and on donations to political parties or whatever. It is important that we bear in mind that this is a large amount of money and we should not dismiss it just because most people do not know that they are even paying into it.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, the Government are committed to greater transparency for all contributing union members in the use of union political funds. Not only should members have a choice whether to contribute, but it is only fair and reasonable that union members know how their political funds are used. As my noble friend Lord Robathan said, this is important because the totals can be large. We want members to make informed decisions about whether they want to contribute to such a fund. Increased transparency will also increase debate within unions about what the political fund is used for.
My noble friend Lord Leigh raises an interesting point about the level of transparency provided for by Clause 11. In particular, I understand that his amendment seeks to ensure that all expenditure from the political fund is subject to enhanced reporting requirements. I accept the principle of the point that my noble friend makes and I am sympathetic to his proposal. Our intention is that members should understand how the political fund is spent. It is important because, as I have already said, members need to know this if they are to make informed decisions about whether to opt in or opt out.
We will reflect and come back on that point of principle at Third Reading, giving careful consideration to how we deliver our transparency reforms in the most proportionate way. In the mean time, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Leigh of Hurley
I thank my noble friend the Minister for agreeing to review and to come back at Third Reading and, accordingly, beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Charities: Government Grants
Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bridges of Headley
I slightly dispute the second point. I draw the noble Baroness’s attention to the fact that DCLG has used this clause in 56 contracts since February 2015. For example, the Church Urban Fund, which the noble and right reverend Lord will know, the LGA, Mencap and the Royal College of General Practitioners have all received grants under the new clause. Shelter, likewise, has received a grant, and is currently running its Power to Renters campaign. A number of noble Lords will no doubt have received communications from it as regards the housing Bill.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as having served on the Etherington review of fundraising by charities. Would my noble friend the Minister not agree that, given that individual donors in this country give some £8 billion a year to charities, they should be encouraged to give greater transparency and accountability for the funds that they use for lobbying rather than for good purposes?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I entirely agree with that. I pay tribute to the excellent work that charities do up and down the breadth of this country and to the considerable contribution that many millions of people make in time, energy and commitment. I point out to your Lordships that, obviously, this clause is aimed at the £130 billion paid out in grants annually. While we may be talking here about charities, we should not forget the £74 billion of grant funding that goes to local government, the £24 billion to ALBs and public corporations, the £8 billion to international recipients and the £4 billion to the private sector.
Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [HL]
Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I should admit that I spent the weekend in Yorkshire, where, to my surprise, my neighbours do not hate people outside Yorkshire and nor do they in fact hate each other. We had a very pleasant weekend. I should also admit that, some months ago, I enjoyed watching the filming of that part of “An Inspector Calls” in our very beautiful village.
We are concerned here with the future of charities. I have found it very constructive to be involved in the thorough Committee and Report stages that we have had on this important Bill. I think we all recognise that as government spending shrinks in the next three or four years, charities will have to play a more important part in looking after a range of good causes and disadvantaged people across our country. That means that the importance we attach to the regulation of charities—the subject of this amendment—is something that requires continuing attention. It also requires active support for philanthropy, and I trust that the Government will pay active attention to encouraging visible philanthropy. I was glad to see the Financial Times highlighting this last week.
Having been involved in the committee to which the noble Baroness referred, which will present its report to the Government shortly, I am slightly more sceptical about standards across the whole universe of charities than I was before. Clearly, there is need for tighter and more visible regulation. A number of charitable trustees have not understood how active and responsible their role should be, and these matters need to be addressed.
There is a continuing role for this House in providing oversight to the charitable sector. Perhaps we should consider, in future years, whether a sessional committee of this House might look at some aspects of the charitable sector. As we saw in Committee and on Report, there is some very valuable expertise in this House.
I think that all of us here accept that charities are not comparable to commercial enterprises, as I and others have heard it suggested on one or two occasions. Charities have a privileged status both in legal and taxation terms. The standards of behaviour that we rightly expect of them reflect that privileged status. These high standards should apply to the whole diverse field of charities: to the development charities, as well as to private schools; to libertarian think tanks, as well as to medical charities. We are entitled to expect that their trustees enforce that.
