Vol. 771 Wednesday No. 138 20 April 2016

PARLIAMENTARYDEBATES (HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICIAL REPORT

ORDEROFBUSINESS

Questions Council Tax: Social Care Precept...... 619 Scotland Act 2016 ...... 621 Companies: Overseas Territories Registration...... 623 Strathclyde Review ...... 626 Border Force Budget 2016-17 Statement...... 628 Housing and Planning Bill Report (4th Day)...... 633 Horserace Betting Right Question for Short Debate...... 694 Housing and Planning Bill Report (4th Day) (Continued) ...... 708 Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL] Returned from the Commons...... 746 Energy Bill [HL] Returned from the Commons ...... 746 Lords wishing to be supplied with these Daily Reports should give notice to this effect to the Printed Paper Office. No proofs of Daily Reports are provided. Corrections for the bound volume which Lords wish to suggest to the report of their speeches should be clearly indicated in a copy of the Daily Report, which, with the column numbers concerned shown on the front cover, should be sent to the Editor of Debates, House of Lords, within 14 days of the date of the Daily Report. This issue of the Official Report is also available on the Internet at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldhansrd/index/160420.html

The first time a Member speaks to a new piece of parliamentary business, the following abbreviations are used to show their party affiliation: Abbreviation Party/Group CB Cross Bench Con Conservative DUP Democratic Unionist Party GP Green Party Ind Lab Independent Labour Ind LD Independent Liberal Democrat Ind SD Independent Social Democrat Ind UU Independent Ulster Unionist Lab Labour LD Liberal Democrat LD Ind Liberal Democrat Independent Non-afl Non-affiliated PC Plaid Cymru UKIP UK Independence Party UUP Ulster Unionist Party

No party affiliation is given for Members serving the House in a formal capacity, the Lords spiritual, Members on leave of absence or Members who are otherwise disqualified from sitting in the House. © Parliamentary Copyright House of Lords 2016, this publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 619 Council Tax: Social Care Precept[20 APRIL 2016] Council Tax: Social Care Precept 620

higher tax bands and less need for supporting social House of Lords care, when will the Government recognise that it is necessary to ensure that the funding of social care Wednesday 20 April 2016 ought to reflect both need and the relative yield of 3 pm local taxation?

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough. Viscount Younger of Leckie: My Lords, I have already addressed the important question of Council Tax: Social Care Precept proportionality, which the noble Baroness raised. The Question Government have put in place a total package of £3.5 billion which will be available by 2019-20. That 3.06 pm package is greater than the local authority associations’ Asked by Baroness Barker £2.9 billion estimate, set out in their spending review submission. To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much revenue they estimate will be generated in 2016–17 by local authorities using their power to increase Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con): My Lords, council tax to offset the cost of social care. my noble friend described the situation for local authorities as challenging, which indeed it is. What encouragement Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con): My Lords, on are the Government giving at local level to social 31 March 2016 the department published national services and health departments to merge their services? statistics on council tax levels in England for 2016-17. My noble friend will know that an extremely successful This reported local authorities’ estimates that they initiative along these lines has been going for at least a would receive a total of £381.8 million in receipts for decade in Torquay. I feel, and I think that many the adult social care precept in that financial year. One Members of this House with great local experience hundred and forty-four of 152 eligible councils chose will agree, that encouragement for such a merger would to set the precept of up to 2%. The precept will raise help to make the best of scarce resources. up to £2 billion by 2019-20. Viscount Younger of Leckie: My noble friend is Baroness Barker (LD): I thank the Minister for that right that councils have worked very hard over the Answer.This policy already favours those local authorities past five years to deliver a better deal for local taxpayers, which have higher-value properties. Eight councils and that the important thing is to keep council tax have decided not to raise the precept, so the Chancellor’s down while satisfaction with local public services must projection that this policy will generate an extra £2 billion be maintained. However, further savings can be made between now and 2020 is already unravelling. Will the when councils account for one-quarter of all public Government increase the better care fund for this spending. There is much that can be done that is financial year so that people in poor communities will appropriate in terms of merging services, as my noble not lose services and end up having to turn to the friend has said. NHS?

Viscount Younger of Leckie: My Lords, the Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab): My Lords, Government recognise that the local government will the Minister reconsider dealing with this simply settlement is challenging. Consistent with our approach with a national perspective? Following Parliamentary to give local authorities more control over their own Questions that I have tabled, if he looks at the north-east destiny, we are giving important new flexibilities which as a whole, he will see that not only is it that not a reflect concerns that councils have shared with us. We single local authority would raise through the 2% precept recognise that some councils with a low council tax enough to cover the minimum wage for the number of base in the poorer communities will not benefit as people who are publicly dependent for social care, but much. That is why the better care fund, which the the better care fund will not be anything like sufficient noble Baroness has mentioned, on top of the adult to supplement the 2%. We have incredibly unequal social care precept, will provide £1.5 billion by 2020. and unfair distribution across the country. Will he With this, importantly, average spending power per commit to ensuring that the Government address this dwelling for the 10% most deprived authorities is issue urgently so that vulnerable people are not put at around 23% higher than in the least deprived authorities. risk by this global policy that does not address separate need, particularly in the north-east? Lord Beecham (Lab): My Lords, I declare my local government interests. In Newcastle, which is suffering Viscount Younger of Leckie: My Lords, I think I a cumulative loss from government cuts and cost have already made it clear that the Government are pressures, not least in relation to social care amounting taking action. For example, local council tax support to £332 million, a 2% social care precept will raise is also available to help the vulnerable, and £3.7 billion £1.7 million. The welcome increase in the national was provided for that support in each of the last three minimum wage, which is not of course the same as the years. I should also say that, looking particularly at national living wage, will cost £4.5 million a year, such certain groups such as the disabled, we have provided that over the next three years there will be a shortfall £500 million. That will be available by 2019-20 over of £9.5 million. Given that the 2% increase benefits those years for the disabled facilities grant, which is councils in better-off areas, with more people in the more than double what is spent at the moment. 621 Council Tax: Social Care Precept [LORDS] Scotland Act 2016 622

Baroness Thornhill (LD): There is concern across Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD): My Lords, I am the House about the crisis in social care. The spending grateful to the Minister. However, is he aware that in review stated that the Government have, last week’s debate on HS2 only one Peer—my noble “a preferred option for savings of at least £800 million”— friend Lord Glasgow—spoke of the need to extend from the new homes bonus— that line as far as Scotland, and that the same week the First Minister of Scotland announced a feasibility “which can be used for social care”. study to extend the successful Borders Railway further Will the Minister provide reassurance that if such south? What, then, are the chances of the two savings are not met, that will not impact on the Governments working together to make sure that already promised £1.5 billion for social care by 2019-20? Scotland gets a modern railway system? Or is it perhaps time that the Government let local authorities make their own decisions about spending Lord Dunlop: In all issues the two Governments will in their own areas, and that we got rid of caps and seek to work constructively. There was a specific review referenda so that local authorities could raise the to see how passengers who travelled to Scotland could money for their own needs? get the benefits of HS2—that is an example of how the two Governments have been working together. Viscount Younger of Leckie: We have consistently made it clear that we believe it is right to devolve Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con): My Lords, does responsibility down to the local level, to allow people my noble friend agree that the Scotland Act 2016 to make their own decisions and for authorities to leaves the power to call a second referendum on decide themselves what their needs are. That is a very independence in Scotland here at Westminster and not important point for devolvement. in Scotland, and that it is utterly irresponsible for any unionist to argue that a vote to leave the European Union would justify a second referendum when the Baroness Buscombe (Con): Will my noble friend vast majority of people in Scotland regard this matter accept that care delivered to the home relies to a large as now settled? extent on the private sector, and that more and more companies in the private sector that have been delivering Lord Dunlop: I very much agree with my noble this care are now finding it completely unviable to friend. The people of Scotland voted very clearly and continue? In that case, as the noble Baroness who decisively in 2014 to remain part of the United Kingdom, asked the Question in the first place has suggested, it and at the time Nicola Sturgeon, now First Minister of will create much more pressure on the already very Scotland, said that this was a “once in a generation” stretched NHS. issue. It is incumbent on the SNP to respect the decision that the people of Scotland took and to focus Viscount Younger of Leckie: My noble friend makes on jobs, prosperity and high-quality public services in an important point. It is true that we are very aware of Scotland. the increased need over the coming years, not just the next five but the next 20 or 30, to look after our older Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD): The Scotland Act transfers people. One of the issues is to aim to allow people to very considerable income tax powers across all bands live independently and a lot of resources are going to the Scottish Parliament. Is the noble Lord aware into helping with that, which takes some of the pressure that the Scottish National Party has now abandoned off the NHS. its long-held policy to restore the 50p additional rate because it anticipates that 7% of additional ratepayers in Scotland would configure their tax affairs to avoid Scotland Act 2016 paying taxation in Scotland? What are the Government Question doing to ensure that there is no prospect of tax avoidance within the UK? 3.14 pm Lord Dunlop: HMRCis very focused on tax avoidance. Asked by Lord Steel of Aikwood The passage of the Scotland Act 2016 has meant that the debate that is going on for the Holyrood elections To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps is about not what new powers should come to Scotland they have taken to co-ordinate the implementation but how those powers are used. Tax is absolutely of theScotlandAct2016withtheScottishGovernment. central to that, and that is a good and healthydevelopment of the debate in Scotland. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Lord Dunlop) (Con): The joint ministerial working Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab): My Lords, group on welfare and the Joint Exchequer Committee does the Minister agree that the existence of this latest will oversee the implementation of welfare and tax Scotland Act, which devolves significant further powers powers, and a cross-Whitehall programme board has to Scotland and therefore fundamentally changes much been established to oversee implementation of the of the governance of Britain, should instigate a serious Scotland Act. Senior officials from the Scottish and review of the way in which central government governs UK Governments meet regularly to identify and resolve the whole country—the four nations of this country? issues and, building on the successful implementation Perhaps in particular the future of the territorial Secretaries of the 2012 Act, I am confident that both Governments of State should be looked at seriously, as surely now, will work constructively together to implement these with these further devolved powers, they have become historic new powers. even more obsolete. 623 Scotland Act 2016 [20 APRIL 2016] Overseas Territories Registration 624

Lord Dunlop: The territorial Secretaries of State are Council about moves towards greater transparency a very powerful voice and effective representatives for of beneficial ownership for companies registered the home nations of the UK at the heart of the UK within their jurisdiction, in the light of the United Government. They should continue to be so. Kingdom’s chairmanship of the International Anticorruption Summit in May 2016. Lord McAvoy (Lab): My Lords, I welcome the reiteration by the Minister of the administrative The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth organisations and committees that have been set up to Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con): My Lords, monitor how we proceed with the consequences of the the Government have had extensive technical discussions Scotland Act. Before the passage of the Scotland Act, with overseas territory leaders and officials to help a great deal of concern was raised across the House them develop a timely, safe and secure process of about the implementation of devolution. Quite rightly, exchange of company beneficial ownership information the process which dealt with the fiscal framework was for law enforcement purposes. My right honourable confidential. However, would the Minister agree that friend the Prime Minister informed the other place on some more transparency in the future deliberations of 11 April that we had reached agreement to provide how the Scotland Act was processed would be useful? UK law enforcement agencies and tax authorities with full access to company beneficial ownership information Lord Dunlop: There are regular reports to Parliament held in the territories. on different aspects of the devolution settlement, and we will always look at how these can be improved. We Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD): No doubt the Minister have undertaken to make annual reports to this House will recall that in 2013 the Prime Minister called for and to Parliament on the general operation of the public registers of beneficial ownership from our overseas fiscal framework, and that is very positive. territories. Can she explain to us what British sovereignty Lord Sanderson of Bowden (Con): Following on means in relation to the overseas territories, which from the last question, when does my noble friend benefit from being under British law and protection, expect to see the first report, post this Act, from the when they have refused to accept the Prime Minister’s Scottish Fiscal Commission on the projections for proposal and we are told that some actually refused to Scotland over the next year or two? meet Treasury Ministers last December when they were over here for the overseas territories conference? Lord Dunlop: I am not sure I can give a specific date Does the Minister recognise that this is a question not for when the first report from that commission will be just of tax but of money laundering? Substantial forthcoming but I am happy to write to my noble properties in the UK, including in London, are owned friend with further information on that. through shell companies by dubious men and dubious countries that have earned their money by dubious Lord Grocott (Lab): Has the Minister noticed that means. the Government in Scotland are not keen on laws being made in Westminster, which the Government in Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, this Scotland consider too remote, but are very enthusiastic Government are leading the way in ensuring that there about laws being made in Brussels? Does he agree is transparency in tax matters internationally. We often that, although very many clever people may be running find ourselves leading but not necessarily having the the SNP, they are not very good at geography? support of all those around the world. The overseas territories are indeed separate jurisdictions with their Lord Dunlop: They are not very good at geography own democratically elected Governments, under which and I do not think that consistency is always a strong they are responsible for financial matters. We have point with them either. worked in partnership with them on this matter and Lord Selkirk of Douglas (Con): My Lords, can the have made great progress on having central registers of Minister confirm that with the increased responsibility beneficial ownership. When my right honourable friend will go increased accountability? That must not be the Chancellor of the Exchequer met the G5 in the forgotten. United States last week, he made it clear that further reforms can be made in the future. So this is a work in Lord Dunlop: At the heart of the Scotland Act 2016 progress for everybody, but let us recognise the great is the transfer of responsibility to the Scottish Parliament, strides already made by the overseas territories. along with greater accountability, so the Scottish Parliament, which has always had great powers to Lord Rooker (Lab): My Lords— spend money, now has responsibility for determining how that money is raised. Lord Naseby (Con): My Lords— Companies: Overseas Territories The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) Registration (Con): My Lords, I am going to sit down and I suggest that somebody gives way. Question 3.21 pm Lord Rooker: I am grateful. The Prime Minister deserves substantial credit for the actions taken so far, Asked by Lord Wallace of Saltaire but why are only UK law enforcement authorities To ask Her Majesty’s Government what further involved in this? What is the problem with our partners? discussions they have had with Overseas Territories Some weeks ago I went on the first kleptocracy tour in since last year’s Overseas Territories Joint Ministerial London to view the properties bought with laundered 625 Overseas Territories Registration [LORDS] Strathclyde Review 626

[LORD ROOKER] assist with prosecutions, either in the civil courts or stolen money through our overseas territories. Our criminal courts, on matters such as evasion or aggressive partners in the EU have as much of an interest in tax avoidance. That is a wider issue, but the right finding out who the beneficial owners are as we have, reverend Prelate is right to say that it is one that we so why is access to this information restricted to UK ought to be pursuing. law enforcement authorities? Gibraltar and Montserrat are opening up their registers to the rest of the EU, so Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab): Wecertainly congratulate why can we not go a bit further than that? Even if we the Government on the progress made thus far, but cannot allow journalists and other interested bodies does the Minister accept that unless company ownership access to this information, surely the law enforcement is made public and accessible there is no way in which authorities of other, friendly partner countries should our Government will be able to monitor compliance? have access to those registers. It is quite clear that our overseas territories are the primary base for a very great deal of corruption Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, clearly, and money laundering, and it is quite clear that we there is progress to be made on that very point. My need to act. right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote to the G20 members last week with regard to the Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I have to G5 initiative on the automatic exchange of beneficial take the noble Lord a little to task here. It is the case ownership information, exactly in line with what the that where there is a central register of beneficial noble Lord proposes. The initiative is still very new, ownership, the National Crime Agency and the tax but we are going to start discussion with the overseas authorities—which are of course operations of this territories and Crown dependencies shortly and I hope Government—are able to gain access to the very that our EU partners will take note. information that the noble Lord specified. I gently remind him that in taking a lead on these matters since Lord Naseby: Since it is an international conference 2010, in the coalition Government and now, we have and we are in the chair, will the UK Government be done more than the Labour Government even attempted pressing the US to explain and to rectify the situation to do in 13 years. where the states of Delaware, Nevada and Wyoming allow no transparency of information on any subject, Lord Howell of Guildford (Con): My Lords— to the detriment of our overseas territories? Undoubtedly, if that continues, we will see a loss of business from Baroness Northover (LD): My Lords, as the Minister our overseas territories to those three US states. clearly— Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, we will be pressing all those who attend the conference to pursue Baroness Stowell of Beeston: My Lords— greater transparency. We have made it clear that the global gold standard ought to be public, central registers Noble Lords: Time. of beneficial ownership. We will say that to our great friends and to those who are not perhaps such close Strathclyde Review friends but will be there and will, I hope, be our close Question friends by the end. 3.29 pm Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB): I declare an interest as a non-exec of the Open Data Institute. Is the Asked by Lord Tyler Minister aware of the work of the Open Data Institute To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they and many of the interesting not-for-profit start-ups will support the establishment of a Joint Committee working in the open data space specifically on this to consider the recommendations of the Secondary issue? I point to one, as an example: OpenCorporates. Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the Constitution I urge the Minister to keep using open data as one of Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory the major levers in this transparency piece. Reform Committee on the Strathclyde Review (Cm 9177). Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I agree entirely with the view that the noble Baroness expressed. The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con): My Lords, you get me either way. The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: My Lords, while I acknowledge the good work done by the Government We are considering the three reports carefully, one recently on this, does the Minister agree that public of which was published less than a week ago. We are transparency is important not only in the fight against doing so alongside consideration of the recommendations corruption but as a very significant moral issue? Does in my noble friend Lord Strathclyde’s review, on which she agree that it is the duty of all Governments, the three reports are based. We will respond to those including those of overseas territories, to work towards reports and my noble friend’s review in due course. public transparency? Lord Tyler (LD): My Lords, does the Leader of the Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The right reverend House now recognise, as do the three reports, that to a Prelate is right: it is a moral matter. A very wide debate considerable extent the Strathclyde review was based should be held on whether or not there is transparency on a false premise? Weare not in this House challenging, only in cases where there is a revelation that might “the decisive role of the … House of Commons”; 627 Strathclyde Review [20 APRIL 2016] Border Force Budget 2016-17 628 what we are doing is seeking more effective scrutiny of Baroness Stowell of Beeston: Yes, I most definitely Governments’ secondary legislation by both Houses will. My noble friend put forward three options and of Parliament. Surely the right way to examine the recommended one, but what is important for us all to range of options for Parliament is for both Houses reflect on, as I have said, is that this House has a vital together, MPs and Peers, to do so in a Joint Select role in scrutinising legislation. That must be maintained Committee. Is the Leader of the House now listening in a way that protects our legitimacy and that gives the to these three important committees of your Lordships’ House of Commons the final say. House, or is she simply listening to No. 10? Lord Cunningham of Felling (Lab): My Lords, as Baroness Stowell of Beeston: My Lords, one thing the Leader of the House well knows, the three separate that I know that we all agree on, from the many committees of this House comprehensively and conversations I have had with noble Lords from around unanimously rejected the totality of the proposals this House, is that we must protect this House’s role as made in the Strathclyde report. If the House does not an effective revising Chamber that holds the Government recognise that, the committees have wasted their time. to account. I understand some of the points that the I do not believe that they have. They are very thorough noble Lord makes, along with those that have been reports.The committees took evidence in public, published made by some of the committees of this House, and I that evidence and made sure that the whole House will reflect on all the things that have been put forward. knew who they had spoken to—more than 30 Members I think that it is premature for us to commission of your Lordships’ House were involved in that work. another review before the Government have responded That contrasts with one person, a former Cabinet to the review that they commissioned from my noble Minister of the present Administration, meeting people friend Lord Strathclyde. I need to be clear to the in secret, not publishing any evidence, but publishing House that the Government are seeking something his report. There is legitimately in democratic terms which is in the interest not just of the Government but no comparison between those exercises. The whole of Parliament as a whole; that is, that the elected House should recognise that. Will the Leader of the House has the final say on all legislation. House at least guarantee that the House will have the opportunity to debate these three reports and their Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab): My Lords, yet recommendations and conclusions before any more again, the noble Baroness seems to misunderstand hasty, erratic decisions are made by the Government how statutory instruments operate. They are not a about the powers of your Lordships’ House? matter between the House of Commons and the House of Lords but a matter between the Executive and Baroness Stowell of Beeston: My Lords, the Parliament. This issue strikes fundamentally at the Government have not reached a decision yet, so we very heart of what this House does. We have a have not been operating in haste. I say to the noble responsibility to scrutinise not just primary but secondary Lord and to the House as a whole that we currently legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has already lack agreement among us about how we can achieve pointed out that all three of these Select Committees clarity about how we consider secondary legislation in of your Lordships’ House, all chaired by government this House. We need to be in a position where we can party Peers, have totally rejected all the Strathclyde do our work with clarity, maintain our vital scrutiny options. The noble Baroness says that she will reflect role and have the power to reject secondary legislation. on the reports and come back to the House “in due My noble friend Lord Strathclyde’srecommended option course”. Can I ask her to take her time in reflecting on would retain this House’s power to reject secondary the information in those reports—they bear weight legislation. and are very interesting—but then, in the next Session of Parliament, provide time for debate? However, if Border Force Budget 2016-17 the speculation about legislation to enforce Strathclyde Statement is true, will she give an undertaking today for an early debate prior to the Queen’s Speech? 3.37 pm Baroness Stowell of Beeston: My Lords, as I have TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department already said, the Government are considering carefully forTransportandHomeOffice(LordAhmadof Wimbledon) all the options that are in my noble friend Lord (Con): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall Strathclyde’s review. We will take account of what has repeat as a Statement the response to an Urgent Question been included in the reports of the various Select given in the other place by my right honourable friend Committees of this House. When we reach a decision, the Home Secretary on the Border Force budget for we will publish our response, but we have not yet 2016-17. The Statement is as follows. reached our decision. “Mr Speaker, the first priority of government is the safety and security of its citizens. The Government Lord Wakeham (Con): My Lords, my noble friend is have always made the integrity of the UK border a absolutely right to reflect on these reports, but I hope priority and we will never compromise on keeping the that she will bear in mind that the proposals of the people of this country safe from terrorism, criminality noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, were to make sure that and illegal immigration. secondary legislation was dealt with more democratically My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the in Parliament as a whole. Will she therefore take very Exchequer will publish the Treasury main supply estimates good note in her considerations of what the noble in just over an hour’s time, setting out estimated Lord said? budget allocations for the whole of government, including 629 Border Force Budget 2016-17[LORDS] Border Force Budget 2016-17 630

