Construction Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, I wish to make the point that it is totally unsatisfactory that we should be debating these no-deal regulations at the same time as the House is debating Brexit.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

Order!

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, these regulations were laid before both Houses on 18 December 2018. They are part of the Government’s programme of legislation to ensure that if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period, there continues to be a functioning statute book. Securing a deal with the EU remains the Government’s top priority, but it is appropriate to accelerate no-deal preparations to ensure that the country is prepared for every eventuality. This is the responsible thing to do. To confirm, the regulations would come into force in March only in the event that there is no deal and no implementation period. They are made using powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to fix legal deficiencies in retained EU law. They are needed to reflect that the UK will no longer be an EU member state after exit day.

I trust noble Lords will allow me to provide a brief overview of how the regime works at present. The Construction Products Regulation—the CPR—is directly applicable in all EU member states. It seeks to remove technical barriers to the trade of construction products. It does this by harmonising the methods of assessment and testing, the means of declaring the performance, and the system of conformity assessment of construction products. Through this, the CPR seeks to ensure that reliable information is available to professionals, public authorities, and consumers, so that they can compare the performance of products from different manufacturers. I should make it clear that the CPR does not harmonise national building regulations across the EU. Individual member states remain responsible for safety, environmental, energy and other requirements applicable to construction works. The CPR applies UK-wide, and the devolved Administrations have been kept informed throughout the process of developing this approach and are content with it.

Moving on to how the CPR works in practice, where a harmonised standard has been adopted, the CPR places obligations on manufacturers, distributors and importers of that product. This includes that the product must have a declaration of performance and be CE-marked—that is, marked with the letters “CE”. The CPR will form part of the UK’s legal system as retained EU law when we leave the European Union. Without the amendments made by the regulations, the requirements of the CPR would cease to apply in the United Kingdom.

The general policy is to keep the same requirements but to convert them into a UK regime. This instrument will ensure that the same standards apply immediately after exit day as applied immediately before the UK left the EU. The key requirements of the regime will not change. The effect of these regulations can be considered in five parts.

First, on standards, existing European product standards will be preserved in the UK. Immediately following exit day, the same requirements will apply as were in place the day before. The standards that businesses must meet will therefore be unchanged. Thereafter, new UK standards will be designated by the Secretary of State. Standards have their own review cycles, typically of five years. The consideration of new standards will be supported by expert advice from the British Standards Institution and consultation with wider industry. Those standards are now, and will continue to be, mandatory.

The second area is about conformity assessment and the new UK mark. This element relates to where third-party conformity assessment is required. Existing UK conformity assessment bodies will be granted the new status of UK-approved bodies under these regulations. Where a UK-approved body undertakes the third-party conformity assessment required under the relevant UK standard, the product must be affixed with the new UK mark. The UK mark is being established under separate legislation and details of the new mark were published by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy at the start of this month.

The third area is the continuity approach. Alongside the domestic arrangements I have just outlined, for an initial period after exit day we will continue to accept products that comply with the European CPR regime. This will mean that products which meet requirements under the European CPR can continue to be placed on the UK market without the need for re-testing or additional marking. As I have mentioned, all European and UK standards will be the same immediately after we leave the European Union. This approach is necessary to ensure that goods continue to have access to the United Kingdom market, and to help minimise disruption for businesses and consumers.

The intention is that these arrangements will be time-limited. We will ensure that businesses are given sufficient notice in advance of this period coming to an end. I can confirm, however, that ending the recognition of CE-marked products would require further legislation by affirmative resolution. Such legislation would be preceded by a period of consultation with industry.

The fourth and penultimate area concerns technical assessment where product marking is not compulsory. This relates to products not covered by a mandatory UK-designated standard. In some instances, it is helpful to the manufacturer to affix a marking to these products, although there is no legal requirement to do so. Therefore, in the same way as is the case under the current regime, there will be an optional route available to enable products to be UK-marked. That will continue.

Fifthly, these regulations give the Secretary of State powers to make regulations to enable the UK to make technical updates to the CPR framework. This is simply a case of the functions currently resting with the European Commission passing to the United Kingdom. These functions enable the Commission to make delegated and implementing Acts limited to specific areas, as set out in the CPR. We are making no changes to the scope of these powers. To be clear, this is simply a case of the existing functions passing from the EU to the UK. This is necessary to ensure that the UK’s CPR regime can respond to technical progress and new or emerging issues. Parliament will be able to scrutinise any new measures and this provides a similar level of oversight as exists under the EU’s regime currently.

I also note that these regulations make a number of technical fixes to correct deficiencies in the market surveillance regime arising from EU exit. This regime is provided for under domestic legislation. These technical amendments will ensure that the enforcement regime can continue to work in the same way as now.

At this point, I confirm that the UK’s ability to take action against products that do not comply with their declared performance—or are illegally on the market—is unaffected by these regulations.

To summarise, I hope the Committee agrees that these regulations are necessary. They serve a specific purpose: to ensure continuity of the regime in the event of a no-deal scenario, providing certainty if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period. I stress that this is not the Government’s intended outcome. These draft regulations have been considered by both the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments; no concerns were raised by either.

To conclude, this instrument is necessary to ensure that the Construction Products Regulation continues to function appropriately if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or implementation period. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I beg to move.

Tenant Fees Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 11th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the co-pilot is in charge of this last amendment, which relates to the charges that can be imposed for variation, assignment or novation of a tenancy. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for focusing the amendment, which we discussed in Committee, on capping fees on a narrower range of circumstances than originally proposed, namely where the outgoing tenant finds a replacement. I agree that this should reduce the costs for the landlord and therefore the amount he can charge, because, as the noble Baroness said, the tenant would have done all the donkey work.

However, we have previously agreed that it is not fair to ask landlords and agents to pay fees arising from the action or request of a tenant that varies the original contract they both signed. The Bill provides that a landlord or agent can charge a tenant for a change of sharer, but such fees are capped at £50 or reasonably incurred costs if higher. We do not want to impose a hard cap on the amount.

Landlords and agents should feel able to agree reasonable requests to vary a tenancy. While we do not expect this charge to exceed £50, it is only fair that where it does so landlords and agents can recover their reasonably incurred costs. Further, we do not want to create a situation—I am sure the noble Baroness does not either—where landlords are reluctant to agree to a change of sharer because they think that they will not be able to recover their reasonable costs. This would not help the tenants, who would be required to break their contract if they wanted to leave.

I understand and support the principle of the noble Baroness’s amendment, but I do not think it is necessary. Landlords and agents will need to be able to demonstrate when challenged that their costs are reasonable—for example, if they have incurred a loss in rent from agreeing to a change of sharer. If, therefore, a tenant found a suitable replacement who took over the tenancy and the landlord or agent suffered no loss it would not be reasonable to charge for this and any amount charged in those circumstances would be prohibited by the Bill. A landlord or agent could not double-charge rent.

However, to focus specifically on the noble Baroness’s amendment, there could be circumstances where, even though the tenant found a suitable replacement—I take the point from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that it is suitable for the tenant but not necessarily for the landlord—the costs incurred by the landlord or agent could exceed £50. This could occur, for example, if more significant referencing were needed with the replacement tenant or there were disagreements respecting the return of the tenancy deposit that required additional time and renegotiation. Although we envisage such a scenario to be rare, it would not be fair to penalise the agent or landlord in those circumstances. We also would not want the landlord to refuse the replacement tenant found on the basis that referencing and other pre-tenancy checks were likely to be more complicated.

The landlord or agent is not permitted to charge more than is reasonable, so would have to be able to evidence any such additional costs. Our guidance makes the position under the Bill and existing law clear to tenants, landlords and agents. With these assurances, although I understand the disappointment clearly etched on her face, I hope the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment against the assurances I have given.

[Baroness Grender]

I thank the Minister for his reassurances. I will stick there, since I have the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, backing something I have suggested. With all the amendments we now have in the Bill, which are extremely welcome, we need it to go through as quickly as possible. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Tenant Fees Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the co-pilot is in charge of this leg of the legislative journey, so there might be some turbulence.

There are two amendments that consider the resources available for the enforcement of the ban and I would like to take them together. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his gentle dismantling of the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, put forward for Amendment 4. I recognise the pressure on the resources available to local authorities but we do not think that a provision that essentially provides a blank cheque to local authorities is the right approach. It would be a very unusual arrangement, and essentially one-sided, as the Secretary of State would bear all the losses and the local authority would keep all the gains.

We believe that allowing local authorities to retain money from financial penalties would be a significant funding stream for future enforcement, and the Government are providing some pump-priming funding for the initial period. There might be a role for hypo- thecated grants but I do not believe that this is one of them.

Financial penalties of up to £30,000 that can be retained by local authorities were first introduced in April 2017 under the Housing and Planning Act 2016, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, will welcome at least one measure under that Act that has found favour with him. We are aware that local authorities already benefit from the proceeds of financial penalties issued under that legislation. Liverpool, for example, has issued 42 civil penalties and has recovered the majority of them; Torbay Council has used the revenue from civil penalties to fund an extra enforcement officer for its housing team; and Newham and Camden have also issued and recovered a number of civil penalties.