As a backstop, we need to consider what level of regulation is enforced and implemented and how that regulation is organised. We will indeed be reporting on that. I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness when she says that the role of the Charity Commission also needs to be re-examined as a backstop to whatever formal regulation the sector itself provides.
Having said that, I trust that when our report is presented there will be an opportunity to debate it, and certainly, when the Bill comes back from the Commons, there will be another opportunity to make sure that we have moved matters forward. I merely emphasise again that the charity sector is extremely important to our society and to aspects of our economy. It deserves, therefore, to be fully regulated and as transparent as possible.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests in charities as listed in the register of interests. I was going to declare my interest in the fundraising regulation review panel, but I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for doing it for me.
As she says, we are not yet in a position to present our report. On 10 July, Minister Rob Wilson rang me to ask us to start this report. That was an interesting call because, on 9 July, the Prime Minister had thanked me for accepting. But it shows that it is being taken seriously at a very high level. We will have an appropriate moment to thank Sir Stuart Etherington and Elizabeth Chamberlain of NCVO and Susann Hering from the Cabinet Office for the report, which we hope will be published extremely soon. If it is to be published at the Conservative Party conference—I do not think that is the plan—I will personally welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and invite her to sit with me and listen to every word. I hope there will be opportunity for further debate in this House when amendments come back here.
Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [HL]
Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of a number of charities, national and local, a former trustee of a care charity and, of course, as a senior treasurer of the Conservative Party. I broadly agree with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I remember the arguments on the then transparency of lobbying Bill; I was fairly new to Parliament, and I found myself for the first and only time being lobbied—on a lobbying Bill, as it transpired—by charities. However, I take issue with his remark, unless I misunderstood it, about the charities doing good works being broadly on the left. In the charities that I see, the donors’ register broadly replicates that of the Conservative Party, and there are many good-works charities on the right that are helping people to help themselves. I may have misunderstood.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
As the chair of trustees of a musical charity, I would welcome the further conversation that we might have on that.
Lord Leigh of Hurley
I thank the noble Lord. I also think that I may have misunderstood the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, when she talked about some charities not solely campaigning. My experience is that some charities are solely campaigning ones; in fact, I had personal experience of that only two weeks ago when a raven bird got stuck in my basement. In a moment of panic, and prompted by my young children, I was too frightened to address the issue myself so I rang the RSPB, thinking that that was a logical solution. The RSPB informed me that under no circumstances does it actually go out to assist birds in distress or in danger of damage; no, it is a lobbying charity. I was to either ring another charity or do it myself. In the event, I passed the buck to my wife.
My point is that there are charities that have evolved—some quite rightly, but some perhaps worryingly—into pure campaigning. The charities with which I am involved found the transparency of lobbying Bill helpful, in that it was clear that during the election we had to keep on the straight and narrow. On the boards of the charities with which I am involved sat a broad-array spectrum of political opinions, and it helped to ensure that we all abided by the Act and did not engage in political advocacy during the election.
I am particularly heartened by the comments from my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts that he is taking further evidence on this issue. I rather hope that this can still be discussed at a later stage with that evidence, and I ask for the Minister’s comments on that.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome this debate. It is exactly the kind of debate that we need to have on these issues. I am grateful for all the contributions made by a number of your Lordships, especially the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who made a very eloquent contribution.
I make it categorically clear that the Government support charities’ right to campaign within the law. Many charities use campaigning and advocacy effectively and legitimately to support their charitable purposes and beneficiaries. This role is important to charities’ independence and is certainly of value to society. Campaigning for changes to the law or policy that would support a charity’s purposes is a legitimate activity for charities, and one in which charities in this country have a long and proud tradition, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. The position that they occupy is largely derived from case law, and the Charity Commission’s CC9 guidance is clear on what charities can and cannot do. Its view of case law is clear: political activity by charities is an acceptable means of supporting their charitable purposes but it cannot be the sole and continuing activity of the charity, as that would indicate a political rather than a charitable purpose. So charities can undertake political campaigning or political activity that seeks to support the delivery of their charitable purposes where trustees consider it an effective use of their charity’s resources, but charities must never engage in political activity or support for a political party or candidate.