[LORD AHMAD OF WIMBLEDON] 3.41 pm Border Force, for the 2016-17 financial year. In advance Lord Rosser (Lab): I thank the Minister for repeating of those figures being laid in the House Library, I can the Statement made in response to an Urgent Question inform the House that these estimates will show the asked in the House of Commons. The Answer now indicative budget for Border Force is £558.1 million in confirms that the revenue budget for the Border Force 2016-17, a 0.4% reduction in the overall resource for 2016-17 is some 10% less than it was in 2012-13, spending compared with the 2015-16 supplementary which no doubt explains in part why the Government estimate. At the same time, we will increase capital are not in control of our borders. If they still maintain spending at the border by just over 70%, from £40.1 million that they are in control of our borders, can the noble in 2015-16 to an estimated £68.3 million in 2016-17. Lord say whether 100% checks are made on every This means that Border Force spending is to all lorry entering this country? I await to see whether he intents and purposes protected compared with 2015-16, can give a more direct answer to that question than his with increased capital investment to improve the right honourable friend the Home Secretary managed technology at the border to improve security and in the Commons earlier today. intelligence and strengthen control. Over the next four Finally, in a letter published in the Daily Telegraph years, we will invest £130 million in state-of-the-art today from, to use the words of that newspaper, the technology at the border. country’s most senior security experts—who include two Members of this House—there is a reference to Since I became Home Secretary six years ago, we the need better to secure this country’s borders followed have pursued an ambitious programme of reform at by a call for the Government to review security at our the border to keep this country safe.In the last Parliament, borders. Will the Government now agree to undertake we abolished the dysfunctional UK Border Agency, the review called for in the letter? set up under the last Labour Government, and made Border Force directly accountable to Ministers within Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, as I have the Home Office. Since then, Border Force has already alluded to, border security has been enhanced transformed its working practices, command and and Border Force continues to perform 100% checks control, and leadership. We have invested in new on scheduled passengers. As for lorries, we perform technology like e-gates at airports and heartbeat rigorous border checks on scheduled arrivals. The monitors at freight ports to improve security, prevent noble Lord mentioned specifically a letter that has illegal entry to the UK, benefit passengers and deliver been written today and the steps that the Government efficiencies. have taken. I am sure that if he reflects on the changes that have been made—apart from the creation of, as I At the same time, I have worked closely with my said, a more flexible Border Force, which has allowed French counterpart, Bernard Cazeneuve, to secure us to address the challenges and needs across the the juxtaposed controls in Calais and Coquelles, country as a whole—we have seen various programmes reduce the number of migrants attempting to reach which have delivered incremental improvements to the UK, and safeguard UK drivers and hauliers travelling e-Borders vision, such as the Schengen information through those ports. We have developed a robust, system, the warnings index on migration and improved intelligence-led approach to organised crime at the exit checks. We continue to work very closely with our border,working closely with the National Crime Agency European partners across the board to ensure that we we established in 2012. We have supported greater protect not only our borders but borders across the collaboration between counterterrorism police and Border European Union from threats based around security Force, while increasing counterterrorism budgets to and terrorism. prevent foreign fighters returning and dangerous terrorists travelling to the UK. Lord Paddick (LD): My Lords, while handbags at These reforms are working. Border security has dawn over the Border Force budget between the chair been enhanced. Border Force continues to perform of the Commons Home Affairs Committee and the 100% checks on scheduled passengers arriving in the Home Secretary might be entertaining, the crucial United Kingdom. Where passengers are deemed a question must be whether Border Force has and will threat to public safety, we can and do exclude them continue to have the resources it needs to safeguard from the UK. In total, 99,020 people have been refused UK borders from threats of foreign terrorism and entry to the UK since 2010. We are also disrupting illegal immigration, bearing in mind that the Home more organised crime at the UK border than ever Secretary has now confirmed that the budget for the before. In the past year, Border Force has seized nearly Border Force is decreasing while it would appear that eight tonnes of class A drugs, more than two and a the threats are increasing. half times as much as in 2009-10. Meanwhile, legitimate passengers and hauliers of goods continue to be provided Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I agree with with excellent levels of service. the second part of the noble Lord’s statement: as the challenges and threats are increasing we need to respond The Government remain committed to making further accordingly. As I alluded to in the Statement—perhaps investments where necessary to exploit new technology it is important to repeat it—one of the steps the and strengthen controls. In doing so, Border Force Government are taking in the Home Office is investing will grow more efficient year on year while improving a further £130 million in the technology around our security for the safety of citizens, businesses and the borders to ensure that we meet the enhanced and country as a whole”. ever-evolving threat that faces the United Kingdom. 631 Border Force Budget 2016-17[20 APRIL 2016] Border Force Budget 2016-17 632

Lord Jopling (Con): My Lords, will the Minister Border Force, how many will it fall to next year, and explain why at some airports passports of people how that compares with the recommendation by the leaving this country are examined and recorded, whereas noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, in the at others no check whatever is made? Is this because of report commissioned by David Cameron a few years a shortage of resources? ago that there should be 30,000 officers?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: As my noble friend will Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I will not go know, it was this Government who reintroduced exit into specific numbers of officers, but as I have already checks last year. He is right to point out that we said and say again to the noble Lord, through the introduced these checks in particular in larger ports. If creation of the Border Force we have ensured greater there are specific airports he is concerned about I will flexibility of all Border Force staff to ensure that, be happy to discuss them with him afterwards and wherever the shortages are—as we found last summer write to him accordingly. when there were challenges from the situation in Calais— the challenges and needs are met by ensuring that Lord West of Spithead (Lab): My Lords, our coastline there are sufficient staff in whatever port, be it maritime outside the major ports is highly vulnerable. Will the or airports. Minister confirm that, since we have sent coast guard cutters to the Mediterranean, and because of defects, Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the noble Lord has told we have only two coast guard cutters to look after our us what is—or, rather, what is not—being done at sea coastline from the Tyne round to Cornwall and that to protect our borders. What is being done on land to we have now cancelled the airborne surveillance intercept illegal entry via our beaches and unmanned programme, which indicated targets of interest, such airfields in various places in the country? as illegals coming into the country, to those cutters? If that is the case, we are in a very parlous state. Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: I remind my noble Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I am sure friend that, as I have already said, the Border Force that the noble Lord will appreciate that I cannot go works very closely with all agencies, including the into the details of the operations of the Border Force police and the National Crime Agency. This ensures and the cutters being deployed, but I assure him that that we have a robust approach, with joined-up thinking there is sufficient capability and funding in place. and sharing of intelligence. Of course, we work with Border Force maintains a presence in UK waters. We our European partners to ensure that, where there are work in close partnership in ensuring secure borders any concerns on access and illegal entry to the United with the Royal Navy and the National Crime Agency, Kingdom, be it by water or air, we meet that challenge among others. robustly. The message must be clear that our borders are robust: we will prevent those who seek to enter Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP): My Lords, given illegally, including those who seek to spread terror in that the recent pamphlet of government propaganda, this country or elsewhere in Europe. Together, through which cost £9.2 million and went to every household sharing of intelligence, we are facing that challenge in the land, claimed that we have kept control of our head-on. borders, will the noble Lord tell us whether we can prevent EU nationals entering the United Kingdom? Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab): My Lords, the How many have done so in the last five years, and how Minister has twice refused to answer a direct question many do the Government anticipate will do so in the this afternoon. He said that he cannot comment on next five years? matters of how the department works. He also said that he cannot tell us how many people are employed. Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My right honourable Neither of those things can be state secrets. How many friend the Prime Minister made clear when he announced officers are in fact employed? the EU referendum that there would be a clear government position. There is, which is the belief that I know is Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, the issue shared by many across your Lordships’ House that the that I said I could not reply to specifically was the United Kingdom’s place is within the European Union. issue of our coastal waters, their protection and the On the question of entry by EU nationals, while there operational capacity there. I am sure that the noble are border controls in place in the United Kingdom, Lord, when he reflects on that, will see that it is part of our agreement with the European Union is to important that we retain the sanctity of ensuring our ensure that, while EU nationals visit and work in this operational capability. After all, otherwise, we are country,they,like all citizens, including United Kingdom opening that up to open transparency for anyone who citizens returning from abroad, go through diligent is seeking to influence and get into the UK. We need checks at passport control to ensure that we protect to ensure that we meet the challenge of illegal immigration. our borders from criminals and terrorists who may The noble Lord asked for specific numbers. As I have seek to permeate those borders. said, the Statement which I have repeated on behalf of the Home Secretary acknowledged that there is a Lord Swinfen (Con): My Lords— reduction in the resource budget of 0.4%. That will result in our ensuring that wherever shortages are met Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab): My Lords, it is this there is flexibility in the workforce. I do not think that side I think—the noble Lord is not our side. Will the I was avoiding the question; I just said that I am not Minister tell us how many officers there are in the going to get specifically into the numbers game. 633 Housing and Planning Bill [LORDS] Housing and Planning Bill 634

Housing and Planning Bill hot water and the general convenience of getting in Report (4th Day) and out. Security doors are left open. Councils and landlords have no control over them whatever, unless 3.51 pm they can prove that these people exist. Unless, therefore, the council has some idea of who is in occupation or Relevant documents: 20th, 21st, 26th, 27th and has the right to investigate if there is a question raised 28th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee by other people, there really is no way of dealing with TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department it. Amendments 98 and 99 are designed to deal with forCommunitiesandLocalGovernment(BaronessWilliams these problems. I beg to move. of Trafford) (Con): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill now be further considered on Report, and I hope that noble Lords will indulge me in welcoming my Baroness Grender (LD): My Lords, on behalf of noble friend Lady Hanham back to her place. these Benches, I support Amendments 98 and 99 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. We are all familiar with some of the hair-raising Amendment 98 examples of how many people have been found in Moved by Baroness Gardner of Parkes some raided properties. Recently, in Newham, seven people were found in a windowless basement. Overall, 98: After Clause 118, insert the following new Clause— there were 26 people in that three-bedroom house. In “Overcrowding in shared residential buildings another recent raid, 47 people were found in a property (1) Local authorities may set limits for the number of intended for nine. This level of overcrowding goes residents that may lawfully reside in each rented property in a shared residential building. beyond any notion of civilised accommodation. Issues such as affordability, illegal lettings, economic migrants (2) Local authorities may set limits under subsection (1) for each relevant rented property whenever the contract for and particularly the acute property issue in London all renting the property changes at any point after the day impact on these kinds of properties. That is why we on on which this section is brought into effect. these Benches support the amendments. (3) If a complaint is made to a local authority about When I worked for Shelter in 1985, we campaigned overcrowding in a rented property for which a limit has hard for the Housing Act, which covered some of this been set under subsection (1), the local authority may area. But clearly we now need to update the legislation, investigate whether the limit is being exceeded and, if so, in particular because, even if the percentage of order the landlord of the property to take action to end the overcrowding. overcrowded accommodation has stayed reasonably static, the net amount is increasing because the private (4) Where the local authority orders a landlord to take action under subsection (3), the local authority may rented sector is increasing, and as the private rented charge the landlord a fee to cover the reasonable costs of sector grows, this becomes more of a problem. For the investigation and action undertaken by the local those reasons we support the noble Baroness’s authority.” amendments. Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con): My Lords, while the House is reorganising itself, I, too, would like to Lord Beecham (Lab): My Lords, I join others in welcome my noble friend Lady Hanham back. She has welcoming the return of the noble Baroness, Lady done much in this field over the years and we have Hanham, my old sparring partner in local government. appreciated it. I also remind the House that my interest Perhaps I should rephrase that and say “my long-standing is declared in the register. sparring partner”. It is so good to see her back looking so well. We very much look forward to hearing her My amendments are fairly straightforward and should contribute, preferably being somewhat more critical of not require too much elaboration. They attempt to the Government she supports than she was constrained restore some of the properties, conveniences and to be in previous years. It is so good to see her back. protections that were exercised by local authorities before the Deregulation Act. That Act deregulated at In that vein, the Opposition are very sympathetic to a time when New York and Paris were regulating. We the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady lost all control of who was living anywhere, as a Gardner of Parkes. We hope that the Government will council or an authority power. I think that it is very look sympathetically upon them. I cannot see any important, particularly at this time, in two respects. great difficulty in them so doing. It would be reassuring The first is where rogue landlords are filling substandard to hear from the Minister that the Government are as properties, with people crammed in—I am told that inclined to pursue this issue as they kindly indicated three-tier bunks are being used and £70 per night is they would do in regard to property guardians—an being charged. I would not swear that it is £70 per issue that I raised. The Government have undertaken night; that is hearsay or press report and I have no idea to look into that problem. I hope that they will go a bit of what is really being charged. But whatever it is, it is further and either accept the amendment as drafted or too much for a property where there are no facilities come back at Third Reading with different wording and no possibility of people living a normal life. that achieves the same objective—because I think that the objective is widely shared across the House. That is one group of people. The other group is people concerned with holiday lets. I have explained in the past that I know of these personally, in a block The Earl of Listowel (CB): My Lords, I remind the where I have a flat. Ten people are flown in under the House that often we are talking about families. Some Airbnb banner for a one-bedroom flat, and those time ago, I accompanied a health visitor to a property 10 people take over so many of the facilities, including in Waltham Forest. Five families were sharing a kitchen 635 Housing and Planning Bill [20 APRIL 2016] Housing and Planning Bill 636 and bathroom facilities. Perhaps the property was not offence to contravene a prohibition order. Earlier this so overcrowded but it was very insalubrious as they month, a landlord operating an HMO in Waltham were all sharing those facilities. The front door was Forest was fined £7,000, plus costs of £3,466, for wide open when we walked in. We visited a mother failing to comply with licensing conditions by allowing whose child was three or four weeks old. The mother tenants to live in overcrowded and poor living conditions. was very isolated and desperate. So I remind your The prosecution means that the landlord will now not Lordships that we are also talking about families when be able to have direct control over the property. we talk about these people. Under Section 49 of the Housing Act 2004, local authorities can already recover administrative and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con): I again thank other expenses incurred by them in making a prohibition my noble friend Lady Gardner for her amendments, order. Noble Lords have argued that local authorities which seek to address overcrowding and unlawful have limited resources to carry out inspections and subletting in flats in residential blocks. She set out the take forward prosecutions. Through the new civil penalty case and the problems caused by overcrowding, as, measures outlined in the Bill, the ability of local indeed, did other noble Lords who contributed to the authorities to enforce these measures will be strengthened debate. Overcrowding is far more than just unpleasant; as they will be able to retain penalties of up to £30,000 it is dangerous, and, as we have heard, has impacts on to use for housing-related activities. I entirely agree those living in unsatisfactory conditions and the that overcrowded flats can cause problems for other neighbours around them. I hope, therefore, that I can residents of the block, but local authorities and reassure noble Lords that this is a matter we take managers of the block have the powers to address seriously and that both local authorities and managers them. We believe that the measures provided for in of residential blocks already have strong powers to the Bill in terms of levying stronger civil penalties tackle overcrowding and associated problems. will support their ability to take enforcement action. Part X of the Housing Act 1985 deals with statutory My noble friend’s amendment would enable local overcrowding, which it defines by reference to a room authorities to set standards in individual cases in standard and a space standard. If either of these is addition to these national standards and systems. While contravened, an occupier or landlord may be guilty of I understand her motivation I fear that, by duplicating an offence.The noble Baroness, Lady Grender,mentioned existing powers, it would simply cause confusion and the recent raid in Newham. Last month, a landlord uncertainty. pleaded guilty in Norwich magistrates’ court to four On Amendment 99, I reassure my noble friend that charges relating to overcrowding. The charges, which a freeholder and manager of a block of flats already included failing to license a house in multiple occupation has powers to investigate compliance with the terms of and failing to provide adequate fire precautions to a long lease, such as whether a flat has been sublet in protect the occupiers of the HMO from injury, resulted contravention of the terms of the lease. Of course, in fines totalling £5,250, plus costs of £4,951 and a many—though not all—long leases permit subletting. £120 victim surcharge. An investigation by Norwich The lease may specify such matters as the need to seek City Council’s private sector housing team found 12 men approval to sublet, a requirement to register the subletting crowded into the three-bedroom property, with several with the landlord, the duration and nature of the people sleeping in a partially adapted loft space with subletting and restrictions on the persons to whom the no window. Action is obviously being taken; these flat can or cannot be sublet. Many leases will require examples show that local authorities have powers to the flat to be occupied only by a family unit in single act and are using them. occupancy. A long leaseholder who sublets in breach of the terms of the lease would risk having the lease 4 pm forfeited. Where subletting is permitted, the long My noble friend and no doubt other noble Lords leaseholder remains responsible for complying with are aware that Clause 118, dealing with the contravention the terms of their own lease and is, therefore, liable if of an overcrowding notice for an HMO under Section 139 their sub-tenants breach any covenants, such as those of the Housing Act 2004, would take the level of fine that address noise or use of the flat. The long leaseholder to unlimited, removing the restriction on the fine that would, again, risk forfeiting the lease if the terms were may be imposed. This will also bring it into line with not complied with. the fines for many other Housing Act 2004 offences My noble friend also raised concerns about the that are already unlimited. lack of regulation caused through overcrowding by Local housing authorities can use their existing letting through companies such as Airbnb. Airbnb is powers to gain entry to a dwelling to measure rooms not a landlord; it is simply an agent, a matching to work out the permitted number of people. They service that helps those who want to let their homes also have powers to require information about the on a short-term basis to advertise availability to number of people sleeping in a dwelling and to inspect, those looking for accommodation. It is one of many report and prepare proposals on overcrowding generally companies offering such services and reflects the in all or part of a district. As we have explained growing interest in the sharing economy and the previously, where a local authority considers that a demands of today’s digital age. The law is very clear property is dangerously overcrowded—a category 1 that where a property owner has responsibilities to hazard—it has a duty to act. That might include their landlord or neighbours—for example, under the serving a prohibition order on the dwelling under terms of a long lease—they remain responsible even if Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004, thereby limiting the the property is sublet. There is no need, therefore, to number of persons who can occupy it. It is a criminal change the law. In fact, I would again be concerned 637 Housing and Planning Bill [LORDS] Housing and Planning Bill 638