However, we appreciate that this model depends on local circumstances and that it can take time to embed within existing frameworks of enforcement. That is why, as I said, we are committing £500,000 of additional funding in year one of the fee ban policy to support education and implementation of the legislation. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said in the earlier debate—that ideally this measure should be self-funding. If one looks at page 19 of the Explanatory Notes, one finds the following:

“The Government estimate that local authorities will incur a new burden in respect of enforcement costs in year one of the policy only and it estimates this to be no more than £500,000. The enforcement of the provisions contained in this Bill by enforcement authorities is intended to be fiscally neutral from year two since enforcement authorities may retain the proceeds of any financial penalties for the purposes of any of its enforcement functions relating to the private rented sector under this Bill or any other legislation”.


That is basically where the Government are coming from on resources.

Further, we are introducing the lead enforcement authority, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, to provide guidance and assistance to local authorities in undertaking proactive enforcement. We have committed funding of up £300,000 per annum to support the lead enforcement authority in its duties, and we have based the funding model on that of the National Trading Standards Estate Agency Team, but we will keep it under review.

Statutory guidance issued by the lead enforcement authority or the Secretary of State will cover matters to be taken into account by enforcement authorities in determining the level of the penalty in any given case. We have been engaging with local authorities to get this right, and my noble friend Lord Bourne has shared a draft version with noble Lords and has placed a copy in the Library. More generally, the lead enforcement authority will be primarily responsible for monitoring enforcement of the ban and ensuring that local authorities have the guidance and support that they need.

Turning to the proposed new clause which deals with reporting requirements, Clause 23 already requires the lead enforcement authority to report to the Secretary of State on the ban. This will include updates on any developments that might be relevant to enforcement of the Bill or to relevant letting agency legislation, including those that might seek to undermine the aim and enforcement of the legislation. It could also include resources, mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy. The Government will work closely with the lead enforcement authority and key stakeholders representing tenant, landlord and agent groups to monitor the operation and effectiveness of the ban. Against those assurances, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, although an answer was given earlier by the other Minister, why in a Written Answer to me did the Minister say that the Government are unwilling to consider allowing local authorities to license these short lets? Short lets are damaging—badly—every bit of accommodation in the housing market in London, in particular, and in the rest of the country, which can be taken over, illegally, against the contracts. Why are the Government unwilling to allow local authorities to charge a fee to register and check that they are in order? In that case, would that not be a far better answer than losing all the accommodation that we are losing now? Why is it not appropriate to bring it into the Bill under the proposed new clause?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

As my noble friend the Minister said a few moments ago, the Bill covers assured shortholds and other lettings. It does not cover the sorts of lettings that concern my noble friend Lady Gardner and which are offered by Airbnb and other agencies. My noble friend has raised an issue that has been the subject of many exchanges in Questions. Our answer is that we believe that local authorities have enough powers to take action where a nuisance is caused by these activities. In many cases, it is up to the manging agents to enforce the terms of the lease.

As I have said on many occasions in the Chamber, many leases specifically preclude the letting of a property for periods of less than six months, and it is up to the managing agents of the block to ensure that the provisions of the lease are met. Again, I say to my noble friend that I have quoted from the action taken by one managing agent when they discovered that a flat in the block for which they were the managing agent was being advertised on Airbnb; that immediately stopped the letting of that flat and any other flats in that block. So the short answer—I fear it was a long one—is that we believe that powers are already available without giving local authorities the additional powers that my noble friend has asked for.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before I withdraw my amendment, can the Minister tell me something about the amount of money provided? On the face of it, £500,000 seems a lot of money but how many councils is that actually for? I do not know off the top of my head, but I think it is for at least a few hundred of them. What sum will each council get? Will it be £2,000 or £3,000 each? When it is broken down like that, it could be quite a small sum of money in terms of an overall council budget.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

About 152 trading standards offices could potentially be eligible for this. It would be wrong to assume that £500,000 would be divided among them so that they each get a small sum. There are other models for providing the initial help. For example, a team from the department could go out to help the trading standards agencies set up the necessary skills and training to take forward the measure after year one. At the moment, we are discussing with the LGA exactly how best to spend the £500,000. Although one option would be to divide it up, that is not the only option; others are being explored. Before the Bill becomes an Act, we hope to find a way forward on how the money should be spent.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the Minister for that answer. I accept that the money may not necessarily be divided up. I am just trying to understand the number of authorities and the amount of money available. Looking at things like that, it is not a huge sum of money at all.

The Government think that this will be funded by fines and other fees, so it will be self-financing in that sense. I am conscious that local government will say, “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?”. Local government often says that the Government do not provide enough funding for various things. How was this figure arrived at? Where did it come from? Did the Government use some formula or methodology, or was is just a case of, “Oh, we’ve got a spare half a million knocking around and we can make it available”? I do not know. I want to understand how that figure came about. Again, I am sure that local government will say that it is nowhere near enough, as it would say about other things. I am thinking particularly of the Homelessness Reduction Act, where there is the risk of a very good piece of legislation being affected by the amount of money provided by the Government.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I hope the noble Lord will accept that, unlike other occasions when new responsibilities have been imposed on local authorities, in this case we are actually offering to help them with some pump-priming finance before the revenue stream comes on board. I hope he will accept that this is a welcome step forward from other initiatives taken by Governments of all complexions, where local authorities have been asked to do things with no resources at all and no opportunity of self-funding downstream. I can only repeat what I read out a few moments ago: the Government estimate that local authorities will incur a new burden in respect of enforcement of £500,000. I will make detailed inquiries to see if we can shed more light on exactly where that sum came from and will write to the noble Lord, with copies to other Members who have shown an interest. I will do that before Report.

[Lord Best]

Will the proceeds of the financial penalties be hypothecated for more enforcement? Trading standards officers work very hard in very difficult circumstances, after all the cuts they have had to face. The danger is that the fines come in but go into the big pot of local government finance and are used—poor old local authorities have many other calls on their time and money.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am happy to give the noble Lord the assurance that he seeks that the money will be reimbursed to the relevant section of the local authority that enforces this legislation and other related legislation dealing with rogue landlords.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the Minister for his response, and all other noble Lords who spoke in the debate. At this stage, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I wonder whether my noble friend will address the point raised by the noble Baroness when she referred to the number of letting agents that did not obey the law on their websites. I have found that in many areas—including modern slavery, an issue I am particularly interested in—a number of people just do not obey the law. It seems to me that it would be odd if we left it to the local trading standards officers. What is the arrangement? If you find such a case, who in government is supposed to enforce it? This also is a piece that might be dealt with in this legislation. If it is true—I assume that it is—that 17% of letting agents do not even obey the law of having to say what their fees are, that is outrageous.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. The Bill proposes a number of enforcement measures that offer a strong deterrent to irresponsible agents and landlords. It also makes provisions to enable tenants and other relevant people to recover unlawfully charged fees, if other attempts have failed, by going to the First-tier Tribunal, which will order reimbursement to the tenant of money that should not have been paid. Of course, tenants should get back any unlawful payments in full, whether that is direct from the landlord or agent, via their enforcement authority or through an order of the First-tier Tribunal. However, in certain instances, we think it is also appropriate for the landlord or agent to be issued with a financial penalty, as well as ensuring that the tenant receives their money back. This is to deter future non-compliance.

Amendment 6 prevents an enforcement authority imposing a financial penalty under Section 12 if the tenant has got their money back. We think that giving a power to impose financial penalties for breaches of the legislation is an important tool for enforcement authorities. Therefore, we cannot accept Amendment 6. However, the enforcement guidance will stress that enforcement authorities should take account of the landlord’s and agent’s conduct and past behaviour when considering the level of financial penalty to charge, if any. This includes whether the landlord or agent has reimbursed the tenant quickly when asked to do so.

Turning to Amendments 7 and 8, while we think it is right that agents and landlords should be issued with a financial penalty, we do not think it is appropriate for the tenant to receive further compensation in addition to repayment of the money owed. To add compensation risks penalising agents and landlords multiple times for the same breach, which we do not believe is fair; for example, it would not be right to ask a landlord who has been fined up to £5,000 for an initial breach to also pay three times the amount of a prohibited payment to a tenant. This would in effect be two financial penalties for the same breach. The deterrent effect, mentioned by the noble Baroness in her opening remarks, would of course be secured by the fines under the Act.

It is also worth noting that Clause 17 already provides further protection to tenants by preventing landlords recovering their property via the Section 21 procedure in the Housing Act 1988 until they have repaid any unlawfully charged fees. This approach is in line with legislation that already applies; for example, where the How to Rent guide has not been provided or where a landlord has not secured the required licence for a house in multiple occupation. Further, Clause 4 ensures that any clause in the tenancy seeking to charge a prohibited fee is not binding on the tenant.