In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about neutrality, I say that a charity can campaign strongly on an issue linked to its purpose, as long as it is not endorsing or supporting a particular party. As I said, political campaigning or activity cannot be the sole and continuing activity of a charity, and charity trustees need to ensure that political activity remains a means to an end and does not become the reason for that charity’s existence. Charities must, when undertaking political activity, seek to retain their independence from political parties. As the Charity Commission’s guidance makes clear, in the political arena, a charity must stress its independence and ensure that any involvement it has with political parties on the particular views of the parties is balanced. Trustees also need to ensure that any political activity is an effective use of the charity’s resources. In response to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Lea, about gauleiters, I am sorry, but I am not going to get into individual cases and words used in particular literature. It would be wrong for me to offer a view on whether a charity is on the right or the wrong side of the rules. That is rightly a question for the Charity Commission on the basis of the evidence it receives.
I turn to the amendment. Attempting to put into statute law a provision of case law risks changing the boundaries of what is permitted. Even if the boundaries of the law were not shifted by a statutory definition, one would still expect legal challenges to test the “new” boundaries of the law. Further, putting it in the Bill risks politicising charities’ right to campaign. Cabinet Office Ministers are responsible for charity law and would be responsible for this provision. That would leave it open to political interference over time—not that I am suggesting that any such interference would take place, but the risk would be there. I would argue that instead it is much better to have a case-law provision firmly in the realm of the independent regulator and courts.
One might question whether Amendment 14 permitted charities to support political parties—for example, by allowing charities to undertake political campaigning—without defining exactly what that means. The Charity Commission’s CC9 guidance runs to 31 pages. Trying to condense the legal underpinning into a short statutory provision that is five lines long, while attractive from the point of view of simplicity, would not properly reflect the current case-law position and could have unintended consequences.
In recent years, there has been a similar debate about whether the meaning of “public debate” could be distilled into a statutory definition. This is another area where the Government believe that we are better served by a long-standing case-law position supported by clear guidance than by attempting to define a solution in statute.
There has been discussion of the transparency of lobbying et cetera Act. It was not the Government’s intention that the changes to the rules for third parties campaigning at elections made by the Act should prevent charities and campaigning groups from supporting, engaging or influencing public policy. The Act is designed to ensure that campaigning by third parties to influence an electoral outcome is properly regulated, and there are few circumstances in which legitimate charity campaigning on policy would be caught. Very few charities registered with the Electoral Commission for the 2015 general election. It is worth noting that the test for “controlled expenditure” provided for in the Act is the same as was in operation for the 2005 and 2010 general elections: namely, only expenditure which,
“can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success of a party or candidates”.
The Electoral Commission published guidance for third parties and engaged with a range of third parties in formulating this guidance. As my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts said, he is currently undertaking a statutory review of the rules for third-party campaigners at elections. He is taking evidence, and I certainly encourage all your Lordships who are interested in this matter to respond to and engage with him. We look forward to his recommendations later in the year.
I turn briefly to the Charity Commission guidance. The commission has also monitored charities’ political activity and observance of its guidance during the election campaign, and is considering the findings from that monitoring and other issues relating to its current guidance. The commission will, I am sure, study the findings of my noble friend’s statutory review; I know that it has been engaging throughout. As I said at Second Reading, the Charity Commission has said that it keeps all its guidance under review to ensure that it remains relevant and up to date. If the commission considers that revisions need to be made to its CC9 guidance later, it has committed to saying so publicly and to consulting widely.
As has been said, there have been cases where charities have overstepped the mark of what is allowed under charity law or have failed to protect their independence by undertaking political activity that gives or risks the impression of being party political. In general, the numbers of cases that the commission takes on that are related to campaigning and political activity are low—in 2013-14, there was only one inquiry and a handful of operational compliance cases. However, where they occur they are often high profile and have significant impact. In the run-up to the election, for example, there were some clear cases where charities overstepped the line. For example, some charities signed a letter in support of Conservative policy and another painted a political slogan on its roof. These are clear cases of a breach in the law and the commission’s guidance. People with concerns about political activity are able to question whether or not a charity has stuck to the rules on campaigning and political activity, and an independent regulator in the Charity Commission can look at the facts and will reach a judgment in each case on the basis of the evidence provided. That is absolutely right and proper.