[BARONESS EVANS OF BOWES PARK] Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: Yes, I am happy to that the proposed changes could muddy the water and take that away. make it harder for action to be taken against nuisance neighbours. Baroness Gardner of Parkes: On that basis, I will I hope that my noble friend will be reassured that not press my amendments. the Government take her concerns very seriously but that a strong framework is already in place and local Amendment 98 withdrawn. authorities are taking action to address some of the issues she has raised. With these reassurances, I ask Amendment 99 not moved. that she withdraw her amendment. Amendment 99ZA Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister Moved by Lord Young of Cookham for that detailed answer. I feel that she has not covered 99ZA: After Clause 120, insert the following new Clause— a couple of points. One was that local authorities say “Tenants’ associations: power to request information about that it is impossible for them now to know how long tenants anyone is in the short lettings—the Airbnb-type lettings— After section 29 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 which are available for only so many days in a year. As insert— local authorities have pointed out, how can you possibly “29A Tenants’ associations: power to request information know how many days in the year they are being about tenants occupied in that way if you have no idea who is in (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations impose them? In the past, they had the right to go and check duties on a landlord to provide the secretary of a that. relevant tenants’ association with information There is another point that the Minister has not about relevant qualifying tenants. really covered regarding some local authorities. I would (2) The regulations may— point out the difference between Westminster and, for (a) make provision about the tenants about whom example, Kensington and Chelsea. Westminster used information must be provided and what information to use six full-time agents to go and check which must be provided; people were in a place and for how long—it cannot do (b) require a landlord to seek the consent of a tenant to that any longer. Kensington and Chelsea says that it the provision of information about that tenant; cannot afford to do that. The point covered in my (c) require a landlord to identify how many tenants amendment was that the local authority would be able have not consented. to charge a fee to the landlord for the purpose of (3) The regulations may— going. I would like to be reassured by the Minister that (a) authorise a landlord to charge costs specified in or the Government will look at the regulations as to how determined in accordance with the regulations; that cost can be covered in such a way that local (b) impose time limits on a landlord for the taking of authorities will not be heavily out of pocket if they any steps under the regulations; attempt to do many of the things which, as she (c) make provision about the form or content of any acknowledged, are desirable. If I could have an answer notices under the regulations (including provision permitting or requiring a person to design the form on those points, I would be grateful. of a notice); (d) make other provision as to the procedure in Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: If the landlord is a connection with anything authorised or required by rogue landlord and the local authority is investigating, the regulations. it can recover the costs. (4) The regulations may confer power on a court or tribunal to make an order remedying a failure by a Baroness Gardner of Parkes: That does not really landlord to comply with the regulations. answer the point because I was not talking about a (5) The regulations may include supplementary, rogue landlord; I was talking about people doing incidental, transitional or saving provision. holiday lets and who were therefore time limited on (6) Regulations under this section are to be made by how long those could be. There is no way at present of statutory instrument. checking how that time applies. I am sorry to be (7) A statutory instrument containing regulations complicating life for the Front Bench. under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: As I said, the key Parliament. issue is that where there is overcrowding, particularly (8) In this section— within a flat, it could be considered within that case “relevant tenants’ association”, in relation to a that there was a rogue landlord and, in those cases, landlord, means an association of tenants of the landlord at least one of whom is a qualifying tenant local authorities can recover the costs. of a dwelling in England; “relevant qualifying tenant” means— Baroness Gardner of Parkes: We are going nowhere a person who is a qualifying tenant of a dwelling in on this because I am getting answers to the other half England and a member of the relevant tenants’ of the question and not the half I am asking about. association, or But there is probably genuine good will on the part of a person who is a qualifying tenant of a dwelling in the Government and I therefore ask the Minister to England by virtue of being required to contribute say that they will look at the regulations on this and to the same costs as a qualifying tenant who is a see what can or should be done in the future. member of the relevant tenants’ association; 639 Housing and Planning Bill [20 APRIL 2016] Housing and Planning Bill 640

“qualifying tenant” means a tenant who, under the Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con): My Lords, I terms of the lease, is required to contribute to the hope that I can honour that approach. However, before same costs as another tenant by the payment of a I begin, I will take this opportunity personally to service charge.”” welcome back to her place my noble friend Lady Lord Young of Cookham (Con): My Lords, Hanham. She is a much-valued colleague and has Amendment 99ZA reflects an amendment that I moved been much missed. in Committee. It received general approbation but I I thank my noble friend Lord Young for tabling was advised by my noble friend the Minister to withdraw these amendments, which have clearly generated support it so that it might have cosmetic surgery to make it across the House in this very short debate. I appreciate slightly more attractive. I have now retabled it. In a that we discussed them in Committee, but it is helpful nutshell, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which I to be able to consider them once again today. They think I put on the statute book, allows a tenants’ follow helpful interventions in both Houses, and I take association made up of “qualifying tenants” to seek this opportunity to thank both my noble friend and statutory recognition. Such recognition provides the Sir Peter Bottomley in the other place for raising tenants’ association with additional rights over and awareness of such issues. above those enjoyed by individual leaseholders, including As my noble friend eloquently set out, giving the right to be consulted about the appointment of leaseholders the right to obtain contact information managing agents and to be notified of works proposed for other leaseholders in a shared block from their by the landlord and to receive copies of estimates. landlord, subject to their consent, will help those It has become apparent that tenants’ associations leaseholders fulfil their statutory right to have their are finding it increasingly difficult to attain the number tenants’association recognised. Addressing the irregularity of members they need before they can apply for statutory concerning the inability of courts and tribunals to recognition. This is because of difficulties in contacting restrict recovery of a landlord’s legal costs from absent leaseholders: that is, leaseholders who are not leaseholders as administrative charges where they consider resident in a block—for example, buy-to-let investors. it appropriate will help to address a perceived unfairness The amendment addresses that problem by requiring a in the current system, which I think we can all agree is landlord to supply to the secretary of a tenants’association the right thing to do. In conclusion, I am very happy information which would allow contact to be made to accept my noble friend’s amendments and I hope with absent leaseholders for the purpose of increasing that they will be accepted by the House. the association’s membership and thereby its chances Lord Young of Cookham: I am very grateful to my of obtaining recognition. That needs to be subject to noble friend. the leaseholders’consent to comply with data protection. Amendment 99A seeks to address an irregularity Amendment 99ZA agreed. concerning consideration of the recovery of a landlord’s costs from leaseholders as administrative charges. As Amendment 99A noble Lords heard in Committee, at present, where a lease allows a landlord to recover the costs of legal Moved by Lord Young of Cookham proceedings through the service charge, a court or 99A: After Clause 120, insert the following new Clause— tribunal can decide to restrict the amount that can be “Limitation of administration charges: costs of proceedings recovered in that way. Courts or tribunals do not have In Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform similar powers where recovery of the costs of proceedings Act 2002 (administration charges), after paragraph 5 as an administrative charge is permitted by the lease. insert— This can lead to unfairness, as the leaseholder will “Limitation of administration charges: costs of proceedings have no choice but to pay the cost of proceedings as an 5A_(1) A tenant of a dwelling in England may apply to administration charge, regardless of the proceedings. the relevant court or tribunal for an order reducing Arguably, this discourages leaseholders from exercising or extinguishing the tenant’s liability to pay a particular administration charge in respect of their right to challenge the amount of a service charge, litigation costs. particularly as landlords’ costs in those proceedings _(2) The relevant court or tribunal may make whatever could well exceed the amount in dispute. order on the application it considers to be just and The amendment would enable the tribunal or court equitable. to consider, on application, whether it is reasonable _(3) In this paragraph— for a landlord to recover all or part of the costs. That (a) “litigation costs” means costs incurred, or to be is not to say that a landlord should not be able to incurred, by the landlord in connection with recover the costs, but, rather, that the tribunal or court proceedings of a kind mentioned in the table, and should be able to consider whether it is reasonable for (b) “the relevant court or tribunal” means the court or them to do so. I am sure that noble Lords will agree tribunal mentioned in the table in relation to those that such an irregularity should be corrected. proceedings. Amendment 138B simply brings these two amendments into force. I beg to move. Proceedings to which costs relate “The relevant court or tribunal” Court proceedings The court before which the Lord Beecham: My Lords, we on the Opposition proceedings are taking place or, Benches entirely endorse the proposals made by the if the application is made after noble Lord, congratulate him on securing agreement the proceedings are concluded, from the Government and look forward to this debate the county court ending very quickly. First-tier Tribunal proceedings The First-tier Tribunal 641 Housing and Planning Bill [LORDS] Housing and Planning Bill 642

Proceedings to which costs relate “The relevant court or tribunal” that even if the letting agent disappeared or went bankrupt, such money would be safe and available to Upper Tribunal proceedings The Upper Tribunal the landlord. Arbitration proceedings The arbitral tribunal or, if the Such money is not the agent’s money and, as with application is made after the proceedings are concluded, the clients’ money handled by solicitors and others, should county court.” be held separately in a protected client account. We sought to introduce this requirement into the Consumer Rights Bill, at which point the Government heard—and, Amendment 99A agreed. I think, had some sympathy with—the case, but the requirement was only for every letting agent to display whether or not they had such client money protection. Amendment 99B Our view is that this hardly works for landlords, who Moved by Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town usually take the biggest hit when such money disappears. 99B: After Clause 121, insert the following new Clause— As my sister, herself a typical landlord with three units, said, it never occurred to her to ask her agent “Power to require property agents to join client money protection schemes whether he had client money protection. It cannot help tenants who have to pay their rent to whichever (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations require a property agent to be a member of— agent the landlord nominates, even if it is clear that their money is not protected. (a) a client money protection scheme approved by the Secretary of State for the purpose of the regulations, or 4.15 pm (b) a government administered client money protection Since tabling Amendment 100, requiring such funds scheme that is designated by the Secretary of State to be in a segregated, ring-fenced client account, we for the purpose of the regulations. have had constructive discussions with the Minister (2) The regulations may impose requirements about the and her colleague in the Commons, Brandon Lewis, nature of the membership that a property agent must obtain (for example, by requiring a property agent to whose willingness to hear our arguments, and those of obtain membership that results in a particular level of tenants, good letting agents, and landlords, has led to compensation being available). our new, manuscript amendments, tabled today in the (3) The regulations shall— names of myself and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of (a) require a property agent to obtain a certificate Childs Hill. These amendments allow for regulations confirming the property agent’s membership of the which would provide exactly what we have been scheme; recommending, and we understand that the Government (b) require the property agent to display or publish the are willing to accept the amendments—for which we certificate in accordance with the regulations; owe thanks also to the Bill team and their colleagues (c) require the property agent to produce a copy of the for such brilliant and very speedy drafting. Our civil certificate, on request, in accordance with the servants have again demonstrated their amazing flexibility regulations. and expertise. (4) In this section— We also understand that the Government are to “client money protection scheme” means a scheme review the current transparency rules and, if the evidence which enables a person on whose behalf a property indicates that they have failed in the Government’s agent holds money to be compensated if all or part intent, will bring forward the regulations allowed for of that money is not repaid in circumstances in in these new amendments. The amendments will be which the scheme applies; welcomed by tenants, landlords, reliable agents and, I “government administered client money protection believe, by the House. I beg to move. scheme” means a client money protection scheme that is administered by or on behalf of the Secretary of State; The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bichard) (CB): My Lords, “property agent” means— given the length of today’s manuscript amendments, I a person who engages in English letting agency work propose that the House dispense with the usual within the meaning of section 52, or requirement to read it out in its entirety, unless any a person who engages in English property management noble Lord objects. work within the meaning of section 53, other than a person who engages in that work in the course of the person’s employment under a Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD): My Lords, I thank contract of employment.” the Deputy Speaker for not reading out the amendment; I have read it so many times that I really feel that I know it by heart. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab): My Lords, Hayter, for working with me on this, as it has been this manuscript amendment is in my name and that of very helpful. I particularly thank the Ministers here the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill. The noble and in the Commons for constructive dialogue, and Lords, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill and Lord Foster, accepting the problems that we were trying to highlight, and my noble friend Lord Kennedy had, together with which have been brought to our attention by the me,tabled Amendment 100 about client money protection lettings industry—tenants, landlords and, indeed, letting to require every letting agent to have money they hold agents. The noble Baroness thanked a lot of people. I belonging either to the tenant by way of advance rent add just one other person to that: the parliamentary or to a landlord as rent received to be protected, so draftsman who ended up with the amendments in 643 Housing and Planning Bill [20 APRIL 2016] Housing and Planning Bill 644 front of us. When I saw the amendment, I thought Lord Foster of Bath (LD): My Lords, I, too, am that it was what it should have said when we did it in pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in the beginning. It says it very well. I think that the her place. I have fond memories of working with her in noble Baroness and I would have liked it to be slightly DCLG. Although my name is on Amendment 100, in firmer in saying that it will happen, but we took the the light of recent developments I rise to support the Ministers’ intention—which I hope this Minister will amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady repeat in the debate—that this is something that they Hayter, and my noble friend Lord Palmer. I particularly want to do and intend to happen. wanted to speak to congratulate both of them on the sterling work they have done in this area and to thank I shall not make a long speech about this, because the members of the ministerial team for being willing we have had much debate in earlier sittings, but I shall to listen to the arguments that have been put. raise one or two points again. Some 80% of the I previously made the case for why mandatory lettings agency sector—these are the figures used by client money protection is needed, and all those who the Minister—have client money protection. The new have spoken have done that very eloquently. We are amendment and the original amendment are for the now aware that the Minister has received letters from a 20% who put tenants and landlords at risk. If a letting large number of industry bodies and letting agencies agent goes bust or goes walkabout in a liquidation, asking for mandatory CMP. It is worth reflecting that tenants’ money held and the rights of landlords and some of those supporting documents make the case tenants are at the bottom of the creditors’ queue in a even more powerfully, with one letting agency saying liquidation or bankruptcy. Client money protection that all it is asking for is provisions similar to those will be mandatory in Wales from November. I am sure that already apply to estate agents, another pointing many noble Lords will say that Wales leads, and under out that tenants and landlords can get a false sense of its new Rent Smart initiative, it certainly does. All security because it is widely assumed that such protection letting agents will be required to apply for a licence already exists across the industry by default and yet and part of the application process is showing that another using the phrase: they have professional indemnity insurance and client money protection insurance and are a member of a “The sector is crying out for proper regulation”. redress scheme. If the Welsh can do it, I am glad to see It is worth reflecting that in another place the that the English are following. Minister, Brandon Lewis, rejected calls for mandatory CMP, saying that it, Perhaps the best way of illustrating the need for this “would be a step too far and would overburden a market that is amendment is by telling horror stories, of which there perfectly capable of self-regulation”.—[Official Report, Commons, are many. This month, it was reported that a company Housing and Planning Bill Committee, 10/12/2015; col. 719.] called Whitefield Properties took rental money due to In Committee in your Lordships’ House, the Minister, landlords and tenants’ deposits over a four-year period. the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, clearly had not The money was paid into the firm’s bank account and been given a new script because he said exactly the was, perhaps carelessly, not protected. It was reported same words. However, now that the industry has said that £123,000 of customers’ money went missing. The with one voice that it wants mandatory CMP and does Staffordshire firm, with branches in Milton, Leek and not think the costs would be too high, I hope that Crewe, went into administration in 2014. If we were when she responds the Minister will have been given a still arguing for this amendment, I would give many new script. more examples to try to make my case. Lord Beecham: I join this parliamentary lovefest A lot of the 20% not-covered agents target vulnerable briefly to join others in congratulating the Minister on groups. As they are vulnerable, they do not satisfy accepting the amendments and to pay tribute to my credit checks, so they cannot give the guarantees that noble friend Lady Hayter; I do not think a doughtier banks would often offer. Agents, generally in the champion of consumer rights could be found anywhere. 20% section, often ask for something like a full year’s This is a very satisfactory conclusion and it enables us rent in advance because the person is not trusted. The to get on to slightly more contentious matters a little person probably borrows the money to get that year’s further down the Marshalled List. rent in advance. History shows that a lot of these large sums of rent in advance go into the agent’s bank account, and even if it is in an account that may Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, I am not internally be called a client account, if it is not recognised entirely sticking to a script. In saying that, though, I as such by the bank, those moneys can, and often are, hope I can reflect the views of the Government accurately. used by the agent for one or purpose or another, very I add my tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, often because the agent is overtrading, spending more and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and of course to the money than it should and using that money. parliamentary draftsmen, who have turned this around so quickly. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord are A law making client money protection insurance experts in this area and have taught me much about it mandatory for all letting agents is long overdue. I over the past few weeks. We have met them both in thank the Minister and her colleague in the Commons, recent days and I have listened carefully to the points and I hope that when she replies she will promise that they have made. “may” will be made firmer so that it will be “shall”, as I thank the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment I want. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter,I conceded following our discussion. If approved by this House, it that the intent was there, but I hope the intent is will provide an enabling power for the Secretary of reported when the Minister stands. State to make regulations by affirmative procedure to 645 Housing and Planning Bill [LORDS] Housing and Planning Bill 646

[BARONESS WILLIAMS OF TRAFFORD] (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision require letting agents and property management agents about the enforcement of a duty imposed by regulations to belong to a client money protection scheme. It will under section (Power to require property agents to join also provide a clear enforcement mechanism, which is client money protection schemes). important for ensuring that this regulation has teeth. (2) The regulations may— The Government have already shown our commitment (a) confer functions on a local authority in England; to taking steps on this issue, committing to a review of (b) require a property agent who fails to comply with a the transparency legislation, which includes a requirement duty imposed by regulations under (Power to require property agents to join client money protection for letting agents to be transparent about whether they schemes) to pay a financial penalty (or more than offer client money protection, and to work with the one penalty in the event of a continuing failure). sector to explore the detailed options for regulation. (3) The provision that may be made under subsection (2)(a) However,it is important that we ensure that the regulation includes provision requiring a local authority in England, is balanced and does not overburden the sector, and when carrying out functions under the regulations, to that we get the detail of the legislation right and do have regard to guidance given by the Secretary of State. not rush into it. So the review will be important in (4) The provision that may be made under subsection (2)(b) informing the details of the regulation, and I am very includes provision— happy to give my assurance that the Government will (a) about the procedure to be followed in imposing act on its findings at the earliest opportunity. penalties; There has been some discussion about “must”, (b) about the amount of penalties; “shall” and “may”. I have almost lost track of where (c) conferring rights of appeal against penalties; we got to on the amendment, but I think we were (d) for the enforcement of penalties; satisfied on the balance of “must”, “may” and “shall”. (e) authorising a local authority in England to use Still, in no way does that lessen our commitment to sums paid by way of penalties for the purposes of the issue at hand. any of its functions. I inform the House that the Housing Minister and I (5) In this section “local authority in England” means— have asked the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the (a) a district council, noble Lord, Lord Palmer, to play a key role in the (b) a county council for an area for which there is no review of client money protection and transparency, district council, reflecting their knowledge of and commitment to (c) a London borough council, these issues, and I am very grateful that they have (d) the Common Council of the City of London, or agreed. I hope that, with those points in mind, noble Lords will agree to support the amendment. I think (e) the Council of the Isles of Scilly.” that is the first time I have said that in this housing Amendments 99C and 99D agreed. Bill. Amendment 100 not moved. Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: All I can say is 4.30 pm thank you. Amendment 101 Amendment 99B agreed. Moved by Baroness Gardner of Parkes 101: After Clause 124, insert the following new Clause— Amendments 99C and 99D “Changes to leases: qualifying threshold for right to manage Moved by Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (1) Where leaseholders in a shared building have the right to 99C: After Clause 121, insert the following new Clause— manage and a beneficial change or modification is proposed to the terms of the leases in relation to “Client money protection schemes: approval or designation communal services or general safeguards held in that (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision shared building, the change shall be agreed and made if about the approval or designation of client money protection a simple majority of the eligible leaseholders vote in schemes for the purposes of regulations under section favour of the proposal. (Power to require property agents to join client money (2) In respect of a vote under subsection (1), a leaseholder protection schemes). shall — (2) The regulations may, in particular, make provision (a) have the right to appoint a proxy to vote on his or about— her behalf; and (a) the making of applications for approval; (b) be given adequate notice of when the vote will take (b) conditions which must be satisfied before approval place. may be given or a scheme may be designated; (3) A change to the terms of the leases under subsection (1) (c) conditions which must be complied with by may include leasehold enfranchisement. administrators of approved or designated client money (4) If a leaseholder or his or her proxy fails to participate in protection schemes (including conditions requiring the vote held under subsection (1) and reasonable the issue of certificates for the purposes of regulations arrangements have been made to enable him or her to do under section (Power to require property agents to so, he or she shall be deemed to have voted in favour of join client money protection schemes)(3) and about the proposal.” the form of those certificates); (d) the withdrawal of approval or revocation of a Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, this is an designation.” issue about which I feel quite strongly.I cannot understand 99D: After Clause 121, insert the following new Clause— why in order to get the right to manage, which is set “Enforcement of client money protection scheme regulations out in statute, you require 50% of the leaseholders to 647 Housing and Planning Bill [20 APRIL 2016] Housing and Planning Bill 648 agree, but having got the right to manage, you cannot People need to have a sinking fund from the time do anything very significant to deal with any problems they buy the leasehold or, if not from that time, at least in a building unless you have 100%. I have tabled from the present time so that they will be gradually Questions about this and at least four different Ministers building up at least a little something towards the have conceded that 100% is totally impossible to obtain. costs. I hope that the housing association or the local I welcomed my noble friend Lady Hanham earlier; she authority would then be able to exercise a degree of was one of the Ministers who said that to me. It is judgment and try to retain those people who have good to see her here and means that I do not have to already lived in those flats for so many years. It is prove my point about the statements, although the therefore very important that the Government are Library came up with these quotes for me, and I can willing to look at these two quite different issues in certainly prove the point. Amendments 101 and 102. I beg to move. I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. When I raised the issue about people who fail to Baroness Maddock (LD): My Lords, I have spoken respond in any way and said that they should be only about twice on this Bill but I must declare an deemed to have supported a proposal, he said—I am interest as a vice-president of the Local Government not using his words; I cannot quote Hansard exactly—that Association. that might not be a bad way of dealing with what is I support the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of certainly a growing problem, particularly in central Parkes. She has been a doughty campaigner on leasehold. London. In a number of blocks, perhaps not a majority Over the years several of us in the Chamber, including but certainly a significant minority of the flats are in the noble Baroness who has returned to us today and, foreign ownership or owned by people who simply do I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, have tried not want to know whether the building is falling down to grapple with the issue of leasehold. The legality of around them. In rare cases, a rather ill-intentioned it is incredibly complex and the Labour Government landlord may be hoping to make the place unliveable tried to do something about it. I remember spending so that he can get all the tenants out and sell the hours on the last leasehold reform Bill, and some of skeleton building on for a lot of money.I have encountered the things that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, has that. talked about today came forward in that Bill. At the time, we said that we were not happy about some It is therefore very important that we find a way of aspects of it but we really needed to look at what was dealing with this, and one way would be to reduce the happening and review it over time. percentage required for it. I suggested a simple majority; I appreciate that that may be too simple but there must I appreciate that a review of leasehold legislation is be somewhere between the simple majority and the probably something that the Government do not want impossible total. The Government must agree to look to go near. It is incredibly complex but, given that a lot at that. I will not be satisfied unless they agree to look of building has gone on in London and a lot of the at it, because this issue is getting worse. new flats are leasehold, this is an area that we need to look at. Because it is so complex, some leasehold Amendment 102 is grouped with this, but it is on landlords can use the legislation to disadvantage quite a different subject. Would the Front Bench like leaseholders—sometimes financially and sometimes me to speak to both now? The Whip nods his head. making them powerless to do anything about what Amendment 102 is on the totally different issue about goes on in their building. This is an important area sinking funds for repairs, and it probably also applies and, as I said, I support the noble Baroness, Lady to the type of block I was speaking about before. It Gardner, because she has been a doughty campaigner has come to my attention through people who bought on it over the years. I recognise that these amendments their council flats in the days of Margaret Thatcher; relate to matters that the Government probably do not they have therefore owned them for a long time, and want to look at, but I share her view that they really they find that their income has got less as they have need to look at least at the issues that she has raised got older. I can quote the case of a woman who wrote today. They need to be reviewed and revisited. to me, whose total income is £10,000 a year. She has just had a bill for the roof repair, and her contribution Baroness Andrews (Lab): My Lords, how lovely it is as a leaseholder is £12,500. I followed this case up with to see the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, back in her the Hastoe Housing Association, which now has the place. It is really great to see her. property—it was originally local authority-controlled— and it said, “We’d like to be able to help, but this case I was indeed one of the Ministers who, on a previous is one of 26 cases where people are in exactly the same occasion, had to deal with the subject matter of position”. Amendment 102. It is a difficult issue and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, on her resilience in Where people buy their leasehold in a block where raising it. It is extremely important, not least as regards most people are tenants, whatever the tenants have to those blocks of flats where the owners have either pay should be built into their rent and therefore at a bought their flats outright or have bought them under level which is possible for them to manage. Instead, the right-to-buy scheme and then suddenly, to their people can suddenly find themselves with only the old total surprise, find themselves landed with enormous age pension and they get a whacking great bill for bills. It was not unusual for there to be a charge of something to be done to the property. I have known £30,000—for example, for putting in a lift. It was an other cases where the payment required was much extremely difficult issue and the noble Baroness is higher than £12,000; sometimes the contribution to absolutely right that we wrestled with it and discussed the roof or to replacing all the windows is £30,000. it with all manner of agencies, leasehold organisations 649 Housing and Planning Bill [LORDS] Housing and Planning Bill 650