We do not consider that further provision is needed along the lines proposed by Amendment 8. For example, it is not fair if a landlord who appeals against the imposition of a financial penalty, and this appeal is upheld, is then restricted from using the no-fault eviction process for six months. Under the noble Lord’s amendment, this would be the case—although that may not be what he intended. We firmly believe that our existing approach restricting a landlord’s ability to serve a Section 21 notice strikes the right balance and offers a serious deterrent to non-compliance. I hope the noble Lord will not move his amendment.

I suspect the short answer to the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Deben is: the trading standards officer. I would like to write to my noble friend setting out in more detail what is being proposed, under both this and existing legislation, to prevent misleading information appearing on websites and tenants being misled.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I was a little surprised at the Minister’s response on the question of compensation. We would have a situation where a tenant is illegally charged a prohibited payment—it is against the law, and they have been wronged. The Minister says that, in those cases, compensation would not be appropriate. I do not understand that. Surely, as we have highlighted in other areas, it is totally reasonable that, if somebody has done someone a wrong—they have committed an offence, overcharged somebody—that person should be able to seek some sort of redress and have compensation paid to them. I do not see how the Minister can say that would not be fair.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord has a choice. He can have either a situation where the tenant gets the compensation and there are no financial penalties imposed under the Bill, or the situation we suggest where the tenant gets his money back, the fine is imposed and the money goes to the local authority. What the noble Lord wants is for the landlord, in effect, to be penalised twice: first by paying compensation up to three times, and secondly by paying a fine up to £5,000. The Government’s position is that you can have one or the other, but doing both is not fair.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I think the Minister will find that, in other areas, people can be fined and be required to pay compensation as well, so I do not see the logic. Clearly, if it is an issue of amounts, that can be looked at. We are not going to agree on this, clearly. The principle that you can be fined and be required to pay compensation clearly is the case elsewhere. It is very unfair that the tenant—the victim, the person who has been out of pocket, ripped off and treated badly—should be thankful just to get their money back. It does not seem to be a very good place. Clearly, we are not going to agree on that at this stage.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

On my Amendment 8, if somebody has gone to a tribunal and the landlord has won then fair enough, they should be protected, but I am trying to get to an example where someone has enforced their rights. This poor tenant cannot get compensation but they get their money back, then the next day a Section 21 notice is served on them. That is the issue I want to deal with. It is really unfair for the tenants in these situations—proved right in a court of law, then given a notice to leave the next day. Without this, that could still happen.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The defect in the noble Lord’s amendment is that, if the landlord won the appeal, he would still be banned. As I said, that may not have been the noble Lord’s intention, but it is what the amendment would do.

I say in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, that I detect in the Committee enthusiasm for the two-track approach to penalties, for both the tenant and the local authorities recouping fines. That message has come through. Without giving any commitment, I will have another look at this, in view of the strength of feeling on the matter. I am happy to accept the noble Baroness’s offer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 11 seeks to put a new clause into the Bill. If agreed, it would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament within 12 months, then every four years after that. The report would provide valuable information on the number of breaches, financial penalties levied and criminal prosecutions in each 12-month period. It must also consider the points as listed in proposed new subsection (2), which are important when looking at the impact of the Act on the sector. I suspect that the amendment will not be greeted with great enthusiasm from the Minister, but can he tell the Committee whether any of the information referred to in the amendment would be collected by the department anyway? I may have a few more questions for the Minister after listening to his response. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his amendment. I assure him that we plan to monitor the implementation of the Bill through continual engagement with key stakeholder groups, represented landlords, agents, tenants and those in housing need, as well as through wider intelligence from agencies such as the lead enforcement authority and trading standards, which will enforce the requirements of the Bill.

I have no difficulty with the objectives of the noble Lord’s proposed new clause. However, bits of it are impractical. We will not be able to identify all the breaches of Clauses 1 and 2 as set out in proposed new paragraph (a) because we will be encouraging tenants to challenge their landlords and agency with a view to rectifying breaches if they have been charged prohibited fees. The enforcement authorities would not be involved if the breach were resolved between the tenant and the landlord, so it would not be possible to record every time that this happens.

However, owing to the reporting requirements set out in the Bill under Clause 14, information on the number of financial penalties and criminal convictions under the ban will be captured by the lead enforcement authority. In the light of what the noble Lord suggested, we will consider how best to share this information with Parliament. Both agents and landlords that are banned from operating will be captured on the rogue landlord database; the Prime Minister made it clear that we plan to make this information public. Local housing authorities also have powers to include persons convicted of a breach of the fees ban on that database, as well as including persons who received two or more financial penalties in a year for any banning order offence committed at a time when the person was a residential landlord or a property agent.

Further, Clause 23 places a duty on the lead enforcement authority to keep under review social and commercial development relating to the letting sector and the operation of relevant letting agency legislation, as well as to advise the Secretary of State about it from time to time. I hope this reassures the noble Lord that we will track and review the effectiveness and enforcement of the ban and its impact on the private rented sector. I hope that will we achieve what his amendment wants but we do not think it necessary to prescribe further reporting requirements in the Bill. As I said, we will consider how best to make this information available in the light of the debate.

We will also, as the noble Lord may know, review the legislation within five years in line with normal practice and submit that review to the appropriate Select Committee in the other place. We do not intend to review the Bill in isolation. Recently a number of legislative changes have been made to the lettings industry with more planned related to the regulation of letting agents. These changes, along with the Bill, support and deliver on our commitment to rebalance the relationship between tenants and landlords and to make renting fairer. We will keep all of these issues under review. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Lord for that response and I am pleased with some of the commitments that he has made. At this point I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender]

My Lords, I support these amendments. I have already raised my considerable concern about the timings. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, the Government announced this measure in the autumn of 2016, at the same time as my Private Member’s Bill was progressing through the House, and I was absolutely delighted at their announcement. However, it feels as though it is taking a very long time. I know that the Ministers concerned are not responsible for that—they have worked very hard to push this through.

When the Government first started consulting on this issue, they rightly changed their mind and agreed to take a look at it. The consultation showed that the poorest tenants are being ripped off time and again, and that will not stop. If anything, it will get worse in the intervening period before this legislation is introduced. I am hugely in support of the legislation being introduced as quickly as possible. Generation Rent was talking to me about this only this morning. It is receiving evidence that letting agents are becoming more assertive over their administration fees to make up for what they believe to be a shortfall.

As I said at Second Reading, other organisations are playing a significant role in this matter. OpenRent, which I will mention in later arguments, started in 2012 and is now the largest letting agent in England and Wales. It has made a profitable model on the basis of never charging fees to tenants. Therefore, it is perfectly possible for an industry to be ahead of the legislation. However, with the exceptions that I have described, this particular industry is not ahead of the legislation, although it has been warned again and again. There has been working group after working group on this issue.

I was absolutely delighted that the Government decided, very wisely, in the Autumn Budget Statement of 2016 to flex their muscles and get on with this, but we need to do it. I would find any further delay, or suggestion of it, in the Bill extremely worrying, which is why I support the amendment.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to noble Lords for taking part in the debate. They have made their impatience over the date of commencement absolutely clear. We agree that we want this legislation to come into force as soon as possible, not least to protect the tenants referred to by noble Lords.

However, we need to strike a fair balance between protecting tenants and allowing landlords and letting agents time to become compliant with the legislation. The ban is not about unfairly penalising landlords and letting agents or driving them out of business. We have said that implementation will not be before April 2019; we intend it to be as soon as possible after that. Of course, at the moment we do not know when it might get Royal Assent. I understand that but we believe that there needs to be a reasonable gap between it reaching the statute book and it being implemented.

Turning to Amendment 13, the transitional provisions in Clause 28 provide that for the period of a year, the ban will not apply to tenancies whose terms were agreed prior to commencement. Similar transitional provisions are made for agents’ agreements with tenants. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, seeks to reduce the period in which a landlord or agent could accept a payment prohibited by Clause 1 from one year to six months. We have already sought to give tenants greater clarity and protection with respect to the commencement date. Crucially, we have revised our position from that in the draft Bill, where there was no end date by which fees could be charged in pre-commencement tenancies. There has been a considerable shift towards protecting those who have already signed their contracts.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, recognised that a transition period is necessary—his amendment proposes a slightly shorter one—because although most fees are charged at the outset of a tenancy, some landlords and agents will have agreed that tenants should pay other fees, such as a check-out inventory fee, at a later stage. Tenants will have signed contracts accordingly; we need to allow time for landlords and agents to renegotiate them to ensure that the legislation does not have a significant retrospective effect.

Our view is that 12 months is fair for the transition period. Data from the English Housing Survey shows that 45% of tenants had an initial tenancy of 12 months and 36% had one of six months. Reducing the period in which a landlord or agent could accept a payment prohibited by Clause 1 would mean that more landlords and agents with pre-commencement tenancies would be at risk of not being able to renegotiate their contracts and would not receive fees that the tenant had previously agreed to pay. Again, we do not believe that this would be fair.