To conclude, the Charity Commission’s guidance CC9 makes it clear that charity law recognises that campaigning can be a legitimate activity for charities and sets out the general principles. Charities can campaign to raise awareness and understanding of an issue or to secure or oppose a change in the law or government policy or decisions, as long as the campaigning relates directly to a charity’s purposes and beneficiaries. Charities must retain independence and political neutrality, must never engage in any form of party-political activity and must avoid adverse perceptions of their independence and political neutrality. In addition, they must not embark on campaigning to such an extent that it compromises their legal status as a charity. I firmly believe that the existing case law and guidance serve us well and that there are major risks in attempting a statutory provision. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Gold (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Bew, has said, the purpose of the amendment is to remedy a deficiency in English charity law which prevents victims of wrongs committed in the course of the activities of an unincorporated charity being able to recover compensation from the charity’s assets. This is of particular concern when an unincorporated charity is used as a mask by those knowingly funding terrorism. Victims may have claims against individual staff or trustees of the charity, but if such individuals are men of straw or vanish from view then, unless the charity is obliged to provide an indemnity for its staff or trustees—and that can be uncertain—the claimant will lose out. Worse, the unincorporated charity can carry on just as before, while the victims or their families are cheated out of justice to which they are entitled.
As the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee stated in its report of 30 April 2014 on counterterrorism, bogus charities are being used as a means of funding terrorist activities. There is a serious risk therefore that, unless there is some redress to the assets of unincorporated charities, this anomaly will protect such charities, which will not be liable for the activities of their staff or trustees. The amendment would give victims of wrongs who have claims arising from the conduct of trustees or employed staff the right to bring a claim directly against the unincorporated charity, just as they can at present against an incorporated charity. This proposal does not affect any personal liability of trustees or employees, but the court would have power to determine what should be paid by the charity and what the wrongful individuals should pay.
For an unincorporated charity presently to be liable to indemnify staff members or trustees, it must be vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of its trustee or staff member. That will apply only if the tort or wrongdoing was committed by the staff member in the course of their employment or, in the case of a trustee, if they were not acting in breach of trust. Only in such a case would it be possible for the claimant to recover damages indirectly from the charity’s assets via this indemnity. Even so, the claimant in such a case would face uncertainty, delay and cost if he or she were to test the position, which would be made harder if the trustees were unco-operative. For example, it may suit the individual wrongdoer not to be able to call for an indemnity so that the charity’s assets are protected and can continue to be used to sponsor terrorist activity. Similarly, any insurance cover which the trustees may have is unlikely to apply where they deliberately or recklessly misapply or jeopardise the charity’s assets.
By supporting the amendment and giving claimants a more direct and certain way of gaining redress, we would also be making it far harder for those seeking to fund terrorism or other wrongdoing to do so while hiding behind a seemingly charitable veil.
Lord Leigh of Hurley
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bew, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and my noble friend Lord Gold on highlighting this clear loophole; I think it has come as a surprise to many that it exists. I have tried to research this as best I can. I have read the Henry Jackson Society’s written submission to the Draft Protection of Charities Bill Joint Committee, which I found excellent and helpful. In trying to research it, though, I could not make out, and therefore I am not clear, whether there are any other legal remedies to resolve this problem. If that is the case, and if the Minister is not able to allow this amendment because of the necessary legal advice and argument that he must take, I very much hope that he, like me, can offer general support to the principle behind it.
Deregulation Bill
Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have got terribly confused tonight. I thought that we were speaking to the generality of the amendments and that that was the noble Baroness’s position. If that is the case and the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, wishes to make his contribution now, I will happily follow him.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. I was planning to speak to Amendment 48, so my comments are directed to that group of amendments rather than to the specifics of Amendment 47. I declare my interests both as an investor in residential property and as president—
Baroness Hanham
I hesitate ever to come in on a point of principle but my noble friend Lady Gardner said that she wanted Amendments 47 and 48 to be grouped, and that is what we have done. Have we spoken to Amendment 47 separately? Is there any way in which we can get this settled? I have spoken to the group commencing with Amendment 48, not Amendment 47. I was waiting for the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, to come in and speak to his amendments. It seems to me that my noble friends Lord Tope and Lord Lytton have also spoken to the group starting with Amendment 48. I am sure that there must be a quick way of getting this sorted so that we are all speaking to the group commencing with Amendment 48.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
Before I move my amendment I would like to thank others who have covered so many points that I therefore do not need to. I beg to move.