[BARONESS ANDREWS] and perhaps extending to internal, non-structural and so on. It was very difficult to find an equitable and partitions such as the floorboards, the ceiling boards, affordable solution. The fact that it is still hanging the internal plaster finishes of the walls and perhaps around is a tragedy and I hope that the Minister and the odd window and door. When you are dealing with her team can show us some ingenuity. The proposition the management of a property, you have to take a in Amendment 102 is very sensible. If people anticipated holistic view if you are going to get it right, because all these sorts of bills, they might well be able to afford these things are part and parcel of that. As we have them. tried to dissect “leasehold” from “freehold”, we have With Amendment 101, again, the noble Baroness is run into a whole series of problems of our own absolutely right. This is an absurd situation and the making. It would be nice to say that we would come problem is growing. Most people living in leasehold up with a different type of tenure altogether but I blocks do not know that this is the situation and are know that that has been tried and it seems to have run therefore completely baffled as to why it is impossible on to the rocks. At any rate, I encourage the Government to get anything done. So, if we are to have regard to to take a close look at Amendment 101 because this the reality of the housing situation in London, this is issue is causing grinding irritation to the reasonable something that has to be addressed. It may not be aspirations to manage a building. possible to do so in this Bill but maybe there are other On Amendment 102—the sinking fund for repairs—I Bills in the pipeline, and maybe it will be possible for fully understand what the noble Baronesses, Lady the department to come back with something creative Gardner and Lady Maddock, said. A roof may need on both these issues. I hope so. to be renewed every 50 or 60 years, or, if it is a flat roof, every 25 years; a heating system may need to be The Earl of Lytton (CB): My Lords, I support this renewed every 25 years; and there are other things that group of amendments and, in so doing, I declare my may have longer discounted life expectancies of one interests as a vice-president of the Local Government sort or another. If you have buildings with differential Association and, more particularly, as a landlord from tenure, it is axiomatic that the freeholder, or the person time to time, with members of my family, of both responsible for the management and collecting of money shorthold and long leasehold tenants. to carry out certain work, may have a series of different Dealing with the first point in Amendment 101, I objectives. If they are assured shorthold tenancies say from my experience as a practising chartered surveyor where the tenants are not responsible for contributing that this is a potent area for problems, and I will give to a sinking fund of some sort, that is one thing, but perhaps a couple of examples. The first is that for there may be other types of occupier on less than long many of these blocks of flats, both large and small, leasehold who would be so responsible. As the noble there are a significant number of absentee long Baroness pointed out, when the buyer of a long leasehold leaseholders, so that the occupants of the building is in this situation, it is essential to know that robust are under assured shorthold tenancies or similar short- processes are in place for procuring that management term occupations. The occupants, because of the nature and that it does not turn up, as I have seen so many of their short-term interest, do not really care too times, all in one go. This could be toxic in terms of the much about what happens to the fabric of the building— transaction of properties because, if there is a rolled-up that is outside the scope of what is of interest to them. liability for large capital sums on repairs, a savvy The superior landlord, the long leaseholder, is very purchaser of a long leasehold interest will certainly be often absent and equally disengaged from the process. well advised, as I have often been asked, to look into Therefore, there tends to be, as I have come across what lurks in the future expenditure, if that information before, a small proportion of those who are long can be found. Very often, one cannot easily find that leaseholders and residents who find themselves unable information because it is with some other body such to do the things that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, as the freeholder’s managing agent. has alluded to. 4.45 pm It gets worse, because of course the right to manage is just that, and it is circumscribed in that way. But Making such processes properly planned and properly what if the process of management means making predictable is a valuable aid to making sure that these alterations to a heating system that require you to sorts of things, which would stand in the way of knock a hole through the outside wall, which is part of somebody buying a freehold because they were fearful the freehold, and which therefore go beyond the strict of the costs which had been rolled up and might not terms of “management”? As the noble Baroness said, be fully known, were brought out into the open and if you have a truculent freeholder, that is a potent that a sinking fund was available as a credit against source of problems in terms of getting essential works those costs. That seems to be invaluable and, to that done and making sure that the premises as a whole extent, I support both amendments. remain fit for purpose. I have witnessed over many years the number of Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab): My Lords, as measures to try to strengthen the position of long this is my first contribution to Report today, I refer leaseholders in terms of their collective rights of noble Lords to my declaration of interests and confirm enfranchisement, their individual rights to extend a that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough lease and their right to the collective management of of Lewisham. I join other noble Lords in welcoming their block. That is all mired in this split between the the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, back to your ownership—ownership of the fabric of the building—and Lordships’ House. She has been much missed and is the rights of the leaseholder, meaning the rights of use very welcome here today. 651 Housing and Planning Bill [20 APRIL 2016] Housing and Planning Bill 652

The issues raised in these two amendments were Lord Campbell-Savours, raised this concern when the discussed in Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady matter was discussed in Committee.However,I appreciate Gardner of Parkes, is knowledgeable on these matters that my noble friend Lady Gardner has strong views and it is always worth listening to and taking note of and genuine frustrations on this. I would welcome the what she says on a variety of matters, particularly opportunity to meet her outside this Chamber to look concerning leaseholders. at the voting procedure in right to manage and to We on these Benches largely welcome the spirit of consider, if necessary with the wider leasehold sector, what is proposed here, but I am not convinced that it whether any legislative or other changes are needed to strikes the right balance. In Committee, my noble address her concerns. friend Lord Beecham raised issues in respect of the My noble friend mentioned that she did not really wording, specifically use of the term “buyer”in proposed know whether majority should be defined as just over new subsection (1) in Amendment 102, and asked 50% or upwards. That leads me to believe that further what majority would be required. Equally,on Amendment discussion is needed. She also mentioned the question 101, concerns were raised about the practicalities by of 100% agreement. Again, I believe it was mentioned my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. How do you in Committee that the question of not being able to do deal with a situation where 51%, a simple majority, anything without 100% agreement is not the case, want to make a change, but 49% strongly oppose it? I because the right to manage companies need a majority understand fully the noble Baroness’s point about of directors at a meeting of directors and 100% is 100%, because of course that would be impossible to needed only for the variation to the lease. achieve. However, at this stage, I think that we need to come up with another mechanism or formula to address I am sure my noble friend will agree that it is the concerns raised in the amendment. I hope that the important that we seek a greater understanding of the Government will be much more amenable to finding a issue raised. I hope she will join us in looking at this in way forward and not give the response that the noble the wider context of the legislative framework on Baroness had from the previous four Ministers. leasehold and the right to manage, and that we do not rush to make a change to the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, hit the nail on the head when she said Viscount Younger of Leckie: My Lords, I thank my that this was a challenging and complex issue. Although noble friend Lady Gardner for her amendments on she did not say this, I believe this is something that leasehold, which have led to a short and informative should not be rushed and we should look into it in a debate. I want to take this opportunity to thank my lot more detail. noble friend for her tireless efforts and dedicated service in raising issues on behalf of those in the leasehold Amendment 102 was also debated in Committee sector. and raised by my noble friend Lady Gardner. As I As we have heard, Amendment 101 would modify a said, I agree with my noble friend on the importance lease where leaseholders have exercised the right to of there being sufficient funds available for the repair manage. As a leaseholder herself, my noble friend will and maintenance of leasehold blocks. Sinking funds appreciate the benefits and the associated responsibilities can indeed play an important role in mitigating large, of acquiring and exercising the right to manage. However, one-off service charge demands. However, as I set out this amendment, although introduced with the best in Committee,I believe that these concerns are unfounded. intentions, would not achieve what its intended purpose This amendment, while well intentioned, would conflict appears to be. with existing requirements and responsibilities under the terms of the lease and the existing legal contract As noble Lords will know, the right to manage between the freeholder and leaseholder. allows leaseholders of flats to take over, by means of a right-to-manage company, the freeholder’s or landlord’s A lease provides for the collection of service charges management responsibilities. Where the right to manage for the maintenance of the block. In many cases, has been exercised, the amendment would allow leases provision is also made for money to be collected to to be modified in relation to communal services or support a sinking fund. Where it does not—this is general safeguards if a majority of eligible leaseholders important—legislation makes it possible to seek a voted in favour of the modifications. A lease can be variation of the lease to provide for a sinking fund. It varied only by mutual agreement of all the parties to is sensible, clear and workable for the person responsible the lease, or by reference to a tribunal or court. If one for the upkeep and maintenance of the building also or more leaseholders believe that their lease in a block to be responsible for any sinking fund. Separating this needs to be varied, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 responsibility would create conflict and confusion with already allows them to seek a variation from a tribunal, the existing lease, as would trying to dovetail separate in particular circumstances, or a court. responsibilities with the existing arrangements. The amendment tabled states that if a leaseholder Importantly, legislation enables the freeholder to be or their proxy fails to vote, they will be deemed to have held to account on service charges, including any voted in favour of a proposal to vary a lease. I hope sinking fund. Leaseholders have the right to challenge my noble friend agrees there may be many reasons the reasonableness of service charge amounts being why a leaseholder or their proxy could not partake in a sought, whether for day-to- day use or towards a vote. The amendment appears to be somewhat sinking fund. undemocratic in extrapolating a leaseholder’s non-vote My noble friend raised the matter of a sinking fund to be a vote in favour for a proposal that would affect and those with very small incomes, which is a fair an individual’s property rights. As mentioned by the point. Additional payments into sinking funds could noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I believe the noble Lord, be extremely difficult for those on small fixed incomes 653 Housing and Planning Bill [LORDS] Housing and Planning Bill 654

[VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE] should write to their MPs and press for one. A man and it would not be right to force them to have a who said he was a member of the Law Commission sinking fund if it was not already implicit in the lease made it clear that the commission does nothing for when the funds may not be needed immediately or for nothing now, so the only way you could get it to many years. prepare a consolidation Act, which it often used to do I should like to address a matter that was raised by in the past, is by pre-paying for it. Some Government the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. He said that you cannot must decide that it is time to put all property legislation, getanagreementfromabsenteefreeholdersorleaseholders. which keeps a lot of solicitors happily and expensively But if there is no sinking fund or any lease variation employed referring to Act after Act with each one and leaseholders cannot get agreement, they can go to changing the previous one, into one Act. It is all the First-tier Tribunal. I hope that reassures him. piecemeal and there is no cohesion. Those 6 million leaseholders and the multiplicity of legislation are big Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab): My Lords, a particular problems for us. problem arises which I do not think has been dealt The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said that this might with in the legislation. It is where leaseholders go into well be a growing problem, and I think he is right. arrears and the cost of carrying those leaseholders Foreign ownership and the fact that so many people who are in arrears is borne by the other leaseholders in are having to move out of London because service the block. I wonder whether Ministers might ask civil charges are too high are the reasons for these issues. servants to consider this area because it is an escalating What the Minister had to say was very good, but he problem, particularly in London where a large number has not really given an indication that he will say of apartments in blocks of flats are owned by leaseholders anything before Third Reading, which is coming up who live overseas and often do not fulfil their pretty soon. What I would like to hear from him is that responsibilities here in the United Kingdom. Even he will look at another approach, either through though this problem is not covered in the legislation, regulations or in some other way, to deal with this. maybe officials in the Minister’s department could That, at least, would put his good intentions on the look at it and come back to us at some future stage. record. As I say, it is important that these issues are not just pushed aside, which has been the case too Viscount Younger of Leckie: The noble Lord, Lord many times when I have raised them. This basically Campbell-Savours, was extremely helpful in debates applies to the situation as set out in Amendment 101. on this matter in Committee and he raises an important point. That leads me to say that, as a result of this 5 pm debate and the debate in Committee, we now want to With Amendment 102 on the sinking funds, I refer work closely with my noble friend Lady Gardner and to the situation to help people who will, under this all those interested in the sector to consider the Bill, become owners of properties that will require complexities of these detailed issues. We need to balance some sort of control, particularly if they are in blocks the rights of all parties and consider how well the of flats rather than houses. If they are houses you can existing routes to push necessary repairs or vary leases deal with it or let it collapse internally if you want to, work through the First-tier Tribunal and look at how but in a block of flats your flat will affect everyone else all the aspects are working. I would like, with the in the whole block. If things were seriously let go and Minister, to meet my noble friend Lady Gardner to water was pouring everywhere, everyone would be discuss this issue, and I am sure that all noble Lords affected. who have taken part in this debate would be most The sinking fund for new properties to be sold welcome to attend. I hope that, with my assurance to under the Bill should be a feature of all the leases from take these issues forward and look at the complexities, day one. It should not be a case of looking at it my noble friend will feel able to withdrawher amendment. 30 years later and saying, “Weshould’ve done something”. The woman I mentioned on a total income of £10,000 Lord Kennedy of Southwark: If the House will thought that she would not be able to put aside even indulge me, that offer is welcome, but it is fair to say £1 a week towards it. However, if you had this fund that no one could accuse either this Government or right from the start and there was some particular previous Governments going back many years of any little amount built in, it would build up over years. haste in dealing with these matters. I hope that we That woman had been in her property for 30 years. shall finally see some progress. Over 30 years something would have built up to help her meet the bills. Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the comments As I said, there are so many reasons for people not that have been made are very interesting and I am to vote—perhaps self-interest or a total lack of interest. grateful to all those who have given their support. There are lots of reasons, but we need to deal with that However, we tend to overlook the fact that there are percentage of people who do not vote at all. I would now something like 6 million leaseholders, so we are like more confirmation from my noble friend that he not talking about a little subject. It is a pretty big intends to look at that. He says that leaseholders have one that is important to a great many people. It cannot the right to challenge. That is all very well, but on the just be brushed aside as something that it would be right to challenge under the leasehold valuation tribunal, nice to do. I fought hard to retain that you could be charged a I would love to see a completely new consolidation maximum of £500; it is now £500 to walk in the door. Act for all property issues; I raised this at a meeting It was always acknowledged that the first property where I was asked to give a speech. I said that people chamber was big money and not to be taken lightly. 655 Housing and Planning Bill [20 APRIL 2016] Housing and Planning Bill 656

There needs to be a greater understanding of all certain persons as specified in subsection (2) may by these things. There needs to be more comment from notice appeal to the Secretary of State. the Minister. I do not know whether he will answer (2) Persons who may by notice appeal to the Secretary these points separately, but I would like more assurance of State against the approval of planning permission that the Government seriously intend looking at this in the circumstances specified in subsection (1) are any parish council or neighbourhood forum, as with a view to really helping the 6 million leaseholders. defined in section 61F of the 1990 Act (authorisation to act in relation to neighbourhood areas), whose Viscount Younger of Leckie: I hope I have reassured made or emerging neighbourhood plan includes all my noble friend that we want to look not just at the or part of the area of land to which the application content of these two amendments to address these and relates, by two-thirds majority voting. related issues—the Minister, my noble friend Lady (3) In this section an “emerging” neighbourhood plan Williams, has been nodding her head. It is also clear means a neighbourhood plan that— from this short debate that we are not in total agreement (a) has been examined, on how these matters should be tackled. The noble (b) is being examined, or Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Kennedy, (c) is due to be examined, having met the public had some views and I respect the views of my noble consultation requirements necessary to proceed to friend Lady Gardner, but it tells us that we are not this stage.” ready to rush into legislation on these important matters. (2) Section 79 of the 1990 Act is amended as follows— I hope my noble friend will agree that it is right to take (a) in subsection (2), omit “either”, and after “planning these matters outside the Chamber and have a thorough authority” insert “or the applicant (where different discussion. from the appellant)”; (b) in subsection (6), after “the determination” insert Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Is my noble friend “(except for appeals as defined in section 78ZA (as saying that it might be possible to deal with these inserted by section (Neighbourhood right of appeal) issues through variations in regulations? If so, is he of the Housing and Planning Act 2016) and where prepared to look at that? the appellant is as defined in subsection (2) of that section)”.” Viscount Younger of Leckie: I did not say that and I would not want to give any guarantees before Third Reading, but I have guaranteed to meet my noble Baroness Parminter (LD): My Lords, in Committee friend the Minister outside the Chamber to look into there was widespread support for the measures of these issues. both this Government and the coalition Government to devolve powers to local communities, particularly Baroness Gardner of Parkes: It sounds as if there is through neighbourhood planning. We know that a bit more interest than there often is on this subject. neighbourhood planning delivers more homes—the People have been excellent in clarifying and supporting Government’s own figures confirm it—so how can it this. We heard the technical side from the noble Earl, be right for local people to have no redress when a Lord Lytton, which is very valuable—think of what planning application is approved which drives a coach you would pay for his professional opinion on that; we and horses through everything they have worked tirelessly have had the benefit of it for nothing. The Minister is to achieve in their neighbourhood plan? well intentioned, as was my noble friend in responding. The Minister confirmed in Committee that 1,800 On that basis, this is too big an issue to try to put into neighbourhood plans had come into the early stages the Bill, which is already enormous, but it must not be of development and that about 120 had been brought overlooked. We must come back to it. For that reason, into force, but the total number that we could be I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. looking at is 9,000. Why, bluntly, should local people Amendment 101 withdrawn. go to the effort of producing a neighbourhood plan if such plans can be ignored when councils make decisions Amendment 102 not moved. on planning applications and the opportunity to challenge is through costly judicial reviews? Amendment 102ZA The Minister said in Committee that this amendment Moved by Baroness Parminter was not necessary because the Secretary of State can 102ZA: After Clause 128, insert the following new Clause— recover planning appeals, but at that stage I highlighted “Neighbourhood right of appeal three things. First, that power applies only when the permission has been refused by the local authority and (1) After section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”) insert— subsequently taken to appeal. Secondly, it applies only to major applications while, particularly in rural areas, “78ZA Neighbourhood right of appeal it can be the smaller sites of up to nine homes which (1) Where— need very careful planning to ensure that we get those (a) a planning authority grants an application for types of development which have the support of local planning permission, communities. Finally, the recovery available to the (b) the application does not accord with policies in an Secretary of State provides no protection for communities emerging or made neighbourhood plan in which when the permission has been granted by local authorities the land to which the application relates is situated, and contrary to a neighbourhood plan. (c) the neighbourhood plan under paragraph (b) This amendment, in my name and those of the contains proposals for the provision of housing noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and my development, noble friend Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, creates a 657 Housing and Planning Bill [LORDS] Housing and Planning Bill 658