We recognise the importance of having a clear point where the fees ban applies to all tenancies. As drafted, the transitional provisions mean that all tenants will receive the benefits of the fees ban one year after it comes into force; as I said earlier, initially there was no such arrangement. Unlike the proposed amendment, the provisions ensure that agents and landlords will not be significantly impacted on financially and will have the opportunity to review their contracts during the transitional year. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment against the background of that explanation.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Lord for responding to the debate. I suppose that we will not agree, which is disappointing. It is a shame that although there is a lot of good stuff in this legislation that we can support, things take such a long time, as I said in my introduction. That is a recurring theme with the noble Lord’s department, which I have raised many times in other consultations and discussions on this. It often seems like we are pulling teeth to get things moving along. So we are frustrated at the length of time these things take, and that is why we have taken a stand on this.

I also tabled Amendment 14, which seeks to bring the Act into force on the day on which it is passed. My frustration here is the fact that, even when it is passed, we then have to wait for an SI to be tabled to bring it into force. I have no certainty as to whether it will ever come into force; potentially, it could be left there and might never happen. I am sure that will not be the case, but the Committee will see that there is no certainty as to an agreed date. That is very frustrating, and I may come back to this point on Report. At this stage, however, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 24 to 26 not moved.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, the Committee has been sitting for nearly four hours, so I think that this might be a convenient point at which to adjourn.

Committee adjourned at 7.29 pm.

Newcastle Upon Tyne, North Tyneside and Northumberland Combined Authority (Establishment and Functions) Order 2018

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 24 July be approved.

Relevant document: 40th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 30 October.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Bourne, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.

Motion agreed.

Affordable Housing

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am pleased that so many colleagues have put their names down to speak in this debate, and I thank them. I thank too all those organisations that have sent briefings to us for their contribution to this debate; it is appreciated.

This debate is an opportunity for us to examine government policy on affordable housing. The Motion talks about the case for building more affordable housing—that is, more housing that is officially defined as affordable, but also housing that is more affordable for individuals, which increasingly is not the case. The general public think of affordability as related to income rather than market rates.

The term “affordable” has existed for some years. It was created by the then Deputy Prime Minister—now the noble Lord, Lord Prescott—in 2006. It was defined as,

“subsidised housing that meets the needs of those who cannot afford secure decent housing on the open market either to rent or buy”.

That seems a thoroughly reasonable definition. The official definition of “affordable rent” is that it is set at a maximum of 80% of local market rent. That definition was first introduced by the coalition Government in 2010. The problem is that that concept of affordability is out of date because it is no longer affordable in high-cost parts of the country. Indeed, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that today’s policy on affordable rents will see 1.3 million more people in poverty in 2040, placing huge additional pressures on the housing benefit bill.

In the words of Shelter, we need,

“a new generation of homes for social rent”.

Just 5,380 were built in 2016-17. Shelter estimates that we need at least 90,000 a year to meet the backlog. We have a huge shortage of decent homes and a huge backlog in demand for them. The Office for National Statistics may have downgraded its household growth projections from 210,000 per year to 159,000, but that remains a large number and may anyway omit households that would have formed but could not afford to.

The lack of affordable homes has led to the current crisis in homelessness. I am grateful to Shelter for its latest figures, which show that there are 268,000 homeless people in this country, including 123,000 children; there are 80,000 households in temporary accommodation, up by nearly half in the last five years; and there are 1.2 million households on council house waiting lists. Today we learn from the Huffington Post that 50,000 homeless households have had to move out of their communities in the last five years. I find that a national disgrace.

The Government’s White Paper, 18 months ago now in February 2017, Fixing Our Broken Housing Market, said:

“The starting point is to build more homes. This will slow the rise in housing costs so that more ordinary working families can afford to buy a home and it will also bring the cost of renting down”.


However, I submit that to bring down the cost of renting requires government support.

The evidence of unaffordable prices and rents is stark. Buying a home costs eight times annual workplace earnings; 20 years ago that figure was three and a half. Home ownership has gone down from 71% in 2003 to 63% in 2016-17, and it is just 37% today in the 25 to 34 age range. Private rents have risen steeply. The English Housing Survey in 2016-17 showed that private renters are spending 41% of their income on housing, as opposed to 31% for social renters and 19% for owner-occupiers.

There is a major affordability crisis in the private rented sector. Take Bristol: on Sunday the Observer reported that 200 people are sleeping in their vehicles in Bristol because the cost of private renting is unaffordable, given the low wages that they earn. According to the Valuation Office Agency, rents have risen 33% in Bristol in the last four years.

The Prime Minister has taken a keen personal interest in housing. She has talked in terms of a national housing crisis. She is right, but we need a coherent strategic plan to deal with the housing crisis, which still seems to be lacking. The Government’s emphasis has been on promoting owner-occupation. Last year, a further £10 billion was announced for Help to Buy but only an additional £2 billion for affordable housing, which meant only an extra 5,000 affordable homes a year. The Chartered Institute of Housing reminded us last year that only £8 billion of the £51 billion allocated for housing to 2021 will fund affordable homes. At the same time, the Office for Budget Responsibility has recently said Help to Buy pushes up house prices.

The balance between support for rent and support for owner-occupation is wrong, and perhaps there is growing recognition of that. Earlier this month, it was finally admitted that the cap on councils borrowing against their assets to build houses should be lifted. Might the Minister tell us why that decision took so long, when it could lead to around 10,000 extra affordable homes a year?

However, this speech is not all about criticism. I want to praise the Government for something: I praise them for not implementing the worst elements of the Housing and Planning Act, such as the forced sell-off of high-value council homes. What is the policy on starter homes, since they are defined as affordable? And is the forced sale of housing association homes now well and truly in the long grass? I also look forward to the impact of some of the reforms that the Government have introduced: the role of Homes England, the changes to the National Planning Policy Framework and, hopefully, some announcements in the Budget as a consequence of the Letwin review on the build-out rate.

In August, we had the social housing Green Paper, which was delayed almost a year. It is unclear why it took so long to write when in the last five years, according to the Chartered Institute of Housing, 150,000 social homes have been lost. I wonder whether the Government have taken account of the impact on the housing benefit bill of the increasing dominance of the private rented sector. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has stated that,

“investing in 80,000 affordable homes per annum could reduce the housing benefit bill by £5.6 billion per annum by 2040”.

That demonstrates that government policies must be for the long term.

But so much effort is having to go into dealing with the symptoms of the lack of sufficient homes: high house prices; high rents; rogue landlords; the misuse of viability assessments for affordable homes, which I hope is now at an end; and high housing benefit costs caused by inflating rents. As we know, private sector conditions can be very poor with insecure tenure. Almost 750,000 tenants live in unsafe or dirty homes because rogue landlords ignore the rules. Thankfully, the Government want to make progress on these issues, but they are taking time and there is a need for resources both nationally and locally. The only long-term solution to these problems is to increase the supply of new homes at prices that are genuinely affordable to those on average incomes.

Underpinning public policy should be agreed values that we are aspiring to achieve. I submit that only when those values have been achieved will we be able to say that the housing crisis is over. We need to agree the values that should underpin our approach to housing policy. These are that no one should be forced to spend more than a third of their income on housing costs. Those in work on the living wage should be able to afford to live reasonably close to where they work. No one should be forced to sleep rough or depend on temporary accommodation when they cannot find a permanent place to call home. No child should be forced to move school and away from friends because a landlord serves notice to quit because that landlord can command a higher rent if the existing tenants leave. Space standards for new homes should be sufficiently large to enable families to live comfortably in them.

I have concluded that the current housing crisis represents the biggest failure of public policy of the past 20 years. Over that time, we have built about 2 million too few homes, resulting in high prices, high rents, many fewer social homes and serious difficulties for younger people wanting to buy their own home. The Government need to achieve a threshold of 35% of affordable housing in all private developments, with a higher 50% threshold on all public land. We need to promote high-quality modular building, with its potential cost savings and faster building timescales.

Crucially, we need to capture an uplift in land values for public benefit. I note the work of the Centre for Progressive Capitalism, which states that currently 75% goes to the landowner and 25% to community benefits. It should be reversed. That requires reform to the Land Compensation Act 1961.

I also believe that the time has come to suspend the right to buy until the problem of the inadequate provision of social housing is put right. Suspending the right to buy has occurred in Scotland and will be introduced in Wales next January. Above all, we need to achieve the building of 300,000 homes a year.

If there is one immediate thing that we could achieve from this debate, it would be that the Government agreed to stop using the term “affordable” when, for so many people, homes described as affordable are out of their reach. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, with the constraints of a two-hour debate, given the number of noble Lords who wish to speak and the published time limits, the mathematics reveal very little margin for error. I urge noble Lords to stick to the limit of four minutes.