Lord Leigh of Hurley
I think I am speaking to Amendment 48. If not, I am sure that noble Lords with much greater experience will stop me. Before so doing, I declare an interest as the owner of residential property and as the president of Westminster North Conservative Association.
Clearly, we need Clause 33 because there is a significant problem out there at the moment. Noise and anti-social behaviour from short lets are in the top three complaints we receive when canvassing in Westminster North, and there is an undoubted problem with nomadic communities which make it very hard to plan resources—for example, schooling, rubbish collection and so on. Residents not knowing who their neighbours are increases security problems and we have ended up with a situation in which Section 25 of the GLC Act 1973 is ignored. There is hardly ever any action or prosecutions on it. We have ended up in the worst of worlds where there is a thriving business that is largely underground and a black market, whether housing benefit-funded tenancies or otherwise, run by organised criminals for the benefit often of other criminals.
Having said all that, I am very much for deregulation. I served on the deregulation task force of the DTI in 1995 and would like to see something done to facilitate Londoners legally to enable their properties to be let out to tourists and others to the extent that they are away. We acknowledge that the market for short lets is strong and that people should be able to do what they want with their properties, and in the process take the opportunity to cut out these criminal middle men and try to legitimate the whole business. We need a pragmatic solution. I agree, as has been said, that one of the biggest concerns is where individual flats within blocks of flats are on short let. There needs to be an arrangement whereby leaseholders can all agree collectively on what they want to do on short lets, so that owners and occupiers are not suddenly blindsided by one or two flats being turned into short lets, where some, not all, are used for purposes for which they were certainly not intended. That has led to problems that have been commented on, particularly in the New York market.
Freeing up the market but protecting residents must be done, possibly by creating some sort of opt-in. Tenancy agreements must clearly list expectations and responsibilities. One of the major problems has been in respect of flats let without any gas safety certificates or fire-retardant furniture. Curiously, where people decide to let out rooms in their flat, as can be done, one can only imagine how that will lead to all sorts of unfortunate incidents.
Although Amendment 48 helpfully suggests that the restriction is 30 days, which is reasonable, I am not sure that the proposal requiring seven days’ notice “before each use” is practical. I just cannot imagine that it would work, and it would rather defeat the object of people wanting an immediate short stay.
I will spare your Lordships’ time in going through each of the amendments but I do not think that they are necessary. I wanted to preface my remarks by explaining that I am as fully aware as anyone of the problems and issues in the London market. When I canvass in Westminster North I see it regularly, but I believe that it is possible within the forthcoming regulations for our concerns to be resolved. I take this opportunity to encourage the Minister to come to the House with those regulations as early as possible so that we can see that they reflect the issues about which we are all so concerned.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 49A and 49B in this group. In doing so, I draw attention to my declaration in the register of interests as an owner of leasehold property. At this hour, I wish that it was not let out and was available, but there we are. These amendments would put in the Bill the right for individual local planning authorities to exclude from the deregulatory provisions of Clause 33 particular residential premises or residential premises situated in a particular area.
I thank the Minister for making time available in recent weeks for a series of meetings to seek to resolve the range of issues opened up by this clause. We are conscious that a variety of views have been pressed on the Government from Members of your Lordships’ House, operators in the market, London Councils and community groups, including the Covent Garden Community Association. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, we should also thank onefinestay for spending time with us to explain the business that it has built and the steps that it goes through to seek to avoid loss of amenity in the areas in which it operates.
The concerns with the proposed deregulation have been most comprehensively described by London Councils in its current briefing. This might be summarised as the potential loss of residential properties because of movement into the more lucrative short-term let sector, increased problems with noise and anti-social behaviour, loss of community identity, increased crime and fire safety risks, and challenges of continual enforcement—indeed, the effect of “churn”, which was spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton.
Westminster Council estimates that at least 3,000 properties in its borough are being used for short-term letting accommodation. Apparently, there has been a rise of 37% in just three months in Camden. Even if not experienced across London, we recognise that these are very real problems which afflict some areas under the current arrangements, let alone any further deregulation.