[BARONESS PARMINTER] If the Minister wanted to modify this amendment limited right of appeal. I am sorry to see that the noble so that the neighbourhood right of appeal applied Lord, Lord True, is not in his place today, but we only once the emerging neighbourhood plan had reached debated this point in Committee. This is a limited a later point in its progress—as was suggested earlier right only for parish councils and neighbourhood by some noble Lords—I feel sure that this would be forums, not for individuals, and it would enable them acceptable to the proposers. I hope that the Minister to appeal against the granting of permission only for will indicate a move in this direction. I support this new housing that conflicts with their made or well- amendment. advanced neighbourhood plan. It is a limited right supported by the House of Lords Committee on National Lord Shipley (LD): My Lords, I support this Policy for the Built Environment, on which I was amendment. Noble Lords may recall that we had two privileged to serve earlier this year, and by the CPRE, different amendments in Committee. Although they Civic Voice and NALC, three organisations that do so were different, they had a very similar intent. We now much to ensure that more people are involved in have one amendment supported by the National planning, helping to ensure that we get consensus Association of Local Councils and Civic Voice. I hope around planning and thus help us to deliver the additional that the Minister will understand the importance of homes that we know we need. I beg to move. this, because if we are to encourage groups, parish councils and neighbourhood forums to create neighbourhood plans, they have to feel that the effort Lord Best (CB): My Lords, I support this amendment, being put in is worth while. to which I spoke at greater length in Committee. I As we have heard, neighbourhood planning is growing shall summarise my earlier points. This proposal for a in strength. However, missing from the statutory powers parish council or neighbourhood to be able to appeal of those bodies with neighbourhood plans is that right against a planning approval that cuts across an emerging of appeal for a neighbourhood planning body against neighbourhood plan was raised in the other place by the granting of a planning permission by a local Nick Herbert MP, with support from Sir Oliver Heald authority which conflicts with that neighbourhood MP and Andrew Bingham MP,all Conservative Members, plan, whether it is in place or well on the way to being whose views were shared by Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods approved. Of course, as Amendment 102ZA makes MP for the Opposition. Mr Nick Herbert said, clear, the right of appeal would apply only in relation “speculative developers try to get in applications ahead of the to housing. completion of neighbourhood plans or even after they have been completed … either they are upheld by the local authority, which We have heard that this amendment has broad is fearful of losing an appeal, or the developer makes an appeal cross-party support. I hope that the Government will that is upheld by the planning inspector. The development is then understand the need to support it as the power to allowed to go ahead”. overrule a neighbourhood plan would be a serious This totally undermines all the hard work of the disincentive to all those bodies—up to 9,000, apparently volunteers who have spent endless hours gaining support —that are considering introducing neighbourhood plans, for the neighbourhood plan before, to quote Sir Oliver given that only a little over 100 have actually been put Heald, it is, in place. “trashed by an application by a speculative developer ”.—[Official The amendment is limited to the powers of a parish Report, Commons, 5/1/16; col. 222.] council or a neighbourhood forum. As such, I agree This is a deficiency in the otherwise sensible arrangements entirely with what previous noble Lords have said— for neighbourhood forums and plans which were devised namely, that this is a reasonable proposal. If we want and introduced by Greg Clark, now the Secretary of to give a boost to neighbourhood planning, it should State for Communities and Local Government. be supported by the Government. I have declared my interest in the excellent neighbourhood plan for the Cerne Valley in Dorset, The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I, too, support this where I own some land within the area covered by the amendment. In doing so, I declare two interests, one plan. I followed the progress of the local volunteers of which I have already declared—namely, that I am a who brought together this neighbourhood plan from practising chartered surveyor. As a matter of course in the summer of 2011 until its approval in a public my work, I advise owners of land with potential referendum on the plan in January 2015. The nerve- development sites, some of them on the edges of rural racking hazard facing all the local people involved was villages. I also declare my now past status as a former that their hard work was at risk from a developer president of the National Association of Local Councils, putting in an application which in no way accorded which strongly supports this amendment. with the emerging neighbourhood plan. Had this It seems an entirely incontestable proposition that a happened, neither the parish council or the neighbourhood neighbourhood plan duly made—and therefore a robust forum would have had any way of appealing and the representation of locally expressed views in accordance council itself would not have been able to use the with the local plan—and which is a true reflection of neighbourhood plan to determine the planning application national policy and the government agenda through until the referendum on it was done and dusted. For that local plan process, should be defendable in the all the 1,800 neighbourhood forums currently event of the circumstances arising set out in this preparing neighbourhood plans, and all those to come— amendment: namely, the very limited circumstances in the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, tells us that which the principal authority does not itself wish to 9,000 could come down this route, and I hope there pursue this, in which case the neighbourhood can deal will be many more—this amendment would overcome with the matter itself. If the contrary view is to prevail, the problem. what is the point of having a process of neighbourhood 659 Housing and Planning Bill [20 APRIL 2016] Housing and Planning Bill 660 plan and devolving responsibilities if the neighbourhood Lord Marlesford (Con): My Lords, I support this cannot take advantage of such a facility—the point important amendment. It is important because we are made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley? talking about the grass-roots of democracy. I believe that the Conservative Party supports the grass-roots of democracy but it must demonstrate that it is prepared 5.15 pm to encourage, listen to and respect them. There is no On that basis, I support the amendment. It is, as I point in saying that they do not matter and that an said, strongly supported by the National Association outside developer has a pre-emption to overrule local of Local Councils, which is the parent body of parish opinion. Almost by definition, local opinion is well- and town councils. My only slight reservation, which I informed. It may be controversial but it sorts itself out have explained to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, at the grass-roots and it is most important that we is the definition of “emerging”, as set out in the support this amendment, or something very like it. amendment. It is technically possible—although I The Government may have different views but it is a understand that it has not been the experience to very limited and modest amendment. date in the work done by NALC or within the department itself—for a relatively ill-formulated or The role of parish councils in the planning system, poorly community-canvassed neighbourhood plan process supported by neighbourhood plans, is extremely to be “emerging”, to use that term of art. important. First, that is because they are local and have people who know what it is all about; secondly, I would tend to the view that the examination part they are an important factor in the integrity of a of the test of emergence should already have taken planning system. I should declare that I am chairman place and the neighbourhood plan should have been of the Marlesford parish council. An important aspect found to be sound by that independent examiner. of the planning system is that elected councillors on However, I am reassured on the potential for misuse planning authorities have time to consider only very by two other factors, namely that the risks consequential few planning applications, most of which are passed on the independent examiner rejecting a poor on the nod. Many years ago, when I was on Suffolk neighbourhood plan are significant and, furthermore, County Council, we had two lists: list A and list B. that the costs likely to be visited on the neighbourhood The meetings were never long enough to consider through making an appeal are matters that should be those on list A, which is the one we were invited to carefully considered beforehand. I am entirely unclear consider, and in practice we had to pass those on list B as to exactly how those costs end up being funded; on the nod. I remember saying to myself, “If I really that is something for another day. In addition, the wanted to get something through, whatever local possible extra costs in the event of a developer not councillors might think, if I could get it on to list B I only winning an appeal because of the neighbourhood would be home and dry”. Parish councils are therefore plan’s lack of robustness but successfully then claiming an important safety check, not just in terms of expressing its own costs as part of such an appeal should be an local views on proposals but in ensuring the integrity extremely sobering thought for any neighbourhood or of the planning system. The sort of provision proposed parish wishing to embark on this process. by the noble Baroness is therefore an important step The Government should not seek to micromanage and I hope the Government will look sympathetically the neighbourhood plan process. As we have heard at doing something along these lines. already, there needs to be proper motivation for it to succeed but, at the same time, the risks should be Lord Porter of Spalding (Con): My Lords, I had not understood and shouldered, otherwise we will not intended to speak to these amendments and I do not have robust and correctly formulated neighbourhood really want to, but I need to refute the claims that plans. That after all is key, but the risks are real. It is a councils pass planning applications on the nod. The commonly held belief among developers of my vast majority of planning applications are quite clearly acquaintance that, in terms of the volume ultimately policy-compliant, which is why almost nine out of 10 and collectively created to meet the Government’s are granted. They are not passed on the nod but targets on new housing rollout, a suite of smaller sites passed by delegated powers because they are planning- in villages and town fringes may be preferable to the compliant. The ones that are controversial either locally larger strategic sites, which have an infrastructure or, more importantly, because they are not policy- threshold cost and potentially constrained build-out compliant will be the ones dealt with in planning rates. By “constrained build-out rates”, I mean that a committees, which do not need to see all the planning large quantity of housing coming from one particular applications. They need to have faith in the professionally strategic site ultimately risks flooding its immediate trained planning officers to be able to work to policy- local market as, by dint of economic and market compliant applications. I just do not want any of your circumstances, the build-out rates are essentially Lordships to be under any misapprehension that councils constrained. The belief is that having a much broader pass planning applications on the nod. suite of different developers, different styles of property and different locations is key to the bulk rolling-out of Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB): My Lords, if I the Government’s housing targets. might share just one thought with the Minister, does If the noble Baroness decides to test the opinion of this amendment not chime nicely with the Government’s the House, I shall vote with her, but I hope that the oft-stated desire to empower local communities at noble Baroness, Lady Evans—or perhaps the noble grass-roots level, as we have heard, and to give them a Baroness, Lady Williams, herself—might comment on voice in these contentious planning decisions? The my reservations about precisely how the question of Government seem to have talked quite a lot about this emerging neighbourhood plans will be dealt with. in recent months and in building up to the election. 661 Housing and Planning Bill [LORDS] Housing and Planning Bill 662

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: My Lords, this issue the Government do not believe that a community was debated during consideration in Committee. I right of appeal is necessary. support the devolution of power to local communities It cannot be right for development that secures and we should seek to achieve it wherever possible. I planning permission to be delayed and uncertainty have advised the House before that I am a councillor created at the last minute by a community right of in the London Borough of Lewisham and a member appeal. The amendment would serve only to discourage of the planning committee—I am going there people from getting involved in the planning process tomorrow night. The ward which I represent is earlier, or lead to repeated consideration of issues Crofton Park, where we are in the process of raised and addressed during the planning application developing a neighbourhood plan. As noble Lords process. have said, that is not an easy process. It takes quite a To reinforce what I said in Committee, decisions on long time and we are hopeful of getting to a point planning applications must be made in accordance where we can put it to the vote in a ballot of local with the development plan, unless material considerations residents. But it is a complicated matter and a lot of indicate otherwise. A made neighbourhood plan is work needs to be done. It is right that communities part of the development plan and therefore already a have a direct say in developments in their area, and the powerful tool that must be the starting point for the amendment provides a mechanism for a limited right authority’s decisions on applications. National policy of appeal in certain circumstances. The right of appeal is very clear: proposals that conflict with a neighbourhood would apply only to parish councils and neighbourhood plan that has been brought into force should not forums whose plans progress to formal submission to normally be approved. the local authority. We have also made it clear that an emerging We need to strike the right balance here, and that is neighbourhood plan can be a material consideration often difficult to achieve. It could be suggested that in planning decisions, including where there is a lack objections could be raised just to stop developments, of five-year housing land supply in the local authority which is a fair point, but the amendment allows for area. Decision-takers may give weight to relevant policies appeals only in a fairly limited range of circumstances, in emerging plans according to the stage that the at the risk of costs being awarded by a planning emerging plan has reached, the extent to which there inspector if anyone made a vexatious appeal. The are unresolved objections, and the degree of consistency amendment is an attempt to strike the right balance. I with the National Planning Policy Framework. The am happy to support it, but I also accept the points extent of local support should also be taken into made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble account. I also remind the House that in January, we Earl, Lord Lytton. announced that for a further six months, the Secretary of State’s criteria to recover and decide planning appeals Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: My Lords,Amendment would continue to include housing proposals in those 102ZA has enabled us to revisit our discussion on a areas where there is a made or submitted neighbourhood proposed community right to appeal where there is an plan. emerging or made neighbourhood plan, and I thank We have a planning system that balances competing all noble Lords who have contributed today. Although demands for growth and protection. We have asked I appreciate the intention behind the amendment, I local planning authorities to balance these competing cannot accept it and will explain why. considerations to deliver sustainable development. We We have a long-established and much-valued right must now allow them get on with the job. For these of appeal. It recognises that the planning system acts reasons, I hope that noble Lords will not press their as a control on how an individual may use their land. amendments. This existing right of appeal serves an important purpose—to compensate for the removal of the Baroness Parminter: I thank the Minister for that individual’s right to develop—and there is no need to reply and for the support we have had from right change this fundamental principle. That is because round the House, which was very telling. The response communities are integral to and involved in the whole from the Front Bench opposite was disappointing, planning process. They are consulted on the preparation although not surprising. What the noble Lord, Lord of the local plan for their area from the earliest stages, Kennedy, said about striking the right balance was through to making representations to be considered at right; in planning, that is what it is all about. We need the independent examination. The right of every to ensure that local people are fully engaged in planning community to produce a neighbourhood plan takes opportunities so that we build consensus and actually this further, allowing communities to set their own get the development we need. That is why we all planning policies for the area. Those are the basis for support neighbourhood planning, but why there is a decisions on planning applications and guide how the real need now for this limited right of appeal just for neighbourhood develops. parish councils and neighbourhood forums. Importantly, communities can make representations on individual planning applications and appeals, and 5.30 pm the Bill and new regulations will provide neighbourhood I am delighted that by the end of his remarks the forums with the right to request notification of applications noble Earl, Lord Lytton, was reassured in support of in their area, alongside being statutory consultees on this limited right. In proposing the amendment, we their area’s local plan. The views of the community made the case for both made neighbourhood plans are considered at every stage in the decision-making and those which are at least at the point for submission process. Given all the opportunities that already exist, to local authorities for their examination. I accept that 663 Housing and Planning Bill [20 APRIL 2016] Housing and Planning Bill 664 there is always a question mark about where you draw Irvine of Lairg, L. Rea, L. the line, but at that point those volunteers have done Jay of Paddington, B. Rebuck, B. all the work—and that seemed to me the right place to Jolly, B. Rees of Ludlow, L. Jones, L. Reid of Cardowan, L. put the line in the sand. Jones of Cheltenham, L. Rennard, L. On the basis that this House believes in neighbourhood Jones of Whitchurch, B. Richard, L. planning, wants more homes and cannot understand Judge, L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L. why a Government whose Bill is all about needing Kennedy of Southwark, L. Rooker, L. Kerslake, L. Rosser, L. more homes are not prepared to accept the amendment, King of Bow, B. Rowe-Beddoe, L. I wish to test the opinion of the House. Kinnock, L. Rowlands, L. Kinnock of Holyhead, B. Royall of Blaisdon, B. 5.31 pm Kinnoull, E. Sandwich, E. Kirkhill, L. Sawyer, L. Division on Amendment 102ZA Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L. Scriven, L. Contents 251; Not-Contents 194. Kramer, B. Sharkey, L. Layard, L. Sharp of Guildford, B. Amendment 102ZA agreed. Lea of Crondall, L. Sheehan, B. Lester of Herne Hill, L. Sherlock, B. Division No. 1 Liddell of Coatdyke, B. Shipley, L. Lipsey, L. Shutt of Greetland, L. CONTENTS Lister of Burtersett, B. Simon, V. Aberdare, L. Desai, L. Listowel, E. Smith of Basildon, B. Addington, L. Dholakia, L. Loomba, L. Smith of Gilmorehill, B. Ahmed, L. Donaghy, B. Low of Dalston, L. Smith of Newnham, B. Allen of Kensington, L. Donoughue, L. Ludford, B. Snape, L. Alton of Liverpool, L. Doocey, B. Lytton, E. Soley, L. Andrews, B. Drake, B. McAvoy, L. Steel of Aikwood, L. Ashdown of Norton-sub- Dubs, L. McDonagh, B. Stevenson of Balmacara, L. Hamdon, L. Elder, L. Macdonald of Tradeston, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L. Bakewell, B. Elystan-Morgan, L. McFall of Alcluith, L. Strasburger, L. Bakewell of Hardington Falkland, V. MacKenzie of Culkein, L. Stunell, L. Mandeville, B. Falkner of Margravine, B. McKenzie of Luton, L. Suttie, B. Barker, B. Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Maclennan of Rogart, L. Symons of Vernham Dean, B. Bassam of Brighton, L. Faulkner of Worcester, L. McNally, L. Taverne, L. Beecham, L. Featherstone, B. Maddock, B. [Teller] Taylor of Blackburn, L. Beith, L. Ford, B. Mallalieu, B. Taylor of Bolton, B. Benjamin, B. Foster of Bath, L. Mandelson, L. Temple-Morris, L. Berkeley of Knighton, L. Foster of Bishop Auckland, L. Manzoor, B. Teverson, L. Best, L. Freyberg, L. Marks of Henley-on-Thames, Thomas of Gresford, L. Billingham, B. Gale, B. L. Thomas of Winchester, B. Blackstone, B. Garden of Frognal, B. Masham of Ilton, B. Thornhill, B. Blunkett, L. German, L. Maxton, L. Thornton, B. Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Gibson of Market Rasen, B. Mendelsohn, L. Tomlinson, L. B. Giddens, L. Monks, L. Tonge, B. Bowles of Berkhamsted, B. Glasgow, E. Moonie, L. Tope, L. Bradley, L. Goddard of Stockport, L. Morgan of Huyton, B. Touhig, L. Bradshaw, L. Golding, B. Morris of Aberavon, L. Triesman, L. Bragg, L. Gordon of Strathblane, L. Morris of Handsworth, L. Truscott, L. Brinton, B. Goudie, B. Morris of Yardley, B. Tunnicliffe, L. Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Gould of Potternewton, B. Murphy of Torfaen, L. Tyler, L. Brookman, L. Grender, B. Newby, L. [Teller] Tyler of Enfield, B. Brown of Cambridge, B. Grey-Thompson, B. Northover, B. Uddin, B. Burnett, L. Griffiths of Burry Port, L. Nye, B. Wall of New Barnet, B. Burt of Solihull, B. Grocott, L. Oates, L. Wallace of Saltaire, L. Campbell of Pittenweem, L. Hain, L. O’Neill of Clackmannan, L. Wallace of Tankerness, L. Campbell of Surbiton, B. Hanworth, V. Paddick, L. Walmsley, B. Campbell-Savours, L. Harries of Pentregarth, L. Palmer of Childs Hill, L. Walpole, L. Carlile of Berriew, L. Harris of Haringey, L. Parekh, L. Watson of Invergowrie, L. Cashman, L. Harris of Richmond, B. Parminter, B. Watson of Richmond, L. Chandos, V. Harrison, L. Pendry, L. West of Spithead, L. Christopher, L. Hart of Chilton, L. Pitkeathley, B. Wheeler, B. Clancarty, E. Haskel, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. Whitaker, B. Clark of Windermere, L. Haworth, L. Prescott, L. Whitty, L. Clarke of Hampstead, L. Hayter of Kentish Town, B. Primarolo, B. Wigley, L. Clement-Jones, L. Healy of Primrose Hill, B. Prosser, B. Williams of Elvel, L. Collins of Highbury, L. Henig, B. Puttnam, L. Willis of Knaresborough, L. Colville of Culross, V. Hilton of Eggardon, B. Quin, B. Wills, L. Corston, B. Hollick, L. Quirk, L. Woolmer of Leeds, L. Cotter, L. Hollis of Heigham, B. Radice, L. Worthington, B. Craigavon, V. Howarth of Newport, L. Randerson, B. Young of Norwood Green, L. Crawley, B. Howells of St Davids, B. Razzall, L. Young of Old Scone, B. Darling of Roulanish, L. Hoyle, L. Davies of Oldham, L. Hughes of Woodside, L. NOT CONTENTS Davies of Stamford, L. Hunt of Chesterton, L. Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Ahmad of Wimbledon, L. Arbuthnot of Edrom, L. B. Hussain, L. Altmann, B. Armstrong of Ilminster, L. Deech, B. Hussein-Ece, B. Anelay of St Johns, B. Ashton of Hyde, L. 665 Housing and Planning Bill [LORDS] Housing and Planning Bill 666