Tenant Fees Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 10th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McDonagh (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Tenant Fees Bill, as I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement at the Conservative Party conference to lift the cap on housebuilding imposed by the previous Conservative Prime Minister in 2012. However, while welcoming the Bill, having read it, I see that it does not live up to its promise. It feels as though someone who understands the issues wrote the first half of the Bill and somebody else, who does not understand the issues, came along and put in so many exclusions that they negate what the Government are trying to achieve. I am therefore disappointed that, when we come to Committee, we will be in Grand Committee, which reduces our ability to amend—and this Bill needs amendment.

Let me give noble Lords a recent example of what tenants face. I appreciate that the tenants in this example would not be protected by such a Bill, as the actions involved are illegal. Two Sundays ago, the Member of Parliament for the community in which I live—here I declare an interest, as she is also my sister—was canvassing with her team. She received many complaints from local residents about the number of black bags on the streets. They identified the rubbish as coming from a commercial office block. The intrepid canvassers and said MP knocked on the door of the office block only to find that it was full of tenants: each office had a family in it. As there were no cookers in the offices, each office had a hotplate, and the families were using the ladies and gents toilets. These tenants did not have tenancy agreements but licences. I am very nervous about the number of landlords now creating licences, allowing them to subvert a lot of the regulations we are putting in place.

The families in that block were being charged £1,100 per month for each office space, completely unlawfully. But why did they take that accommodation? They took it because they were absolutely desperate. Having heard that story, if noble Lords reread the exclusions in the Bill, would those same tenants be able to argue their case? I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger. Many hundreds of thousands of landlords in this country are perfectly reasonable and do a good job, and we are talking about hundreds of thousands—one in five people over 65 now own a second property that they rent out. The Bill is about rogue landlords. If you behave well, you have nothing to fear from it.

What sorts of things did I hope to find in the Bill? First, six weeks is too long for a deposit. I ask the Government to think again about that, particularly in London and the south-east. In the community where I live, a property that would house a mum, dad and two children would easily cost a minimum of £2,000 a month. People looking for that housing are largely on minimum-wage jobs. We are talking about a £3,000 deposit. I ask the Government to consider either reducing that to four weeks or putting a financial cap on the amount that can be charged.

Secondly, I would expect to see normal consumer protection. An example would be a cooling-off period for tenants. There is no provision for that in the Tenant Fees Bill. It is wrong that you have greater protection if you buy a telecommunications package, digital television or washing machine than a home.

When the Minister replies, I would like some clarification on some of these exclusions. Schedule 2(8) to the Bill states:

“The landlord is reasonably entitled to take into account the difference between the information provided by the tenant and the correct information in deciding whether to grant a tenancy to the tenant”.


If the landlord sees that those two pieces of information are different, they do not have to give back the holding deposit. How can the landlord be judge and jury of that?

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I gently draw the noble Baroness’s attention to what the Companion says. Any speaker in the gap is expected to be brief and speak for no longer than four minutes.

[Baroness McDonagh]

I apologise to the Minister. I will finish with those points about exclusion. Each exclusion clause is written in defence of the landlord, not of the tenant. There is no process for tenants to complain.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th February 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

41: Clause 16, page 16, line 30, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) The temporary possession of the land must be authorised by the type of instrument (the “authorising instrument”) that would be required if the acquiring authority proposed to acquire that land compulsorily for the purposes for which it proposes to take temporary possession of that land.”

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the co-pilot is back in charge and I am hoping for a smoother flight than the one I had on Thursday, when I encountered some turbulence as we flew over Clause 13. I listened with some interest to the debate we just had as a former councillor of the south London Borough of Lambeth; that was a very long time ago. We now move on to Part 2 of the Bill and amendments to the compulsory purchase provisions. Noble Lords will have noted that there are a large number of government amendments. These are mainly to ensure that the temporary possession provisions in the Bill work as intended and are fair to all, but they also respond positively to issues raised by noble Lords in Committee.

Amendments 41 to 43 amend Clause 16, which sets out the procedure for authorising temporary possession. In Grand Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, spoke eloquently to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and herself about the need to ensure that land held inalienably by the National Trust is appropriately protected in the context of the new temporary possession power. As I indicated we would, the Government have considered the matter further, and I am happy to tell both noble Baronesses that we are now in agreement that the special interest of inalienable National Trust land, and its irreplaceable nature, requires particular protection.

Amendment 42 is the principal amendment in this group. It makes provision for any inalienable National Trust land which is required temporarily to be subject to the same additional protection as National Trust land which is to be acquired by compulsion. This means that where the National Trust sustains an objection to the taking of temporary possession of any of its inalienable land, the authorising instrument will be subject to special parliamentary procedure, in the same way as it would if the land was being acquired by compulsion.

The other amendments are technical and consequential. Amendment 41 clarifies that temporary possession must be authorised by the same type of instrument as would have been used if the land in question had been compulsorily acquired for the same purposes for which temporary possession is needed. Amendment 42 works by an exception to Clause 16(3)(c), which provides that where an authorising instrument authorises temporary possession then, for the purposes of the procedures for authorising and challenging it, temporary possession is treated in the same way as compulsory acquisition. Amendment 42 is therefore drafted so that it disapplies special parliamentary procedure for special kinds of land except for National Trust land held inalienably. As confirmed in the Government’s policy paper published in December 2016, special kinds of land other than National Trust land will be subject to the serious detriment test in the temporary possession regulations made under Clause 26. Amendment 43 clarifies Clause 16(3)(c) by removing a potential ambiguity allowing the clause to be interpreted in two different ways.

I now move to Clause 17 and Amendment 45. In Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised the issue of whether there would be a time limit on acquiring authorities exercising their power of temporary possession after it had been authorised. This is an important matter and I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising it. Amendment 45 addresses the issue by providing that acquiring authorities must serve a notice of intended entry within three years from the date on which the compulsory purchase order authorising temporary possession becomes operative. Where temporary possession is authorised by a different type of authorising instrument—for example, a development consent order—the time limit for serving the notice of entry is within five years of it becoming operative. These limits are in line with those where land is being acquired by compulsion.

Amendments 47, 50, 50A, 50B, 50C, 51, 52 and 61A deal with the power to override easements and other third-party rights over land taken for temporary possession. Where land is taken by compulsion, acquiring authorities have this power, which is necessary to ensure that there are no impediments to the scheme going forward. These third-party interests are typically rights to allow underground services such as water, gas, electricity and telecommunication belonging to one property to pass beneath the land of neighbouring properties; there are also rights of light and of way and covenants restricting development to certain uses or density. Land needed for a temporary period may also be subject to easements or restrictive covenants, so to avoid problems such as those with insurance or litigation it is necessary for acquiring authorities to have the power to override these rights when they take temporary possession of land. That is what these amendments do. The provisions are modelled on the corresponding provisions for schemes where land is acquired by compulsion as set out in Sections 203 and 205 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. Amendment 51 is the principal amendment, as it contains the power to override a relevant right or interest. Amendment 47 sets out the compensation provisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Parminter]

My Lords, I sincerely thank the Minister for the consideration that he and the ministerial team have given to the comments and concerns that I raised in Committee. I offer those thanks on behalf of myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who is no longer able to be in her place. In particular, I welcome Amendments 42 and 55, which specifically address the concerns that we had about the impact of the temporary possession proposals on the special land that the National Trust holds for the good of the nation. I am delighted with the way that the Minister has retained the status quo for the National Trust’s inalienable land. I thank him most sincerely.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, particularly to those who welcomed the amendments tabled by the Government to meet concerns expressed earlier on.

If I may respond briefly to the very important issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, no one is more anxious than I am to see more houses being built. In view of his interest, he might like to come along on Thursday, when we have a debate on the White Paper, which will be a broader debate about housing. I will make three quick points about the question that he raised. First, Clause 29, the no-scheme principle, makes no fundamental changes to the principle of compensation. It seeks to clarify where we are by looking at past cases and setting out some clear rules, Rules 1 to 5, so that we can, in future, fairly assess the compensation that people are entitled to if they are affected by a CPO.

The second point, which really arises from that, is that we have always paid the market value. For as long as I have been involved in this type of legislation, when somebody’s land or property has been acquired, we have always paid the market value. That is the right thing to do in a fair society; otherwise, one is verging towards confiscation. If you are going to take away something at less than its value from an individual who does not want to part with it, that is approaching what could be called confiscation.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

The Minister talks about its value, but its value prior to the planner signing it off and designating it as land for housing is agricultural. That is what it is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The compensation is based on the existing use value. Sometimes that might have a hope value, and in some of the circumstances he has outlined, it might not be zoned for housing, but the market value might be slightly above agricultural value because of so-called hope value. That gets priced in. The important point is that we pay market value. What the noble Lord wants to do is to acquire it at below market value to facilitate the building of more houses. I understand that, but that is not the principle on which people have been compensated for the last 40 or 50 years; they have always had the market value.