It might be helpful if I restate our position. We see no objection to individuals and families letting their homes for short periods, perhaps when they go on holiday, without the need for planning permission for so long as this activity does not prevent the residential premises from intrinsically remaining their home. This is also provided that the scale of the activity does not adversely change the character or amenity of the local neighbourhood.
We have at last before us a policy paper from the Government. Like the noble Baronesses, Lady Hanham and Lady Gardner of Parkes, we regret that this has come somewhat late in the day. It is their long-awaited response to last year’s consultation. It is a pity that we do not have draft regulations but have to accept reluctantly that this is all we are going to get during this Parliament. The paper captures many of the representations we have received over recent weeks. As the Minister will doubtless explain, the intention is to limit short-term letting to 90 days in a calendar year, have clear enforcement arrangements to protect amenity and address concerns over nuisance, with the flexibility being withdrawn if there is successful enforcement action against statutory nuisance, a provision for local authorities to request the Secretary of State to agree targeted localised exemption where there is a strong community case to do so, and a requirement that the property in question must be liable for council tax. Clearly, the devil is still in the detail, but all in all the Government have moved from their starting position and we should thank them for that.
We can support the flexibility applying only to someone’s home and for a limited period in each year. London Councils is seeking a limit of 30 days a year while the Government are proposing 90. We are inclined to the view that 30 days could be unduly restrictive when taken together with other safeguards, although back-to-back periods of 90 days means that a short-term let could extend for half a year, which in our view is too long. The Minister may want to say more about how it is envisaged that enforcement will operate, but we consider that while it is not for primary legislation, there should be at least an annual notification requirement from the householder to the local authority, I think along the lines suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, when the first short-term let commences. This need not be an overly bureaucratic process, but it would help local authorities more readily understand the scale of such activity locally and may also be used to signify a possible income tax liability. London Councils seeks a broader safeguard by requiring notification of how long it is to be presumed that each stay will last. The “one strike and you’re out” approach, which we support, would seem to satisfy the difficulty expressed by London Councils over continually having to undertake enforcement procedures.
Where we part company with the Government, and hence our amendment, is on the right of local authorities to override the new flexibility. We do not consider that this should be subject to the agreement of the Secretary of State. Local authorities are in a better position than the Secretary of State to determine what is happening in their individual boroughs and the impact on the local neighbourhood. The use of the term “strong amenity case” suggests that the bar would be set high by the Secretary of State. That is not to say that local authorities can act in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Public policy should prevent this, and in any event, regulations could include the criteria which local authorities should take into account in applying an exemption.
It seems that we are very much in the era of the Minister declaring his support for localism. It was only yesterday in an exchange at Question Time when the noble Lord said:
“I am disappointed. Certainly, on this side of the House, we believe in localism, and this is about devolving responsibility to local authorities”.—[Official Report, 10/2/15; col. 1103.]
That followed an answer given the previous day when he said:
“As we said we would, we have stressed localism and local empowerment, and we have delivered on that”.—[Official Report, 9/2/15; col. 1019.]
I suggest that this is a chance to deliver further.
There is the beginning of some convergence on the different positions, and it is to be regretted that the manner and timing of the issue means that there is limited time to resolve the remaining differences. That is why we are strongly of the view that the safeguard we need to put in the Bill is the right of individual boroughs to pursue exemptions from whatever deregulation eventually emerges. It makes them the final decision-makers.
Perhaps I may comment briefly on some of the other amendments, in particular to Clause 33. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, I would say that if the Government had not opened the box, it might be argued that matters should be left alone, particularly as the timing prevents this Parliament seeing things to a conclusion. There may be a case for now starting from scratch and leaving this to the next Parliament, but there is no certainty of the priority it would get. Having opened up the issue, there are clearly matters to address. The extent of short-term lettings in some areas, the nuisance it causes and the difficulty of enforcement arises now. The regulation of differing levels of enforcement by individual boroughs determined sometimes by capacity issues rather than policy is not a comfortable place to be. The twilight zone in which businesses operate is also unsatisfactory, at least for those operators who want to do the right thing.