Astor of Hever, L. Home, E. Shephard of Northwold, B. Trees, L. Attlee, E. Hooper, B. Sherbourne of Didsbury, L. Trefgarne, L. Baker of Dorking, L. Horam, L. Shinkwin, L. Trenchard, V. Barker of Battle, L. Howe, E. Shrewsbury, E. Trimble, L. Berridge, B. Howell of Guildford, L. Skelmersdale, L. True, L. Bilimoria, L. Hunt of Wirral, L. Smith of Hindhead, L. Tugendhat, L. Borwick, L. Inglewood, L. Somerset, D. Verma, B. Bottomley of Nettlestone, B. James of Blackheath, L. Spicer, L. Wakeham, L. Bourne of Aberystwyth, L. Jenkin of Kennington, B. Stedman-Scott, B. Warsi, B. Bowness, L. Jopling, L. Stirrup, L. Wasserman, L. Brabazon of Tara, L. Kakkar, L. Stowell of Beeston, B. Wei, L. Bridgeman, V. Kerr of Kinlochard, L. Strathclyde, L. Wellington, D. Bridges of Headley, L. Kilclooney, L. Suri, L. Wheatcroft, B. Brougham and Vaux, L. King of Bridgwater, L. Sutherland of Houndwood, L. Whitby, L. Browne of Belmont, L. Kirkham, L. Taylor of Holbeach, L. Wilcox, B. Browning, B. Lang of Monkton, L. [Teller] Williams of Trafford, B. Buscombe, B. Lansley, L. Taylor of Warwick, L. Young of Cookham, L. Caithness, E. Leigh of Hurley, L. Tebbit, L. Younger of Leckie, V. Callanan, L. Lexden, L. Carrington of Fulham, L. Lindsay, E. 5.43 pm Cathcart, E. Lingfield, L. Cavendish of Furness, L. Liverpool, E. Chadlington, L. Lothian, M. Amendment 102A Chisholm of Owlpen, B. Lucas, L. Colwyn, L. Lupton, L. Moved by Viscount Younger of Leckie Cooper of Windrush, L. Lyell, L. Cope of Berkeley, L. McColl of Dulwich, L. 102A: Clause 129, page 62, line 41, leave out “in subsection (4)” Cormack, L. Macfarlane of Bearsden, L. and insert “before subsection (4) insert— Courtown, E. MacGregor of Pulham “(3A) If a local planning authority have not prepared a Cox, B. Market, L. local development scheme, the Secretary of State or Craig of Radley, L. McGregor-Smith, B. the Mayor of London may— Crathorne, L. McIntosh of Pickering, B. (a) prepare a local development scheme for the Cromwell, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L. authority, and Deben, L. Magan of Castletown, L. Denham, L. Marland, L. (b) direct the authority to bring that scheme into effect.” Dixon-Smith, L. Maude of Horsham, L. ( ) In subsections (4) and (8AA) of that section” Dobbs, L. Mawson, L. Dunlop, L. Morris of Bolton, B. Eaton, B. Moynihan, L. Viscount Younger of Leckie: My Lords, throughout Eccles, V. Naseby, L. this Bill we have discussed the importance of local Elton, L. Nash, L. plans in setting out the vision for a local area and Empey, L. Neville-Jones, B. Evans of Bowes Park, B. Neville-Rolfe, B. providing certainty to communities and businesses as Fairfax of Cameron, L. Newlove, B. to where new homes and other development will go. Fall, B. Noakes, B. Local planning authorities are required to prepare Farmer, L. Northbrook, L. and maintain a local development scheme. This sets Faulks, L. Norton of Louth, L. out the development plan documents—the documents Fellowes of West Stafford, L. O’Cathain, B. Fink, L. O’Neill of Gatley, L. that make up a local plan—that an authority intends Finkelstein, L. Oppenheim-Barnes, B. to produce and the timetable for producing them. Flight, L. O’Shaughnessy, L. Existing powers enable the Secretary of State, or the Fookes, B. Palmer, L. Mayor of London where the local planning authority Forsyth of Drumlean, L. Pannick, L. is a London borough, to direct a local planning authority Fowler, L. Patel, L. Framlingham, L. Patten of Barnes, L. to make amendments to their local development scheme. Freeman, L. Perry of Southwark, B. Clause 129 amends that power to ensure that the Freud, L. Pidding, B. Secretary of State can direct amendments that relate Gardiner of Kimble, L. Polak, L. to both the subject matter and geographical coverage [Teller] Popat, L. of the documents specified in the scheme. Geddes, L. Porter of Spalding, L. Gilbert of Panteg, L. Powell of Bayswater, L. I propose minor amendments to Clause 129 to Glenarthur, L. Price, L. enable the Secretary of State to prepare a local Glendonbrook, L. Prior of Brampton, L. development scheme for a local planning authority Gold, L. Redfern, B. and to direct an authority to bring that scheme into Goldie, B. Ribeiro, L. effect. The amendments ensure that where an authority Goodlad, L. Risby, L. Green of Hurstpierpoint, L. Robathan, L. has failed to set out publicly its intention to produce a Greenway, L. Rock, B. local plan and indeed a timetable for doing so, we can Griffiths of Fforestfach, L. Rogan, L. take action and provide certainty for all communities Hague of Richmond, L. Ryder of Wensum, L. that a plan for their area will be prepared and that they Hamilton of Epsom, L. Saatchi, L. will have an opportunity to get involved in the plan-making Harris of Peckham, L. Scott of Bybrook, B. Hayward, L. Seccombe, B. process. I beg to move. Heyhoe Flint, B. Selborne, E. Higgins, L. Selkirk of Douglas, L. Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Selsdon, L. Lord Stunell (LD): My Lords, I should like to ask L. Shackleton of Belgravia, B. the Minister some questions about the application of Holmes of Richmond, L. Sheikh, L. this innocuous amendment, as he has described it. It is 667 Housing and Planning Bill [20 APRIL 2016] Housing and Planning Bill 668 not that innocuous because it is a power to take over Regarding Clause 129, the impact assessment says the local plan process and to state that a local authority that one of the problems with the existing powers, must adopt the plan that has been prepared for it. which this provision replaces, is that although the To give the House a little background, in 2010 the Secretary of State already has a power to take over the information I was given as a Minister was that around process, if he does so, he has to take it over lock, stock 26% of local authorities had a local plan and 74% did and barrel, without exception, from A to Z. The not. That was a large proportion, bearing in mind that impact assessment implies that the existing power is all authorities— too big a stick and too disproportionate, so it has not been used. It argues—although these are not the words Lord Lansley (Con): I am grateful to the noble Lord used—that rather than a great big stick, a smaller stick for giving way. I am trying to follow this amendment is needed, as that would be more useful to the Secretary and the debate on it. I understood a local development of State in getting the required result. In fact, the scheme to be a description on the part of the local proposed power is very wide ranging and far from authority of how it is going to go about the process of being a smaller stick. creating its local development plan, not the local development plan itself. To that extent, the amendment, I draw to noble Lords’ attention the fact that the while not technical, in effect takes over, where a local process set out here is an anti-localism process authority has failed to say that it will undertake the which will lead to local authorities losing control of process of local development plan preparation, to put the planning process which is at the heart of the a scheme in place for that to happen, but as a consequence localism agenda. It is also unnecessary because of the of that it does not take over the plan-making process progress that has been made since the introduction of itself. the NPPF and the threat that is hanging over local authorities that developers’ applications will be judged Lord Stunell: My Lords, it will be interesting to see on the NPPF criteria if there is not a local plan. Local whether the Minister takes that as being the basis of authorities have a very strong incentive to act at the this proposal. It does not appear to be when one looks moment. It clearly is working as a number of authorities at the explanation of the Bill, nor at that of the impact have reacted and the shortfall has reduced from 74% to assessment in relation to Clause 129 and its intention, 18%. In any case, there is also the existing power which nor does the amendment appear to adopt that the impact assessment sets out, as well as a reserve methodology.However,if the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, power, so that a local planning authority that fails to is correct, then some of my points are perhaps of fulfil its statutory requirement to start the local plan lesser force. Nevertheless, I think there are still some process can be challenged in court. This is therefore a important points to make clear to the House. sledgehammer to crack a nut. Faced with the reality that 74% of local planning authorities had not adopted plans in 2010, the Will the Minister also address the issue of what will Government put in place the National Planning Policy trigger this power? As it appears in the Marshalled Framework with the very clear intention that, in the List, the amendment is in the present tense: absence or in the default of a local plan, the NPPF “If a local planning authority have not prepared a local would be the document that could and should be used development scheme, the Secretary of State … may”. by planners and developers when approaching applications in their area. There was considerable upset among What is the trigger? When is the “now”of the provision? local planning authorities when they saw this provision, Will it be when the Bill receives Royal Assent or at and the final version of the NPPF allowed a period of some other date? There is some uncertainty about the grace. There was of course a risk to local authorities in starting point for the provision. not having plans, which was that they would be forced The provision might be ineffective in any event. to accept applications that they believed were not in How long will it take the Secretary of State to draw up the best interests of their area and which had not been local plans? Where is the capacity to do it? What is the consulted on with local communities. timescale? How will local consultation work? One I am happy to report, and I think this is in the wonders about the operation of a public inquiry process material provided by the Government in the impact where the local planning authority is the lead objector assessment, that we are now in the position that rather to the plan because it opposes what the plan projects. I than 74% of local authorities not having plans, only cannot see how that would achieve certainty or the 18% do not, so there has been a huge upsurge in the development of more homes more quickly than would number of local plans that have been brought forward the current process and mechanisms. and come to fruition. That has undoubtedly been driven by the introduction of the NPPF and local There is more to be done to get more housing. authorities’ fear that if they dragged their feet further, Later, there will be a debate on the amendment in the they would lose control of the process. name of the noble Lord, Lord True, which would It is worth remembering that within the 18% that make sure that land held by government departments have not yet produced plans, there will be many areas within local authority areas is held more transparently where one or other of the 1,800 neighbourhood plans, and brought back into use more quickly. That is direct which the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, referred to action that the Minister could take without interfering in the previous debate, will be brought forward, so with the existing planning process. The amendment there will be neighbourhood plans being prepared and proposed does not seem proportionate,wise or deliverable, maybe even approved in some of the areas where at and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response present there is no approved plan. to the serious objections to it. 669 Housing and Planning Bill [LORDS] Housing and Planning Bill 670

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: My Lords, can the Viscount Younger of Leckie: That is absolutely correct. noble Viscount, Lord Younger, say a little more about If it had not be clarified before, it must be clarified. It these amendments? As has been said, on the face of it is simply a means of taking over the plan-making they could be interpreted as giving considerable power process, not taking over the whole plan for good—that to the Secretary of State or the Mayor of London. is a very important point. Can the Minister also confirm that in the case of We set out our proposals for prioritised intervention, London they will be exercised only by the Mayor of where the least progress in plan-making has been London and will not be exercised by the Secretary of made. Where policies and plans have not been kept up State as well? Can he also explain further, as the noble to date and there is higher housing pressure, for example, Lord, Lord Stunell, outlined, what he sees are the intervention will have the greatest impact in accelerating circumstances when the use of such powers would local plan production. To finish on that note, the fact need to be considered, and can he tell us, for the is that where nothing is being done, it is right that as a benefit of the House, how they complement localism? last resort there should be government intervention. I It seems that localism is spoken of less and less from hope that that will reassure the noble Lord, Lord the Government Benches as we discuss these Bills and Stunell, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. these issues. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, outlined very carefully a number of very detailed questions and Lord Kennedy of Southwark: Can the noble Lord I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to give us more information about where these areas are? those as well. Clearly he must have a list of what is going on, as the Government have clearly done some work on this. Viscount Younger of Leckie: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their interventions in this very short Viscount Younger of Leckie: I can certainly write to debate. I hope that I will be able to address the the noble Lord with that specific detail, but, clearly, questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, in we are very wise to the fact that some local authorities particular, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. have not produced a plan, and therefore we want to be sure to encourage them to do so. We are bringing in First, as regards statistics—my noble friend Lord the encouragement and the nudge factor here, not the Lansley raised this issue—the majority of authorities sledgehammer. already have a plan in place or are working on their plan. Some 70% of local authorities—the figure I Amendment 102A agreed. have—have adopted a local plan and 84% have published a plan. The point is that where an authority is not making sufficient progress on its plan, we have been Amendment 102B clear that we will step in—but in consultation with Moved by Viscount Younger of Leckie local people. The whole aim is to accelerate getting a 102B: Clause 129, page 62, line 43, at end insert— plan in place. Parliament has already given the Secretary “( ) In subsections (4A)(a), (5), (6), (6A) and (6B)(a) of that of State the power to intervene in local plan-making, section, after “under subsection” insert “(3A) or”.” so to this extent we are not doing anything new. The Bill allows targeted intervention in plans and Amendment 102B agreed. keeps decision-making local wherever possible while 6 pm still ensuring that plans are in place. This amendment ensures that where an authority has failed to set out publicly its intention and timetable for producing a Clause 136: Permission in principle for development of local plan, we can take action to make this information land available to communities. I should also try to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that we are talking Amendment 102C about quite a long time that local authorities have had Moved by Lord Beecham to put a plan in place. They have had more than a 102C: Clause 136, page 67, line 6, after “for” insert “housing decade to get their plans in place, so I regard this as led” being very much a last-resort issue. It is meant to be light-touch rather than bringing in a sledgehammer to Lord Beecham: My Lords, the declared aim of the crack a nut—and I hope that may help. Government’s promotion of the concept of permission To go a little further, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, in principle was to facilitate the building of homes, raised the issue of the timing as to where and when the especially on brownfield sites. This objective is all the Secretary of State might intervene. We have consulted— more compelling in the light of today’s news that the number of housing starts in the first quarter of this Lord Lansley: For the purposes of clarification, can year was the lowest in three years—while of course we my noble friend be very clear about this? The amendment still have several hundred thousand sites with planning we are debating is about a power for the Secretary of permission that has not been activated. State or the mayor, where appropriate, to take over For ideological reasons, the Government rely almost and direct that their local authority should have a entirely on the private sector and building for sale, local development scheme. It is not taking over the whereas I recall that 50 years ago Newcastle City plan-making process itself, and that is a very important Council alone was building 3,000 new council homes distinction. I am afraid that the speech of the noble in a year. Perhaps the Government should reconsider Lord, Lord Stunell, was predicated on it being the their hostility to the provision of social housing and taking over of the plan-making process. do something to redress the balance. 671 Housing and Planning Bill [20 APRIL 2016] Housing and Planning Bill 672

However, leaving history aside, it was reassuring to Powers Committee’s reports, intensely critical as they hear the Minister affirm in Committee on 22 March: are of the process, reaching us a day before matters are “We are currently consulting on an approach that would debated on Report. enable permission in principle to be granted for housing-led But the position now in respect of permission in development to allow for the possibility of mixed uses that are principle and the necessary involvement of housing is compatible with a residential environment. This means that as completely unacceptable. The amendments in this group long as a site allocation is housing-led, local authorities will be able to grant permission in principle in line with local and are designed simply to enshrine in legislation what the national policy for other uses”. Government told us were the Bill’s intentions—namely, In reply to my question at the time as to whether there to facilitate the provision of desperately needed new homes would be a definition in guidance about what “housing in, to use their own words, “housing-led development”. led” actually means in terms of the proportion of All the amendments seek to do is to hold the Government sites, she confirmed that there would, and she gave the to their originally declared policy, which they appear example that it might include retail, community and to have changed, possibly without the Minister even office space, saying: noticing. I therefore commend the amendments in my name “This approach is absolutely crucial to continuing to promote sustainable development and the delivery of balanced, mixed and, in particular, Amendments 102C and 102D, which communities,spaces and places”.—[Official Report, 22/3/16; col. 2281.] make it clear that permission in principle is to be for This reflected the statement in paragraph 402 of the housing-led development—by which it is clear that I Explanatory Notes to the Bill that the uses “must be do not mean exclusively housing development. In housing led”. Amendment 102D the permission in principle is for the development of brownfield land for that purpose. I The Opposition and, I suspect, most other Members beg to move. of the House entirely support that approach, which is reiterated in the department’s policy factsheet, which states explicitly: Lord Shipley: My Lords, I support this group of “The Bill will allow permission in principle to be granted amendments for the simple reason that the point made when local authorities or neighbourhood groups choose to allocate so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, should be housing-led development in future local and neighbourhood plans in the Bill. or identify it on brownfield registers”. When I saw these further amendments, I returned However, a different picture emerged in the to the Hansard report of Committee. I refer to col. 2330, Government’s response last week to the 26th report of where my noble friend Lord Greaves had initiated a the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. debate on whether Clause 136 should stand part of the Paragraph 35 of the reply confirms: Bill and raised the question of what permission in “The Committee is right to emphasise that this measure will principle should be for. He said: facilitate the building of vital new housing, by allowing permission “We are told that permission in principle is just for housing ... in principle to be granted for housing-led development. That is, There may be other things associated with housing development, development that contains an element of housing but which can such as shops or local offices, but so long as it is housing led that also include other compatible uses in the interests of encouraging is okay”. mixed use and sustainable development”. I will quote entirely what the Minister said in reply. That sentence alone prompts a degree of suspicion. She said: Housing-led development now appears to be defined “I confirm to the noble Lord that it would have to be categorised as development containing only “an element”— as housing-led development. For permission in principle to be unquantified—of housing. granted, it would have to be categorised by size, location and type of development. I hope that reassures the noble Lord”.—[Official That some mysterious alchemy continues to be at Report, 22/3/16; col. 2330.] work is confirmed by the contents of paragraph 36, in But of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, which the Minister proclaims that, made clear, it is not quite as simple as that. The “I consider it to be reasonable … for other uses, such as retail or problem we have is the one we have had throughout commercial space, where there is no housing element. There is no the Bill, which is that it is a skeleton Bill. It does not restriction on the types of development for which full or outline have detail, much of which is to be presented in the planning permission may be granted”. form of regulations through either the negative or the Paragraph 37 goes on to say that amendments will, affirmative procedure. These three amendments would however, be tabled—as they have been—to exclude make the matter absolutely clear. Line 6 on page 67 of “fracking or mineral development”. Welcome though the Bill says: that latter position is, we now have a permission-in- “Permission in principle may be granted for development of principle cocktail in which the ingredient of housing land in England as provided in section 59A”. development can be reduced to homeopathic proportions Reading on, I do not see the word “housing” appear or even be excluded altogether. anywhere. The amendments would alter the wording I am sure that the Minister did not deliberately to, “Permission in principle may be granted for housing mislead the House. We all know how hard she has led development of brownfield land for housing in struggled to explain and defend this dreadful Bill and England as provided in section 59A”. That seems so the way in which it comes to us, laden with promises of much clearer. I think that that is the Government’s future consultations and government responses in the intention but I do not think that a matter of such form of reams of secondary legislation, none of which fundamental importance should be left off the face of Parliament will have seen before the Bill becomes law. the Bill. I therefore strongly support the amendment It is not her fault that the timetable results in Delegated moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. 673 Housing and Planning Bill [LORDS] Housing and Planning Bill 674