Thirdly, the no-scheme principle says that if the value of your property has suddenly gone up because of something that the public sector is building—a station or whatever—then that is disregarded for the purpose of assessing its value. That is what we do: that is what the no-scheme principle implies, so you do not get the benefit of the public investment that has accelerated the value of your land. I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord. Although he is smiling, I suspect that I might not have. On the rather slender hook of Amendment 62, he has hung a very substantial debate, perhaps more appropriate to the Second Reading of this Bill many months ago. Of course, however, I would be happy to have further discussions with him if he has any continuing concerns about how land is acquired compulsorily.

Amendment 41 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this is the last amendment on Report. We had a short debate in Grand Committee on 8 February. The amendments I tabled then and have tabled now are to help the discussion taking place between the department, the Government, Transport for London and the Greater London Authority in respect of the powers that those authorities think they need to dispose of land and help build more housing.

I am hoping the Minister will be able to respond to this and update us on where we have got to in discussions so far. I do not believe any agreement has been reached, as yet. I hope we are going to get somewhere and that we will not reach the end of this process with nothing having been agreed. That would be most disappointing. I got a fairly positive response from the Minister in Grand Committee. I will leave it there. I hope the Minister can respond positively and tell us that, although nothing has yet been agreed, the discussions are ongoing. We all hope that we will get some resolution before we reach the end of this process. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for the bridge-building way in which he moved the amendment. Amendments 65 and 66 seek to make new provision in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 which would amend the powers of Transport for London and the Greater London Authority to dispose of land.

Amendment 65 seeks to give Transport for London the flexibility to dispose of land for housing, even if a higher value use was available, provided the best consideration reasonably obtainable for housing use had been achieved. To achieve this, Amendment 65 would disapply the requirement for TfL to,

“act as if it were a company engaged in a commercial enterprise”.

Amendment 66 would remove the requirement for the GLA to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State to the disposal of land for housing, even if a higher value use was available, provided the best consideration reasonably obtainable for housing use had been achieved.

In Grand Committee, I promised to facilitate a meeting between the Government, the GLA and TfL before Report to discuss how we should respond to the concerns the noble Lord had raised. I confirm that that meeting has taken place.

We have been working with TfL to assess the impact of making the proposed amendment, but unfortunately we remain concerned about the potential impact of Amendment 65 on TfL’s overall receipts targets and consequently on public finances more generally. Given these ongoing concerns, I cannot accept the noble Lord’s amendment, but I can assure him that the Government will continue to work with TfL to address those concerns and ensure that TfL is able to meet both its housing and its receipts targets.

On Amendment 66, the noble Lord will be aware that the Government made a commitment in the housing White Paper to consult on extending the ability of local authorities to dispose of land at less than best consideration without seeking consent to do so from the Secretary of State.

Land disposals by local authorities are governed by a separate regime from those undertaken by the GLA. I do not believe it would be right in this Bill to reduce the protections established by the current requirement for consent of the Secretary of State for disposals by the GLA at less than best consideration. The White Paper did not specifically reference this GLA consent requirement, but I reassure the noble Lord that the scope of the consultation announced in the White Paper will extend to the GLA consent regime.

With the reassurance that we will continue to work with TfL and the GLA to find appropriate solutions to the very real concerns the noble Lord has raised, I hope he will be prepared to withdraw the amendment so that we can end Report on a consensual note.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I am happy not to press my amendments at this stage, but will just say that I do not know whether these discussions are ongoing. Is the noble Lord suggesting that there may be some light and that this may come back at Third Reading or is he suggesting that it is more likely that this will be addressed in a White Paper? Or could it be either? Some clarification on that would be useful. Important points have been raised. The Mayor of London has specific targets for building homes in London, and we all want to see that happen—but if you want to get it done, these things need to be addressed. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Thursday 23rd February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 11 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, deletes the proposed new powers for the Secretary of State to set conditions on the granting of planning permission. This matter was discussed at some length in Grand Committee, and I did not feel then and still do not feel that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, has made a convincing case for why the powers should be granted. We have had little evidence to date that they are necessary. If there was a major problem, I suspect we would have heard a lot more about it outside the Chamber. I see little evidence and, if I was wrong, I would expect to have had emails, letters and requests for meetings from builders, trade bodies and others trying to convince me and tell me why I was wrong and why they needed the changes. I do not recall one organisation getting in touch about the problems and why the powers need to be taken by the Government.

Planning conditions and pre-commencement planning conditions imposed by a local authority must always be reasonable, necessary and help to deliver sustainable development; there is no point delivering development that is unsustainable. We would just be creating a problem down the line for others to deal with because we did not have the foresight or ability to face up to the challenges before us.

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord True, who is not in his place, who said in Committee in the Moses Room that he feared the department was bringing out a dreadnought to deal with problems on the local public pond. I agree, and I have heard nothing so far from the Minister—perhaps I will in a moment—to convince me otherwise.

Far too much planning legislation from this Government has been about centralising power, agreeing what can or cannot be done by regulations and with the power to impose conditions. I remind the House that this is the sixth piece of planning legislation in six years. It is just not the case that local authorities are against development; there is no evidence to support that. There is ample evidence to suggest that local authorities are best placed to make decisions about sustainable development, consulting local people within the framework. The framework is quite properly set out by the Government, but it must be a framework, not a straitjacket that prevents local authorities playing their full role. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the co-pilot is in charge of this part of the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for revisiting an issue that we spent some time on in Committee. Amendments 11 to 14, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, either remove subsection (1) from new Section 100ZA, and corresponding subsections (2) and (3), or apply exemptions to how the power is to be exercised. I will deal with Amendments 12 and 14 separately, but Amendments 11 and 13 together, as they deal with leaving out the whole of the wider power.

Amendments 11 and 13 would remove a key measure from the Bill, which is designed to put on the statute book what is already best practice in the appropriate use of planning conditions. The power under subsection (1) would allow the Secretary of State to ensure that certain conditions were not imposed, in certain circumstances, where this is appropriate to ensure that conditions meet the policy tests for conditions as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Conditions which fail to meet the tests in the framework can cause unjustifiable delays and costs to the delivery of new development. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked for further evidence of the misuse, or potential misuse, of preconditions. This issue has arisen frequently during our debates. It is not a recent issue, and the claims date back several years. The Home Builders Federation has seen instances where unnecessary or unreasonable pre-commencement conditions have been imposed on development—for example, full details of a play area which, while commendable as a condition in general, could easily be discharged at a later stage. This is not just an issue with larger housebuilders. Small builders have also expressed dissatisfaction with the use of conditions. Research by the National House Building Council in 2014 found that 33% of small and medium-enterprise builders identified the planning process and conditions as the largest constraint to delivery. As well as issues with the time to discharge, 29% of respondents thought that the extent of conditions was an issue. If we are serious about increasing housing supply, we need to do all we can to support the builders.

Government planning guidance provides examples of specific circumstances where conditions should not be used, such as conditions which place disproportionate and unjustifiable financial burdens on an applicant. Removing subsection (2), as proposed by Amendment 13, would remove an important constraint on the regulation-making power in subsection (1). Subsection (2) ensures that the Secretary of State may make provision in regulations only if such provision is in pursuit of the policy tests. In effect, it places each of the policy tests in paragraph 206 of the framework on a statutory footing.

As with subsection (2), leaving out subsection (3), as proposed by Amendment 19, would also remove an important constraint and safeguard on the power in subsection (1). Subsection (3) requires that before making regulations under subsection (1), we must carry out a public consultation. This would afford the opportunity for local views to be put forward as part of the process for determining how the power will be exercised.

The Government published draft regulations in December to illustrate the proposed use of the regulation-making powers in Clause 13. The draft regulations have informed our debate by clarifying how the power might be used.

In Committee concerns were raised about the potential for Clause 13 somehow to act as an anti-localist measure. I should clarify that we intend to use the powers in Clause 13 to restrict local authorities’ ability to impose those conditions in regulations, already identified in planning practice guidance, which fail to meet the well-established policy tests in the NPPF. A reasonable local authority would not seek to impose such conditions.

We recognise that an opportunity for users of the planning system to comment on the proposed regulations would be beneficial. Therefore, subject to the Bill receiving Royal Assent, we will consult on the draft regulations.

I can also confirm that, following the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and in the light of concerns raised by noble Lords, about the intended use of the power in the Bill, we have tabled a government amendment that would apply the affirmative procedure to the exercise of the power in new Section 100ZA(1). This will ensure the necessary parliamentary scrutiny of how the power is exercised.

The effect of Amendments 11 and 13 would be to miss this opportunity to elevate best practice on the use of planning conditions. I hope that I have justified why the regulation-making power is integral to ensuring a robust and sustainable planning system. Therefore, with the reassurances I have provided on further safeguards on the exercise of this power, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

On Amendment 12, I reiterate what my noble friend said in Committee. There are good intentions behind the amendment, which is intended to ensure a local voice in judging local circumstances and the impact of planning decisions. That is absolutely the Government’s aim. The Government intend to use the power in new Section 100ZA to prevent the use of unreasonable and unnecessary conditions which are already well established in the Government’s planning practice guidance as not meeting the tests set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

In response to the Committee debate held on 6 February, my noble friend wrote to noble Lords, providing further information on the policy objectives for the power to make regulations under subsection (1) of the new Section 100ZA. It will not restrict the ability of local authorities and neighbourhood groups to prepare local plans and neighbourhood plans and it will not restrict their ability to determine applications for development in accordance with those plans.