In some of the other amendments, there are references to the nature of the residential property, for example with the terms “principal and permanent residence” and “principal London residence”. Our starting position was to think that this should apply only to somebody’s principal private residence. We thought about it a bit more and if you have the protection of a limited number of days, particularly if it is 30, that does not seem to matter too much, so long as it is clearly and demonstrably somebody’s home. How many homes you can have in London is an interesting question, but we are less concerned perhaps about that precise definition of residence. However, it seems to me that we do have a convergence on some issues. It is just a great pity that the delay in dealing with some of these issues means that we cannot reach a satisfactory conclusion during this Parliament.
Palestine: Recognition
Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I wholeheartedly support and hope for the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state. Make no mistake though: this process requires the involvement of both Israel and the Palestinians. Peace talks require the participation of both parties and, as my noble friend Lady Warsi pointed out, the friends of both parties. A peace agreement requires the signature of both parties; a lasting peace requires commitment from both parties.
Unilateral actions are profoundly detrimental. First, unilateral steps undermine the accepted framework of direct negotiations. They run counter to every argument, resolution and road map produced in the last 20 years—a framework that has brought peace tantalisingly close on several occasions. Secondly, Palestinian unilateralism fails to take into account the complicated, key permanent-status issues that have been mentioned, including borders, security, water and refugees, which can be settled only by the agreement of parties in direct talks. Thirdly, unilateral recognition of statehood would reward the PA, at a time of heightened terrorism and official PA incitement against Israel, for choosing Hamas as its partner—as has been mentioned, the recent attack in Jerusalem was supported by Hamas. Unilateral recognition would fail to dissuade Hamas and other Palestinian factions from using violence and terrorism to advance their agenda. Fourthly, unilateral Palestinian actions allow the Palestinians to ignore Israel’s legitimate concerns, especially regarding security issues and the basic need to recognise the right of Israel to exist.
The topic of Israel and the Palestinians never fails to provoke strong feelings in advocates and in your Lordships’ House. Regrettably, it seems there is an obsession by some to return constantly to Israel and Israel alone—0.01% of the world’s land. Israel is perceived as the purveyor of bad deeds, while the evil perpetrated by others in so many states is ignored. The French Prime Minister was recently moved to point out that such anti-Zionism was a thin veneer for anti-Semitism. The tweets of certain MPs have unhelpfully stoked the flames. Conversely, Israel is the only democracy and meritocracy in the region. It does not allow its citizens to be lashed every week for expressing democratic views on a website, does not throw political opponents from the rooftops of tall buildings and does not deny the equal rights of all its citizens, including gays, Christians and Muslims. It is safe to say that these are not principles universally upheld by Israel’s neighbours and, sadly, in particular by the Palestinians.
How quick people are to forget that Hamas recently expressed remorse for the tragic killing in Paris of French journalists and policemen, but not for the deaths of the Jews who were slaughtered. Hamas makes no secret of its desire to destroy Israel and the Jewish people. This horrifying goal is, after all, at the front and centre of its charter. The leaders of this same group decide to use the scarce resources they are given by countries and taxpayers such as ours not for the intended construction of schools and hospitals, but, rather, for the construction of tunnels to carry out further indiscriminate killing of innocent Israeli civilians. It should worry everyone in your Lordships’ House and beyond that too many in the Palestinian camp are committed to violence and undermine every peace attempt.
In that context, one can, perhaps, understand Israel’s apprehensiveness over the genuineness of the PA’s commitment to any resumption of the peace process. Israel will be—and should be—expected to make difficult and painful concessions in peace talks. It accepts this, and we have a role to play in making it accept it. Our Government must be commended for their principled assertion that they look forward to recognising and welcoming a Palestinian state upon the successful conclusion of direct peace talks. This position may not necessarily be universally popular but it is the only one liable to bring peace for all parties concerned.
The Government should be congratulated on taking the high moral ground rather than pandering to short-term political manoeuvring, as was seen with the divisive and most unfortunate Back-Bench debate and Motion on Palestinian statehood in the other House last year. It upsets me that this sensitive issue is being treated as a political football by politicians who should know better. Peace will come from open, honest and direct negotiations, rather than by grandstanding from distant parties who have no real awareness of the life and death implications that Motions such as this can have in emboldening extremism and intransigence.