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, my noble friend has that says what the qualifying documents are, it clearly done the House a service in identifying what is at the extends beyond brownfield land. Nor did I think from very least something of a confusion and by quoting previous debates in Committee that it was the intention various paragraphs from reports and policy statements. of the party opposite simply to restrict it to brownfield There may even be a contradiction in the policy. As my land. However, as the Members opposite are proposing noble friend and the noble Lord have said, the whole to amend Clause 136, perhaps they do not support justification for the policy was that we faced a housing permission in principle at all. crisis of such proportions that a new fast-track approach Amendment 102E, which would change the wording to commandeering brownfield sites needed to be to “land for housing”, seems to contradict the idea of introduced through permission in principle. In my housing-led development. If you can grant permission view, that breaks most of the rules for decent planning in principle only for housing-led development for “land and healthy communities, but it was justified because for housing”, you have created a contradiction in the of the scale of the housing developments that are so first subsection of the clause, such that it is only for urgently needed. housing, even though it may be “housing-led”. Our contention has been that this is reflected in Amendment 102E seems defective. later amendments on sustainability, for example, and I am against Amendment 102C, not because the that yesterday’s mistakes in terms of the awful housing Government do not want it to be housing-led estates that were built without any thought being development, but because if in the primary legislation given to what communities needed to thrive should we put “housing-led development”, we would have to not be repeated. Therefore, proper attention, full define it there. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, made information and provision should be made to ensure it clear that it could be defined in all sorts of ways: the that housing developments, as planned, are served definition could apply to a very small number of properly by infrastructure and green space. That has houses in a large mixed-use development or to a large been much of our concern at previous stages of the number of houses with very modest additional Bill. There was no indication that these could be development. How it is defined matters. If one puts anything other than housing-led, so the possibility into primary legislation at the top of the clause, “housing- that has been raised by paragraph 36 of the Select led”, but does not define it anywhere, it will be defined Committee report, which has been quoted, is extremely only in the Government’ssubsequent guidance. However, significant. What was in the Minister’s mind, or that of because it is in the primary legislation, the interpretation the department, when this was put forward? Was it in that guidance would be subject to judicial review as zones of massive DIY retail stores? What is meant by to whether it satisfies the argument that it is housing-led. that paragraph? That is a recipe for delay: each application would be This goes against the grain of good planning in subject to judicial review as to whether it satisfies the many respects, as I have said. It is zoning, and it is primary legislation. zoning in its worst form. It is not the zoning that was The point is that the Government, quite rightly, recommended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer since it will be a matter of detail, make clear in new when he referred to it. The model he had in mind, I Section 59A(8) to be inserted into the Town and think, was as in parts of Europe, where zonal plans are Country Planning Act that guidance will be issued. extremely detailed, they are contested, they are democratic Clearly, given the nature of the fine distinctions that and they are effective. But these plans will not be like need to be made about what housing-led development that because PIP does not provide for that. These looks like, it will be for the Government in that guidance plans do not allow for the high-level speculative, off-plan to set that out. These amendments should therefore be development that is currently seen in England; for resisted. example, through appeals. I believe that permission in principle will work properly only if we consider the 6.15 pm full range of planning considerations before the key Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab): My Lords, the in-principle decision is made. That seems merely logical, noble Lord has just pointed out some very germane and we have argued that consistently on this side of issues that go to the heart of the concerns that led to the House. To introduce confusion such as this at this this amendment. It seems to me that there is a lack of stage of the debate is very serious. I hope the Minister clarity about why we are trying to introduce a permission will be able to clarify her intention. in principle proposition. Therefore, I very much support the concerns that my noble friend has raised in moving Lord Lansley: My Lords, I did not intend to contribute this amendment. to this debate but, having seen the amendments and It would be slightly amusing, if it were not so heard how the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, introduced serious, to watch the stately dance we have all gone them, I will say a word or two. I draw noble Lords’ through in getting to the point that we have. I have attention to my interests in the register, as I have done become an aficionado of the Delegated Powers on previous occasions when speaking to the Bill: I am Committee’s reports, which I would never have said chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. before. In fact, I am waiting with bated breath for the We shall go on to discuss permission in principle, of next one. I do not know whether noble Lords have which I am very much in favour. However, Amendment noted that a touch of irony has inserted itself into the 102D would insert the word “brownfield”, and so titling of the committee’s reports: the first was simply restrict permission in principle to brownfield land. called Housing and Planning Bill: Government That is not what the Government intended and, as the Amendments, and the next was called Housing and Government have made quite clear in their amendment Planning Bill: Further Government Amendments. I am 675 Housing and Planning Bill [20 APRIL 2016] Housing and Planning Bill 676 assuming that the next one will be called “Housing accordingly to improve the functioning of this measure. and Planning Bill: Even Further Amendments”. This However, given that we have some further amendments stuff is getting more gripping than “The Archers” as on it, I shall briefly remind noble Lords what the the days go by, and that is entirely as a result of this Government are seeking to achieve and why we believe being a half-formed principle with very little meat on it is a worthwhile measure that should remain part of its bones. We are all rather grappling with confusion the Bill. about what the whole thing is aimed at. We know that there is concern in the industry about I have real concerns that we are putting in the Bill the lack of up-front certainty in the current planning an ability to grant permission in principle for any system. In Committee, I highlighted issues around the type of development in future if its sites are named cost of submitting outline and full applications without in a qualifying document such as a local plan, a confirmation of the acceptability of the principles neighbourhood plan or a register. We already know between plan-making and planning application stage. that the Government have in mind not just a brownfield All these have been raised with my department by the register but a small-sites register. Indeed, in her response Planning Officers Society,the Home Builders Federation to the Delegated Powers Committee, the Minister and the Federation of Master Builders, and I highlighted talked about wanting—“for example”, she said—the that even last summer’s Lyons review recommended ability to extend the permission in principle proposal an approach where the principle of development is to retail or commercial sites. I kind of understand the established earlier. Permission in principle seeks to argument that there is a need to pull something out of respond to these concerns by making the planning the hat to try to get housing sites through more process more certain and more efficient. It will help quickly. However, so far, nobody has told me what the provide a way for small builders to enter the market arguments are in respect of retail or commercial sites. and for locally supported plan development to get Therefore, it seems rather rash if we pass legislation under way faster. without being clear about the fundamental reasoning I explained at length in Committee that local authorities for changing something that is fundamental to the and neighbourhood forums would be in the driving way that the planning process works. Indeed, were we seat when it came to choosing to grant permission in to allow a proposal that permission in principle could principle. I gave strong confirmation that the approach be for any type of development if it were on a site in a taken to granting permission in principle would be in qualifying document, we would be radically reforming line with local policy and the National Planning Policy the planning system. Framework. The Minister says that that is in the interests of the I hope that these brief comments have given noble plan-led system. However, staying with the Delegated Lords an update on the value of the measure. Alongside Powers Committee, which is unconvinced by the some of the amendments that we are laying to provide Government’s arguments, I am unconvinced that it greater certainty on the use of permission in principle, needs to be such a wide power. Indeed, it is such a I hope that this is enough to persuade the noble Lord, wide power that the three statutory instruments that Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, will follow to give additional flesh to the proposal are, to reconsider their opposition to the clause. in the case of the permission in principle provision, going to be by negative procedure. Therefore we will Lord Beecham: The noble Baroness seems to be have no opportunity in this House to do very much speaking to amendments in the next group. other than confirm or reject. These powers are too wide and sweeping for a proposition that we ought to Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, I am just test on something for which there is an acknowledged giving a brief overview and shall now move on to the need—for example, housing-led development. If my amendments. They were introductory remarks—scene- noble friend’s amendments are not quite right in their setting, if you like—and I shall now speak to wording, I urge the Minister to recognise that there is Amendments 102C, 102D and 102E. I may have been genuine concern in this House about this proposal and a little premature in some of my remarks, but they to come back at Third Reading with amendments that were intended to be helpful; I am sorry if it is felt that I would satisfy both the Delegated Powers and Regulatory have been a little ahead of myself. Reform Committee and Peers around this House. I am keen to touch on the merits of permission in principle and to set out the amendments that the Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, I am Government are making today. However, I shall turn pleased to have the opportunity to open further discussion first to the amendments tabled and comments made on the permission in principle measure today.I appreciate by the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Kennedy, the time and effort that noble Lords have invested, in that would restrict the granting of permission in principle. particular the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Although I understand why the noble Lords have Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, in returned with the amendments, I must set out why we considering its detailed implications. I am grateful that cannot accept them. First, and most importantly, they have shared their experience and expertise, which Amendment 102D would limit the granting of permission have proved extremely helpful in ensuring that permission in principle to brownfield land, as my noble friend in principle operates as effectively as possible. Lord Lansley said. During the passage of this Bill, the In a moment, I will explain our government Government have been consistently clear that permission amendments to Clause 136 and why I believe they in principle is a measure that aims to strengthen the demonstrate that the Government have listened to the local plan-led system and ensure that development views expressed in Committee and have taken action takes place on sites that people want to see built. The 677 Housing and Planning Bill [LORDS] Housing and Planning Bill 678

[BARONESS WILLIAMS OF TRAFFORD] Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, I apologise amendment therefore represents an unnecessary restriction to the House because I have just made a statement that on the Government’sdesire to bring forward development was not true. The Government do intend for it to be by where it is considered to be appropriate locally. negative procedure. In Committee, I gave strong assurances that the Putting something in the Bill does not allow the choice about where to grant permission in principle same flexibility as something being in secondary would be a local one, guided by local policy and the legislation. Moreover, we are currently consulting on NPPF. To put it very clearly, restricting the granting of the definition of “housing led”. It is important for us permission in principle to brownfield sites would remove to set out the definition of what constitutes “housing-led the ability for local authorities to grant permission in development” in secondary legislation. principle to other sites that they considered perfectly suitable for housing-led development, in line with Baroness Andrews: The Delegated Powers and local and national policy.The amendment would remove Regulatory Reform Committee advised the Government local discretion and severely limit the usefulness of the not to make policy while consultation was ongoing, measure. which the Minister is now doing. The definition of Secondly, Amendments 102C and 102E would limit “housing led” is clearly so liable to raise confusion the type of development suitable for a grant of permission that it should surely be on the face of the Bill in principle to “housing led” development. We have been consistently clear that we intend permission in Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, that is principle to be limited to housing-led development why we are reluctant to place something in the Bill and will specify this in secondary legislation. The while consultation is ongoing. I do not know whether noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referring to the DPRRC we agree on that point for different reasons, but I shall report, brought up a pertinent point and asked whether let noble Lords further intervene. PIP could be granted for other uses. I have never 6.30 pm sought to mislead the House, and I do not think that the noble Lord was suggesting that I was, but that we Lord Beecham: I am sorry to return to the remarks have been consistently clear that PIP is for housing-led that the Minister made in paragraph 36 of the response development and that will continue to be the case to the committee, but they are crucial. Will she clarify under this Government. Clearly, we cannot hold her stance now? She said then: future Governments to account, but we have made it “I consider it to be reasonable for … other uses, such as retail clear that this is the Government’s intention. One of or commercial space, where there is no housing element. There is no restriction on the types of development for which full or the DPRRC’s concerns was “What about future outline planning permission may be granted”. Governments?”, but this Government are absolutely That is not consistent with what she is now saying is clear that this will continue to be their intention. the policy—that development should be housing led. The response to the Delegated Powers Committee Lord Shipley: Given what the Minister has just said makes it clear—or made it clear at that point—that it about the measure being for housing-led development, was not confined to housing-led development. That is does that mean that the Government are accepting why my Amendment 102C seeks to include that concept Amendment 102C, which would simply insert the in the Bill. I am perfectly happy to abandon the latter words “housing led”? two of my amendments because the first deals with the point which, as far as I can understand it today, Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, I am seems to be the Government’spolicy.But it was apparently afraid it does not, because the amendments limit the not the policy when the reply was made to the Delegated type of development suitable for granting of permission Powers Committee. in principle to housing-led. Weintend it to be housing-led and will specify that in secondary legislation. Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, I have paragraph 36 before me, and it refers to future uses. Lord Shipley: Can I be clear that the secondary But I have always been clear that the intention under legislation will be via the affirmative procedure rather this Government was for this to be housing led. than the negative procedure? Lord Beecham: I accept the Minister’s word for that, but that is all the more reason to build it into the Baroness Williams of Trafford: I can absolutely Bill. All she has to say is, “We accept that”, and that is confirm that to the noble Lord. it. It confirms what is apparently the Government’s policy today, yet it was not the policy reported to the Baroness Young of Old Scone: The supplementary Delegated Powers Committee. information that we received from the Minister’s department indicated that it would be a negative-procedure Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, I can statutory instrument, unless I am misreading what she confirm today that it is the Government’s intention to sent to me. have housing-led development. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, because the question of Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab): Can the Minister what “housing-led” might be is under consultation, I not help the House by coming back with an amendment urge caution in placing such a definition in the Bill at at Third Reading which simply puts this in the Bill? It this stage. Wecan put a suitable definition into secondary is very simple. legislation. 679 Housing and Planning Bill [20 APRIL 2016] Housing and Planning Bill 680

I am well aware that there has been some Bassam of Brighton, L. Hughes of Woodside, L. misinformation about granting development involving [Teller] Hunt of Kings Heath, L. fracking and other types of development for permission Beecham, L. Hussain, L. in principle. I hope that the government amendment Beith, L. Hussein-Ece, B. Berkeley, L. Irvine of Lairg, L. tabled today that will prohibit granting permission in Berkeley of Knighton, L. Jolly, B. principle for development related to the, Best, L. Jones, L. “winning and working of materials”, Billingham, B. Jones of Cheltenham, L. reassures noble Lords in that regard. With that, I urge Blackstone, B. Jones of Whitchurch, B. the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. Blunkett, L. Judd, L. Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Kakkar, L. B. Kennedy of Southwark, L. Lord Shipley: Will the Minister just clarify something? Bowles of Berkhamsted, B. Kerslake, L. The forthcoming group of Government amendments Bradley, L. King of Bow, B. do not mention the word “housing” at all. Have I read Bradshaw, L. Kinnock, L. them correctly? We have been asked to wait to consider Bragg, L. Kinnock of Holyhead, B. the next set of government amendments, but I do not Brinton, B. Kirkhill, L. Brookman, L. Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L. think that they are relevant to this situation. Burnett, L. Kramer, B. Burt of Solihull, B. Layard, L. Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, I hope Campbell of Pittenweem, L. Lea of Crondall, L. that noble Lords will feel that they are relevant. With Campbell-Savours, L. Liddell of Coatdyke, B. that, as I say, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Cashman, L. Lipsey, L. amendment. Chandos, V. Lister of Burtersett, B. Clancarty, E. Listowel, E. Lord Beecham: My Lords, I am not prepared to Clark of Windermere, L. Lisvane, L. Clarke of Hampstead, L. Livermore, L. withdraw the amendment. I am sorry that the Minister Collins of Highbury, L. Low of Dalston, L. is in such a tangle. I suspect that it is because she has Corston, B. Ludford, B. not been properly advised either before today or indeed Cotter, L. McAvoy, L. today.Weseem to be clear that housing-led development Cox, B. Macdonald of Tradeston, L. is to be the principal purpose of this amended planning Crawley, B. MacKenzie of Culkein, L. regime of permission in principle. I accept for the Davies of Oldham, L. McKenzie of Luton, L. Davies of Stamford, L. Maclennan of Rogart, L. moment, although it is regrettable, that we do not have Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, Maddock, B. details of what housing-led development might amount B. Mallalieu, B. to, but at the very least it must mean that housing will Dholakia, L. Marks of Henley-on-Thames, be part of the development. However, that was not Donaghy, B. L. confirmed in the response to the Delegated Powers Donoughue, L. Maxton, L. Doocey, B. Mendelsohn, L. Committee. Drake, B. Moonie, L. As in so many cases during the course of this Bill, it Dubs, L. Morris of Handsworth, L. would have been much better if we had had a clearer Elder, L. Morris of Yardley, B. indication of how the thing is expected to work in Elystan-Morgan, L. Murphy of Torfaen, L. Falkland, V. Newby, L. practice, but the principle at least should be enshrined Falkner of Margravine, B. Northover, B. in the Bill. Although that is not the full story, it would Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Nye, B. leave the Government to come back through secondary Faulkner of Worcester, L. O’Neill of Clackmannan, L. legislation—preferably affirmative—to specify what is Featherstone, B. Paddick, L. meant by housing led. What it cannot mean is a Foster of Bath, L. Palmer of Childs Hill, L. development with no housing on it, by definition. Foster of Bishop Auckland, L. Pannick, L. Gale, B. Parminter, B. Beyond that, there is scope for discussion and argument. German, L. Patel, L. I understand that the Minister is not in a position to Giddens, L. Pendry, L. give clear indications of proportions and the like at Glasgow, E. Pitkeathley, B. this stage, but the principle ought to be on the face of Goddard of Stockport, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. the Bill. Accordingly, I wish to test the opinion of the Golding, B. Primarolo, B. Gordon of Strathblane, L. Quin, B. House. Goudie, B. Quirk, L. Gould of Potternewton, B. Radice, L. 6.35 pm Grantchester, L. Randerson, B. Grender, B. Razzall, L. Division on Amendment 102C Grocott, L. Rea, L. Hain, L. Rebuck, B. Contents 213; Not-Contents 171. Hanworth, V. Reid of Cardowan, L. Harris of Haringey, L. Rennard, L. Amendment 102C agreed. Harrison, L. Richard, L. Division No. 2 Hart of Chilton, L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L. Haskel, L. Rooker, L. CONTENTS Haworth, L. Rosser, L. Hayter of Kentish Town, B. Rowlands, L. Adams of Craigielea, B. Armstrong of Ilminster, L. Healy of Primrose Hill, B. Royall of Blaisdon, B. Addington, L. Ashdown of Norton-sub- Henig, B. Sawyer, L. Adonis, L. Hamdon, L. Hilton of Eggardon, B. Scriven, L. Ahmed, L. Bakewell, B. Hollis of Heigham, B. Sharkey, L. Allen of Kensington, L. Bakewell of Hardington Howarth of Newport, L. Sharp of Guildford, B. Alton of Liverpool, L. Mandeville, B. Howells of St Davids, B. Sheehan, B. Andrews, B. Barker, B. Hoyle, L. Sherlock, B. 681 Housing and Planning Bill [LORDS] Housing and Planning Bill 682

Shipley, L. Tonge, B. McGregor-Smith, B. Scott of Bybrook, B. Shutt of Greetland, L. Tope, L. McIntosh of Pickering, B. Seccombe, B. Simon, V. Touhig, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L. Selborne, E. Smith of Basildon, B. Tunnicliffe, L. [Teller] Magan of Castletown, L. Selkirk of Douglas, L. Smith of Gilmorehill, B. Tyler of Enfield, B. Mancroft, L. Selsdon, L. Smith of Newnham, B. Uddin, B. Marland, L. Shackleton of Belgravia, B. Snape, L. Wall of New Barnet, B. Marlesford, L. Sharples, B. Soley, L. Wallace of Tankerness, L. Mawson, L. Shephard of Northwold, B. Somerset, D. Walmsley, B. Mone, B. Sherbourne of Didsbury, L. Steel of Aikwood, L. Morris of Bolton, B. Shinkwin, L. Walpole, L. Stevenson of Balmacara, L. Moynihan, L. Shrewsbury, E. Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Stoddart of Swindon, L. Nash, L. Skelmersdale, L. Stone of Blackheath, L. Watson of Invergowrie, L. Neville-Jones, B. Smith of Hindhead, L. Storey, L. Watts, L. Neville-Rolfe, B. Spicer, L. Strasburger, L. West of Spithead, L. Newlove, B. Stedman-Scott, B. Stunell, L. Wheeler, B. Noakes, B. Stowell of Beeston, B. Suttie, B. Whitaker, B. Northbrook, L. Strathclyde, L. Symons of Vernham Dean, B. Whitty, L. Norton of Louth, L. Suri, L. Taylor of Bolton, B. Wigley, L. O’Cathain, B. Taylor of Holbeach, L. Temple-Morris, L. Williams of Elvel, L. O’Neill of Gatley, L. [Teller] Teverson, L. Willis of Knaresborough, L. Oppenheim-Barnes, B. Taylor of Warwick, L. Thomas of Gresford, L. Wills, L. O’Shaughnessy, L. Tebbit, L. Thomas of Winchester, B. Woolmer of Leeds, L. Palmer, L. Trees, L. Thornton, B. Worthington, B. Patten of Barnes, L. Trefgarne, L. Tomlinson, L. Young of Old Scone, B. Perry of Southwark, B. Trenchard, V. Pidding, B. Trimble, L. Popat, L. True, L. NOT CONTENTS Porter of Spalding, L. Tugendhat, L. Aberdare, L. Fowler, L. Price, L. Verma, B. Ahmad of Wimbledon, L. Framlingham, L. Prior of Brampton, L. Wakeham, L. Altmann, B. Freeman, L. Redfern, B. Warsi, B. Anelay of St Johns, B. Freud, L. Ribeiro, L. Wasserman, L. Arbuthnot of Edrom, L. Geddes, L. Risby, L. Whitby, L. Ashton of Hyde, L. [Teller] Gilbert of Panteg, L. Robathan, L. Wilcox, B. Astor of Hever, L. Glenarthur, L. Rock, B. Williams of Trafford, B. Attlee, E. Glendonbrook, L. Rogan, L. Young of Cookham, L. Barker of Battle, L. Gold, L. Ryder of Wensum, L. Younger of Leckie, V. Berridge, B. Goldie, B. Borwick, L. Goodlad, L. 6.46 pm Bottomley of Nettlestone, B. Green of Hurstpierpoint, L. Bourne of Aberystwyth, L. Greenway, L. Amendments 102D and 102E not moved. Bowness, L. Hague of Richmond, L. Brabazon of Tara, L. Hamilton of Epsom, L. Bridgeman, V. Harris of Peckham, L. Amendment 103 Bridges of Headley, L. Hayward, L. Brougham and Vaux, L. Heyhoe Flint, B. Moved by Baroness Williams of Trafford Browne of Belmont, L. Higgins, L. 103: Clause 136, page 67, line 7, at end insert— Browning, B. Hodgson of Abinger, B. “( ) But permission in principle may not be granted for Buscombe, B. Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, development consisting of the winning and Caithness, E. L. working of minerals.” Carrington of Fulham, L. Holmes of Richmond, L. Cathcart, E. Home, E. Cavendish of Furness, L. Horam, L. Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, it is my Chadlington, L. Howard of Rising, L. pleasure to turn to the government amendments we Chisholm of Owlpen, B. Howell of Guildford, L. are making to the permission in principle measure. Colwyn, L. Hunt of Wirral, L. Again, I must emphasise that these demonstrate that Cope of Berkeley, L. Inglewood, L. the Government have listened closely to the concerns Cormack, L. James of Blackheath, L. Courtown, E. Jenkin of Kennington, B. expressed and have taken clear action to improve the Craigavon, V. Jopling, L. functioning of the measure. Crathorne, L. Keen of Elie, L. In Committee I set out the Government’s clear view Denham, L. Kerr of Kinlochard, L. that development involving fracking would not be Dixon-Smith, L. Kilclooney, L. suitable for permission in principle. To press home this Dobbs, L. King of Bridgwater, L. Dunlop, L. Kirkham, L. assurance even further, Amendment 103 will set out in Eaton, B. Lang of Monkton, L. the Bill the type of, Eccles, V. Lansley, L. “development consisting of the winning and working of minerals”, Elton, L. Leigh of Hurley, L. which cannot be granted permission in principle. This Empey, L. Lexden, L. Evans of Bowes Park, B. Lingfield, L. definition encompasses development that may involve Fairfax of Cameron, L. Liverpool, E. fracking, so I hope noble Lords will agree that this Fall, B. Lucas, L. amendment is positive and a helpful clarification which Farmer, L. Lupton, L. should form part of the Bill. Faulks, L. Lyell, L. I turn now to government Amendments 104 to 106. Fellowes of West Stafford, L. Lytton, E. Fink, L. McColl of Dulwich, L. The Government have been consistently clear that Fookes, B. MacGregor of Pulham only documents that have been through robust processes Forsyth of Drumlean, L. Market, L. such as consultation and site assessment will be capable 683 Housing and Planning Bill [20 APRIL 2016] Housing and Planning Bill 684 of granting permission in principle and that these Lord Shipley: My Lords, the Minister has kindly would therefore be limited to local plans, neighbourhood explained the changes which are to be made following plans and new brownfield registers. During the debate the amendment that I moved in Committee. At that on this measure in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord point I had the advice of the Royal Town Planning Shipley, tabled an amendment that sought to specify Institute, and I remain grateful for that. I am also these documents in the legislation, which he felt would grateful to the Minister for the changes that have been be an improvement to the Bill. In the light of his made, which seem to be entirely appropriate. I just comments, I agreed that I would reflect further on the want to express my thanks to the Minister for her need for an appropriate amendment that lists and willingness to clarify the matter. limits the qualifying documents capable of granting No doubt there will be other contributions on the permission in principle. I hope that the noble Lord other amendments, but the vote we just had is very will be pleased to see that the amendments achieve this important because it defines clearly that permission in by setting out the specific documents capable of granting principle relates to housing-led development. When I permission in principle. These are: look at the amendments I have difficulty finding the “a register maintained … under section 14A of the Planning and reference to “housing-led”; I cannot find it. Therefore, Compulsory Purchase Act 2004”, the doubt we expressed in debating the previous group remains. I hope, with that position having been made introduced by Clause 137 of this Bill; clearer by that vote, that we might enter some discussions “a development plan document within the meaning of Part 2 of about this. Clearly, it will go to the other place, but I the 2004 Act … a neighbourhood development plan”. hope that the Government might see that there really is a need to ensure that permission in principle is I hope the amendment demonstrates that the Government housing-led and that that is in the Bill. have listened to the call for greater clarity on how PIP will be used and that it will be welcomed by noble Lords. Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 107ZZB in this group, which is a I turn to government Amendment 106A, which sort of clause stand part amendment. The Minister contains two further changes to the permission in has tried, very graciously and well, to address some of principle measure. First, the amendment will enable the problems we have with permission in principle in local authorities to vary the start date and end date of practice. I appreciate that and I appreciate the time she permission in principle granted on allocation. It will spent talking to us and exchanging information. give greater local flexibility and allow the timings for Unfortunately, I do not think that anything addresses permission in principle to better align with planning the fundamental flaw of permission in principle. I do delivery of sites. The amendment will also allow local not want to labour the point I made both at Second authorities to vary the end date of permission in Reading and in Committee, but I will put a few things principle granted on application. It aims to mirror on the record at this stage as to why, both in principle Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act and in practice, it will not do what she says she wants it 1990, which currently allows local authorities to vary to do and what we all would want the planning system the timing of planning permission. We will set out the to do, which is to introduce greater certainty in the prescribed period for the duration of permission in whole process for developers, local authorities and principle in secondary legislation, which will apply if housebuilders. local authorities choose not to set the length of permission I think all noble Lords around the Chamber agree in principle themselves. that it is a basic principle of rational planning that principle and detail are directly related because they Secondly, the amendment will extend our statutory inform and guide each other, and they determine the guidance power to enable the Secretary of State to final planning judgment. That is the system we have issue guidance on how local authorities should handle now, when the right knowledge comes forward at the the technical details of the consent process.It is important right point in the decision, so that everybody knows that we make it as clear as possible for local authorities, what is predictable and certain about the site and developers, statutory bodies and the general public development proposed. That allows local people to how the new permission in principle system and the understand and respond to the impact that the resulting technical details consent stage should work. development will have on their living space. The system The guidance will also help to make permission in is not perfect, but neither is it the cause of the delays in principle fully accessible to all users, thereby placing housebuilding that have caused the present crisis. Those strong expectations on how, where and in what delays are much more to do with finance and access to circumstances permission in principle and technical land than they are with systemic problems with the details consent can be granted. planning system. I hope noble Lords agree that issuing guidance will I agree that the NPPF has made a real difference to inevitably prove helpful by maximising the clarity and the way planning is done and it achieves an excellent overall success of these measures, and that the balance between protecting development and enabling amendments will therefore become part of the Bill. I it. My concern is that permission in principle drives a hope also that these amendments resolve some of the wedge through the whole process by dividing the three concerns expressed during consideration in Committee. fundamental principles of permission in principle and In the light of my introductory comments, I hope the rest, which is rather ludicrously described as “technical noble Lords will see the value of these measures and details” when we are talking about fundamental things support them. I beg to move. that make a site, a development or a community work. 685 Housing and Planning Bill [LORDS] Housing and Planning Bill 686