Subsection (1) of the clause will ensure that the well-established policy tests for conditions are adhered to. These tests are reflected in the wording of subsections (2)(a) to (d) of the new Section 100ZA and constrain the use of this proposed regulation-making power and ensure that conditions imposed on a grant of planning permission make the development acceptable in planning terms; are relevant to the development and to planning considerations generally; are sufficiently precise to make it capable of being complied with and enforced; and are reasonable in all other respects. In other words, the Secretary of State may make provision in regulations only if such provisions are in pursuit of these policy tests.

While I am confident that the constraints referred to above are sufficient, I do understand the concerns expressed about the use of this power, and that it may somehow prevent local authorities being able to use their discretion in carrying out their planning duties. However, we believe that it would be detrimental to the planning process for regulations made under the new Section 100ZA(1) to provide for local authorities to make exceptions to the prohibition of the use of certain conditions. I cannot foresee a situation where a local authority would want to make a local exception to regulations under subsection (1), especially if this would have the effect of allowing the imposition of the types of conditions that are already well established in government guidance as being contrary to the national policy tests. In fact, during our consultation on this measure, local authorities agreed overwhelmingly that conditions should be imposed only if they passed each of the national policy tests.

As a further assurance for local authorities and other interested parties, subsection (3) of new Section 100ZA includes a requirement to carry out a public consultation before making regulations under subsection (1), so this will provide an opportunity for local views to be put forward and given full consideration in advance of making regulations. In addition, the Government have tabled an amendment that would require any regulations under subsection (1) to be approved by each House of Parliament. I hope that, for the reasons I have set out, noble Lords will not press that amendment.

The Government’s position on Amendment 14 remains as it was in Committee on the Bill, and in another place, where it was tabled. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, particularly pressed Amendment 14. If the House will permit, I might skip the relevant pages because they are broadly similar to an argument deployed by my noble friend in Committee.

I emphasise finally that if subsection (2) was left out of the clause, it would remove a vital constraint on the power in subsection (1) so that it can only be used to ensure that any conditions imposed meet the well-established policy tests for conditions in the National Planning Policy Framework. In effect, subsection (2) places each of the policy tests in paragraph 206 on a statutory footing. As noble Lords are aware, further safeguards on the use of this power are provided. Before making regulations under subsection (1) we are required to carry out a public consultation, as set out in subsection (3), and the Government have now brought forward an amendment which would require the approval of both Houses of Parliament. I hope that, for the reasons I have set out, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I can reassure the Deputy Speaker that I shall not take long. The amendment deals with restrictions on planning conditions set out in Clause 13, and in particular the new provision which will incorporate into the Town and Country Planning Act new Section 100ZA which deals with restrictions on the power to impose planning conditions.

Amendment 15 is basically a simple amendment that adds something to the conditions that will apply to those regulations. For example, the Bill refers to them as having to be,

“necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms …relevant the development … sufficiently precise to make it capable of being complied with and enforced … reasonable in all other respects”.

The amendment simply adds,

“sustainable development and public interest”,

to the criteria for making those regulations. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept that and I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving his amendment. I do not think there is any disagreement between us on the objectives that planning decisions should be acceptable to local people and that planning development should be sustainable.

Amendment 15 covers similar ground to that of the previously discussed Amendment 14, in that it is also intended to ensure that these measures do not have an adverse impact on sustainable development. Sustainable development is at the very heart of the planning system, as reflected in the National Planning Policy Framework, and I can assure noble Lords that Clause 13 will contribute to this goal.

My noble friend has written separately on this matter, as promised, to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in Committee, giving reassurance of our commitment to see that development that takes place is sustainable and in line with the well-established policy tests in the NPPF. Clause 13 will not impact on local authorities’ ability to seek to impose any necessary conditions and appropriate protections for important matters such as heritage, the natural environment and measures to mitigate the risk of flooding. That ability will be maintained, as well as the ability of local people to make representations to the local planning authority on how a development proposal will affect them.

If the amendment were introduced, it would add to the list of constraints on the Secretary of State’s regulation-making power in subsection (2) of new Section 100ZA by explicitly requiring the Secretary of State to take account of sustainable development and the public interest in deciding whether it is appropriate to exercise the power in subsection (1), as the noble Lord explained.

As my noble friend said in Committee, and I say again now, both sustainable development and the public interest are already relevant planning considerations in the NPPF, and I can reassure the noble Lord that these matters are already captured in subsections (2)(a) and (b) of the clause we are discussing. This includes the need to consider the presumption in favour of sustainable development which drives planning policy, plan-making and decision-taking—and local views, which are already central to the planning system.

In terms of taking account of the public interest, and that planning decisions and conditions are acceptable to local people, we continue to ensure that the planning system is centred on community involvement. It gives statutory rights for communities to become involved in the preparation of the local plan for the area, and any neighbourhood plans—including strengthening their powers in this area through the Bill—and to make representations on individual planning applications, and on planning appeals, in the knowledge that the decision-maker will give these representations full consideration. I hope that, for the reasons I have set out, the noble Lord might feel able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, Amendments 16 and 17 in this group are connected to issues of major concern. They seek to protect communities from extremely controversial decisions in areas with which we are becoming increasingly familiar; for example, fracking and other processes which impact on the environment. Fracking, I guess, is currently the most controversial of these. Similar concerns around minerals, waste development and the like are covered in Amendment 17. The intention here is to make it clear that the regulations which are otherwise authorised by this part of the Bill would not extend to these very controversial areas. In other words, there would have to be primary legislation to embark on changing the position on these particularly controversial areas. Some danger, I think, is sensed at the moment about the Government’s enthusiasm for fracking; their overriding of local authority concerns, for example, in Lancashire, is very controversial. These amendments are designed to constrain the exercise of those powers, which we may see more of under the Bill, in such decisions taken by government over the wishes of local communities, and effectively outside the normal planning process. I hope the Government will rethink their position on these matters. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am, again, grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for explaining the reasons behind his amendment and understand the concerns he has expressed about those confronted with substantial developments involving minerals and other raw materials.

Amendment 16 would allow exemptions to be made to any regulations brought forward under new Section 100ZA(1) for certain types of development. In this case, the amendment relates specifically to the environmental impact assessment of development. As the noble Lord explained, environmental impact assessments are demanded of development likely to have significant effects on the environment. These assessments are a way of ensuring that local planning authorities, in deciding such applications, are in full knowledge of the likely significant effects, and take these into account during the determination process.

I recognise that the noble Lord’s amendment appears to stem from a wider concern about the measures—that they might in some way weaken existing environmental protections. I confirm that the Government intend to use the power in new Section 100ZA to prevent the use of unreasonable and unnecessary conditions, which are already well established in the Government’s planning practice guidance as not meeting the tests set out in the NPPF.

A local authority will still be able to impose planning conditions necessary to be able to grant planning permission for environmental impact assessment development, provided that those conditions meet these six tests. The Secretary of State may make provision in regulations under new subsection (1) only if he is satisfied that such provisions are in pursuit of these policy tests.

That is why, as set out in the draft regulations we published in December, we are proposing to prohibit the types of conditions set out in guidance as failing to meet the policy tests. I hope this will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I should like to be very clear that our guidance currently advises that these types of conditions should not be applied to any grant of planning permission, whether an environmental impact assessment is required or not. We cannot foresee a situation where a local authority would want to impose such conditions on any planning permission. As a further means of assurance, we propose that these regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament, which will ensure appropriate levels of scrutiny.

Amendment 17 is similar. It exempts minerals or waste development from new subsection (1). The arguments for rejecting Amendment 17 are broadly similar to those against Amendment 16: the Bill will not impact the ability of local planning authorities to impose planning conditions to ensure the necessary protections to achieve sustainable development, provided they meet the well-established policy tests.

I also emphasise that our guidance currently advises, as I have just said, that these types of conditions should not be applied to any grant of planning permission, as they clearly do not meet the national policy tests in the NPPF. We cannot foresee a situation where a local authority would want to impose such conditions on the grant of any planning applications. We therefore do not see a need to make exceptions, as the amendments seek to do, for EIA development, minerals and waste applications, or any other type of development. With those reassurances in mind, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am partly reassured by reference to the affirmative procedure being applied in these cases, which allows greater parliamentary scrutiny. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I agree that Amendments 18 and 25 are important, although the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, largely related to Amendment 25, and perhaps to some others that we will deal with later, on the subject of pre-commencement conditions. Those comments were very similar to ones that I recall him making in Committee. I repeat what I said on that occasion, which is that I find the case exaggerated. I do not find the evidence base that the Government came up with for the problems requiring this solution to be as great as they imagine it to be, and I have heard nothing further to convince me that that is the case.

Clause 13 is simply one clause, but almost a third of the amendments tabled to date relate to it. Twenty-four amendments to Clause 13 have been tabled by noble Lords, and that suggests to me that there is something structurally wrong with it. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will feel that there is a great deal of merit in Amendments 18 and 25.

In response to another comment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I would just say that I do not think that a local planning authority should have to negotiate a written agreement with a developer on a matter which is in conformity with the National Planning Policy Framework. It seems that there is a basic principle there that the Government should surely support, and it is spelled out in Amendment 18. I think that a local planning authority should have the right to impose a condition if it is in line with the National Planning Policy Framework. Therefore, I hope very much that, when he replies, the Minister will tell us that he agrees with the wording of the amendment.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate—particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, who may have endeared himself to me by saying that I could be trusted above every other noble Lord in the Chamber. However, I am not sure what the reaction of other noble Lords might have been to that. He also implied that I might not be in government for ever. That is a question which my wife sometimes asks me. I first joined the Government in 1979 and have left it four times, each time thinking it was the last time but each time, back I come. If the noble Lord, when he was a Minister in the DCLG, was given a one-line zinger to deal with any amendments, he was more fortunate than I am this afternoon.

Perhaps I may try to address some of the issues, which to some extent go broader than Amendments 18 and 25. First, I reassure noble Lords that this clause will not stop local authorities seeking to impose planning conditions that address any specific issue—the natural environment, heritage, archaeology or flood mitigation—where those conditions meet the policy tests in the National Planning Policy Framework. Those protections remain in place and changes to the Bill are not needed to maintain this position.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

I must advise the House that if Amendment 19 is agreed to, I am not able to call Amendment 20 for reasons of pre-emption.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for speaking to his amendments. He said that the Government had not set out the purpose of the clause. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, in the debate that we have just had, I set out the two main objectives of Clause 13. I hope that, on reading Hansard, noble Lords might find that that was a succinct explanation of why we believe that the clause is necessary. The policy was announced in the Budget last year and confirmed in the Queen’s Speech, and we have set out the case on several occasions during the passage of the Bill.

There are a substantial number of amendments in this group and if I am to do justice to them all, I am afraid that it may take a moment or two—although less time than when the speaking note was originally drafted. I will begin with Amendment 19, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, which would remove subsection (3) of new Section 100ZA. This amendment would therefore remove an important constraint and safeguard on the power in subsection (1), much the same as Amendments 11 and 13, which we have already discussed. Subsection (3) requires that, before making regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State,

“must carry out a public consultation”.

This would afford the opportunity for local views to be put forward as part of the process for determining how the power will be exercised.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

29: Clause 13, page 14, line 15, at end insert—
“(6A) Before making regulations under subsection (6) the Secretary of State must carry out a public consultation.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

31: Clause 13, page 14, line 29, at end insert—
“(8A) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to local planning authorities about the operation of this section and regulations made under it.(8B) The Secretary of State may, from time to time, revise guidance issued under subsection (8A).(8C) The Secretary of State must arrange for guidance issued or revised under this section to be published in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

33: Clause 13, page 14, line 36, at end insert—
“( ) In section 333 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (regulations and orders) after subsection (3ZA) insert—“(3ZAA) No regulations may be made under section 100ZA(1) unless a draft of the instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.””

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 6th February 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Andrews. She ably outlined why the Government should give a sympathetic response to it. I was pleased to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, talk about 549 Lordship Lane. I know the property, referred to as the Concrete House. The council has won an award for its work there: it bought it, did a good restoration and now uses it for shared ownership. I support the amendment. I am conscious of the time and I hope that the Minister will also want to respond quickly.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, at this stage of our flight, the co-pilot takes over. After a very smooth passage with my noble friend at the controls, there may well be some turbulence. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for moving this amendment. She chaired English Heritage for four years, so she has a proud record in the conservation world. I applaud the way she is carrying forward that commitment by tabling the amendment to insert a new clause. She is well qualified and well informed on this issue. As she said, listed buildings are an important part of our environment: they create a sense of identity in a locality and support local economies by attracting visitors. As my noble friend Lord Trenchard said, this offers the opportunity to provide housing in some restoration projects. I also commend the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the work done by him in his particular field.

We all support the objectives of the amendment, but there may be alternative routes to the common destination. The noble Baroness has been a CLG Minister herself, so she may feel some empathy for someone who, having listened to a popular and powerful case for a well-argued amendment, picks up the departmental brief which has at the top, “Resist”. I have two points of my own to make. Listening to the debate, I wondered if there had ever been a case where a charitable trust had done exactly what the noble Baroness had suggested—raised all the funds and then presented the local authority with an indemnity—and the local authority had refused to go ahead with a CPO. If there was such an example it would be relevant to the case that is being made.

My other thought was that, having sat patiently through the debate on this Bill, I have noticed a recurrent criticism that we are fettering the discretion of local authorities. We are accused of not trusting them, of passing primary legislation which makes them do things. The amendment does have the words “a planning authority must”. What is the view of the LGA, which is very well represented in the Committee? Does it welcome the discretion of its members being fettered in the way that the amendment seeks to do? Having said that, the noble Baroness was quite right to remind us that local authorities have the ability to compulsorily purchase listed buildings that are in need of repair. It is an important weapon in their armoury to protect our built heritage.

If one looks at the guidance provided by the Government, paragraph 16 of the compulsory purchase guidance notes states that it specifically provides for local authorities to consider requests from community groups—which could include heritage trusts—to use their compulsory purchase powers to acquire community assets that are in danger and, under the guidance, local authorities are required to consider such requests and to provide a formal and reasoned response.

In a sense, the onus is already on the local authorities to explain why—were they presented with the sort of offer that we have just heard—they feel they cannot accept it. It is also the case, as the noble Baroness said, that heritage trusts have access to grant funds and other sources of income to enable them to carry out the preservation of listed buildings and bring them back into use. What this amendment seeks to do is, in effect, to lock in a statutory embrace the heritage trusts on the one hand with the resources and the local authorities with the CPO powers on the other. I am slightly worried that this might undermine the collaborative approach which I think works quite well at the moment. As has already been said, the CPO power exists, but I am not convinced that the relationship between the local authority and the trust would be assisted if the local authority knew that the trust had this sanction behind it to compel it to do something.

On the point made by my noble friend Lord Trenchard, Historic England is working with local authorities and giving them advice and financial and technical support in many cases where listed buildings are falling into disrepair, enabling a satisfactory solution to be arrived at. That collaborative approach is the way forward. A good example, which if it were not 7.56 pm I would share with the Committee, is Hastings Pier which was restored in exactly the way that has been outlined.

The noble Baroness has commented that absentee owners are difficult to deal with or if the owners or reputed owners do not engage with the compulsory purchase process it can proceed without them, and the acquiring authority only has to make a reasonable attempt to find them. That attempt includes information in CPO notices simply displayed on site, as well as being sent to the last known address of the owners—then they can proceed.

So far as the trust is concerned, the cost of compulsory purchase is not always easy to assess. There could be court challenges and it could end up in the High Court. The defence of a legal challenge would fall to the trust and any failure of a trust to meet its responsibility to indemnify the local authority would put the trust’s future in jeopardy and the local authority would be liable for those costs.

In a nutshell, the Government are not convinced that the noble Baroness’s amendment to compel a local authority to proceed with a compulsory purchase would have a significant effect on the use of the CPO legislation. The current process provides a balanced approach, allowing local authorities and heritage trusts to enter into mutually acceptable arrangements. It encourages collaboration between local authorities and heritage trusts, and as I have said, that approach could be jeopardised if an element of compulsion were to be introduced.

I am happy to reflect on the dilemma which the noble Lord, Lord Beith, outlined about local authorities’ reluctance to take things forward. In the meantime, with the greatest respect, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Andrews]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister. I detect a sympathy beneath his detailed rebuttal. I am also very grateful to Members who supported the amendment. The points the Minister made are worth reading properly and I will go on to do some research in connection with the heritage bodies about the response of local authorities and the effectiveness of the guidance. There is an argument which says that advice and guidance are fine as far as they go, but what we are looking at here is case after case across the country of deep frustration, of failure of capacity and of fairly old resources. I take the point about an element of compulsion, but there comes a point in all forms of policy where something more draconian needs to be considered as part of a conversation about what the alternatives are, otherwise we will never move away from the sort of stasis that we have had over sometimes magnificent buildings but which are a blight and an eyesore when they could be so productive in the community. We will rise to the challenge and see whether we can come back. We may be back before Report with evidence, but in the event, I certainly withdraw the amendment.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

19: Clause 6, page 5, line 39, at end insert—
“( ) In section 34 of that Act (guidance)—(a) the existing words become subsection (1), and(b) after that subsection insert—“(2) The Secretary of State must issue guidance for local planning authorities on how their local development documents (taken as a whole) should address housing needs that result from old age or disability.””