[BARONESS ANDREWS] can put a lot of work into a project and find that It is everything—from infrastructure to the use of suddenly the hoops have changed and different materials, to spatial relationships, to public space—that requirements are being asked of them. I just wanted to makes a place worth living in. If things are wrong, put that into this debate. undiscovered or unanticipated at that stage, or simply do not work, permission in principle cannot be overturned. Lord Kennedy of Southwark: My Lords, It seems illogical and deeply flawed because permission Amendment 107ZZB in this group, in my name and in principle puts all the balances at risk. It raises risks, that of my noble friend Lady Andrews, would delete rather than reduces them. That is not likely to speed Clause 136 from the Bill. The clause is concerned with up housebuilding. I am not being perverse; I am permission in principle and was debated at some length genuinely concerned that it will not have the positive in Committee in your Lordships’ House. Permission in effect that we all want. principle is a major change in how we approve If in the present system there is an overload of developments. It has, of course, been suggested that information at the early stages of decision-making, as the supply of new homes is being held back due to the the Government have said at so many stages, I feel planning process and the failure to get planning fairly certain that this could have been addressed in applications approved. That is complete nonsense which different ways. Other ways could have been found to has been cited by one or two noble Lords in debate on manage information, rather than relegating it to a this issue in recent times. subordinate stage of decision-making. As I have said, I tabled a Question to the Government on this issue when we do have that information we will be unable to and received a reply from the noble Baroness, Lady overturn the permission in principle. That is the Williams of Trafford, on 4 April. In her reply the fundamental problem referred to by all the professional noble Baroness confirmed that there were planning planning bodies. It is turning up now in the 850 responses permissions for 658,000 homes in England where work that the Minister has received to the consultation. was either not started or not completed. That is a large There is genuine consistency across the planning number of approvals. As a local councillor I have profession. approved some of those applications over the last two I am arguing for a chance to think again, because years. In the area where I live I regularly note sites for PIP creates unnecessary risks. It creates the risk that which I have been party to approving an application high-level plans cannot be overturned, even if subsequent for housing but nothing has happened. All that has details clearly indicate the unsuitability of a site or the happened on one site is that, a few days after the poor performance of the proposal. It is imperative committee gave permission for housing, a “for sale” that a proposal is permissible only if it is in line with board went up saying, “for sale with full permission the NPPF. I am pleased that the Minister has given me for housing and two shops”. That is all that has several assurances on that. I hope that they will prove happened since we gave permission well over a year robust, because the alternative will be JRs and court ago. investigations. We do not want to see that. That is not the local planning authority dragging its As I have said, if the bottlenecks in the current feet or attempting to stifle development; no, there are finance and land-banking arrangements were to be other factors at play here which this clause does nothing addressed, as the Select Committee on the future of about. It is about the value of land and the price it is the built environment suggested, and if local authorities rising at. It can also be about the ability to raise were encouraged to plan properly for age-related finance to undertake a development. It is not about a demography and needs and could build up their capacity planning authority dragging its feet. We very much to deal with the planning choices more fluently and support building new homes, although we may seek to expertly—we will come on to that in a later do it in a different way. We want to see brownfield sites amendment—we would be able to deal more successfully brought back into use for housing and other ancillary with the housing crisis we face. My fear is that PIP will and alternatives uses, but we have concerns about not achieve its objectives and could do some considerable what will be built, in terms of design, space, energy harm. efficiency and affordability. We want to see a range of tenures and the building of viable,long-term communities. 7 pm Government Amendment 106A confers additional The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I had not planned powers on the Secretary of State. I draw the attention to comment on these issues, because my experience is of the House to the 28th report of the Delegated limited. I remind noble Lords of my registered interests Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—in particular, as a landowner. I recall speaking some years ago with the section concerning Amendment 106A which starts a young project manager on a development about at the bottom of page 1 and carries on to page 2. The extensive work she had done in consulting local people report concludes: in taking forward this development. It seemed to her “Inadequate and incomplete provisions of proposed primary that she had done everything that the local planners legislation cannot be excused on the basis that consultation has had asked of her but she found that her work was not not taken place or that the Government wish to retain ‘flexibility acceptable. She said that this was often her experience— to set out differing timeframes as they apply in different contexts’. The policy should have been finalised following appropriate one jumps through all the hoops and suddenly one consultation before, not after, the Bill was introduced. finds that the hoops have changed. This is only one We therefore consider that the delegation of power in the person that I remember speaking to about this issue, proposed new Section 59A(8) inserted by amendment 106A is but it certainly left me concerned that there is not inappropriate, and that the duration of permission in principle enough certainty in the system and that developers should instead be specified on the face of the Bill. An alternative 687 Housing and Planning Bill [20 APRIL 2016] Housing and Planning Bill 688 approach, although we think that this is a less satisfactory option, to section 61W (consultation before applying for would be to specify the maximum duration on the face of the Bill, planning permission) and section 65 (notice etc of coupled with an affirmative procedure power to provide for a applications for planning permission) of this Act.” shorter period”. That is damning criticism by the committee and the Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I have two amendments Government should take heed of it. in this group which deal with slightly different issues. To help matters along, I make the following offer to The first is an amendment on the consultation on the Government. If the noble Baroness, Lady Williams technical details. I have retabled this amendment, which of Trafford, will withdraw the amendment today with I laid in Committee, because I felt that the explanation a view to reflecting on the concerns raised by the the Minister offered was rather elliptical and because there Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is now emerging evidence that expert and civic groups and bringing an amendment back at Third Reading which have already responded to the consultation are that takes those concerns on board, then in the same seriously concerned about this. I want to give the Minister spirit we will not test the opinion of the House on our an opportunity to put her thoughts on the record. Amendment 107 in the next group, in my name and The amendment would, in effect, make it compulsory that of my noble friend Lord Beecham. Instead, we for local authorities to hold a consultation at the will wait to see whether we can get an amendment that second and technical stage of PIP before planning addresses the concerns raised in the report. It is for the permission was awarded. My argument was then, and Minister to decide what to do and I hope the noble it remains, that it is often only at this stage, when the Baroness will take up this offer made in the spirit of details of the site development are released, that local wanting to get this right. people really play their part in determining what is best for them and what would really work. That can be anything from the nature of local materials to the Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, I thank location of health centres or shops. all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. Let me clarify that the Government do want to The Minister has written very helpfully to me and I get this right. We do not want PIP to be a disincentive am very grateful. I would like her to expand, on the to building homes or create risk in the system. I take record, on what she said: on board what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, says “The idea is that local authorities will have consulted both statutory agencies and the community at the permission in principle about the comments of the DPRRC. I am very willing stage”. not to move Amendment 106A for the time being, and I find the phrase “The idea is…” rather worrying. to use the next few days to perhaps bring something Surely we should have something more at this stage back at Third Reading. than what sounds like wishful thinking. It is important to understand that argument, because her assertion Amendment 103 agreed. underpins the reasons spelled out in her letter as to why there will be no required consultation at the Amendments 104 to 106 technical details stage. She goes on to say: “When a subsequent application for technical details consent Moved by Baroness Williams of Trafford is received we consider that the local authority will therefore be in a good position to determine what further engagement is appropriate 104: Clause 136, page 67, line 28, leave out “plan, register or at this stage. This could make for a more efficient approach and other” avoid unnecessary duplication”. 105: Clause 136, page 67, leave out lines 30 to 32 and insert— The fact is that the consultation papers I have seen “( ) falls within subsection (2A),” suggest that this has gone down very badly with those 106: Clause 136, page 67, line 37, at end insert— who count. The Minister quotes Civic Voice, for example, “(2A) The following documents fall within this which carries the experience of civic societies throughout subsection— the country. What Civic Voice says in its response is: (a) a register maintained in pursuance of regulations “While we agree that PIP for allocated sites should be consulted under section 14A of the Planning and Compulsory upon through the local and neighbourhood plan processes, we Purchase Act 2004 (“the 2004 Act”); strongly disagree with the proposal that local authorities will not be required to consult with the community and others on applications (b) a development plan document within the meaning for technical details consent. It is likely that there will be important of Part 2 of the 2004 Act (see section 37 of that matters still to be considered at this stage that affect communities Act); and they should, therefore, be entitled to submit representations. (c) a neighbourhood development plan within the The reality is that it is not just the principle of development that meaning given by section 38A of the 2004 Act.” can cause concern to communities and others but the layout, design and relationship with development. This will be the first Amendments 104 to 106 agreed. opportunity for communities to see what the proposed development will look like”. Amendments 106A and 107 not moved. That is extremely relevant and very true. That is also the reaction, significantly, of the London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies, the TCPA and Historic Amendment 107ZZA England. I read only four consultation responses instead of 850, but I have a reasonable idea that that view Moved by Baroness Andrews would be echoed by many more. Civic Voice advocates 107ZZA: Clause 136, page 69, line 2, at end insert — quite simply that an application for technical details “(2ZZD) An application for technical details consent consent should be subject to the normal consultation in relation to permission in principle will be subject procedures for a standard planning permission. The fact 689 Housing and Planning Bill [LORDS] Housing and Planning Bill 690

[BARONESS ANDREWS] In the existing planning system, the norm has been is that the local voice in local decision-making is for many years to carry out pre-determined archaeological getting rather faint. That worries me, and, I think, investigations. It is a familiar process and it works many noble Lords. I ask the Minister for reassurances well. That is swept aside by permission in principle that the expert group on local plans will not reduce and is not even required at the second technical details even further the right of local people to participate in stage. In the consultation, the Council for British local decisions. Archaeology simply said the following to the Government, The Minister told me in her letter that she would which I want to put on the record: consider my concerns about this approach, together “If Government wishes to avoid re-visiting ‘in principle decisions with the responses to the consultation, before finalising … at multiple points in the process’ … it must fully recognise and the necessary regulations and guidance. That is extremely address the corollary, namely that in order to avoid re-assessment at a later stage all necessary information which may affect the important and very helpful news. However, I press her principle of development or its viability must be assessed before to go a little further. On a related point, I doubt that permission in principle is granted (and, with regard to archaeological any of her consultees agree that cutting down the time issues, this should be specifically recognised in legislation and for consultation from eight to five weeks—which is stated in policy)”. also proposed—is sensible. Frankly,this gives the average One of the things I suggest the Minister might consider parish council hardly time to meet before it has to doing is meeting the Council for British Archaeology produce its consultation response, bearing in mind and the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists face to that most of them meet once a month. Therefore, I face to discuss their concerns. She might also explicitly seek assurances from the Minister on that. For a start, endorse the policy set out in paragraph 128 of the will she place in the Library a breakdown of the National Planning Policy Framework and ensure that, responses to the consultation on the specific point where it is felt to be necessary, an archaeological site about consultation itself, because that is really important? investigation could be made as part of the conditions She will know that the role and the plausibility of attached to technical consent. It would be helpful to consultation is something to which the scrutinycommittees have that endorsement. Perhaps she could give me of this House return time and again for criticism. It is an answer this evening or write to me before Third important to validate that this is a credible consultation Reading. process and that people have been listened to. Therefore, can I have an assurance on the record that if the 7.15 pm weight of responses from those expert and community This group of technical amendments is much narrower. organisations reject the idea that local authorities It is concerned with a very important point, which is should not be obliged to hold a consultation at the the need to close a loophole in the Bill and to strengthen technical details stage, this proposal will indeed be the PIP process and the protection available to the dropped and normal planning rules will apply? I will historic environment. The Minister was gracious enough not press this to a vote this evening but I would be very to say in Committee that I had a good point, because grateful for some assurances along those lines. neither revocation nor modification was provided for I am very sad that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is in relation to a PIP granted by a local plan or brownfield not in his place because I feel quite isolated. I am sure application. These amendments fill that gap and I am that he would have a great deal to say on the involvement very grateful to her and to her department for their of local people. We miss him very much indeed. He is extensive help with this. She did say, however, that not here, sadly, but I know that this case resonates there was provision for those PIPs granted directly to around the House. There are many instances in which developers who seek a PIP outside a local plan to be the local voice and localism are at risk of being revoked or modified in rare circumstances. This was diminished in the context of planning. In the longer news to us in the Chamber in Committee but it was term, I am sure that it is much wiser to listen to local helpful. However, perhaps the Minister could put on people. the record what she thinks might constitute “rare I turn now to my Amendments 107ZA to 107ZD. circumstances”. In these amendments I am concerned In Committee, I tabled two amendments which essentially with what was left out of the Bill, perhaps were intended to identify—in short—some of the by accident—that is, the majority of PIPs which will hazards that would flow from the creation of PIP be driven by local plans themselves. These amendments and the splitting of the process into two, and to would bring these PIPs in line with present planning reflect on some of the damage that might be done law, which would not only bring welcome consistency, and some of the unintended consequences. I frankly, but would also, I hope, alert developers and spoke about archaeology because that is a very acute local authorities to the risks inherent in a system example. Archaeology is not an exception, as the where the fundamental decision may well be taken Government seem to argue, but is the predictable and without full knowledge of the actual and detailed likely victim of collateral damage in a situation where conditions on and under the site. decisions are taken without full knowledge of what is This amendment—technically by way of Schedule 12 under a site. New and unanticipated archaeological to the Bill—seeks to extend the existing powers set out discoveries are made every day—witness the magnificent in Section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Roman villa discovered in Wiltshire last week, which Act 1990 to enable a local authority to revoke or make people had no idea about and which may turn out to modifications to a permission in principle granted on have international significance in terms of the extent allocation in a local plan or register. Provision is also of the Roman Empire and the villa’s great wealth and made for appropriate compensation. I think we are so on. It is very important. talking here about exceptional circumstances—perhaps 691 Housing and Planning Bill [20 APRIL 2016] Housing and Planning Bill 692 the Minister will confirm that. I ask her to do that very much aware of this and I hope she will be able because I know that there is a problem with these to give the reassurance that the noble Baroness is amendments—namely, that in practice this provision, looking for. which exists in planning law, is not often used primarily because the cost of compensation is so high and the Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, I voice risks can be huge. That is all the more reason for my thanks, again, for the time taken by noble Lords, pushing this amendment because the risks in this including the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, in trying process—as I have said so many times; I am boring to get right this aspect of the legislation and ensuring myself on this—are far greater and the information that permission in principle is as effective as possible. available will be more limited and could arrive too late. In Committee, I outlined the rigorous process of These amendments also provide for compensation, consideration and engagement that would be followed which in these circumstances could be very extensive. before granting permission in principle. In that context, That is another reason why I think local authorities I highlighted that I thought a situation where no and developers need to be fully alert to this hazard. scheme could be delivered in line with the permission Perhaps the Minister can give me an assurance that in principle agreed on site, owing to unforeseen the compensation regime will indeed be affordable for circumstances discovered at the technical details consent local authorities. So what may seem just a technical stage, would be highly unlikely. The noble Baroness provision will flag up in capital letters the absolute presses me to give examples and I cannot get this necessity for local authorities and developers to understand example from my mind: it is another king in a car the system and to know that they must apply the park, but where the whole car park is made unsuitable conditions and requirements of the NPPF. for development and not just a part of it, which can be I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. I am sorry allowed for in certain circumstances. that it has taken me 12 minutes to get through this but it is important to have all this on the record because it I informed noble Lords in Committee that the Bill will make a substantial difference to how the system already makes provision for permission in principle works. I beg to move. granted on application to be revoked or modified by a local authority if it considers it expedient to do so in extremely rare circumstances. I also recognised that, in Lord Lansley: My Lords, I contribute briefly in the case of PIP granted through a locally prepared respect of Amendment 107ZZA simply to say that I plan or register, the Bill does not currently provide for did not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, revocation or modification in such instances and that I on her criticism of permission in principle. I think it would reflect on the need to make such a provision. I will enable certainty to be given and the process to be therefore wholly welcome the amendments that the speeded up. Certainty about how the system works is noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, has tabled and strongly needed not only for the developer but for the community. support their inclusion in the Bill. I also thank her for I am sure many noble Lords will be familiar—as I the way in which she has worked with me and officials have been—with the process, whereby communities in coming towards this stage. Amendments 107ZA, often find it intensely difficult to understand that, at 107ZB, 107ZC and 107ZD will indeed enable local the same moment that they have to debate the principle planning authorities to revoke or to modify the permission of development, and maximise their subsequent in principle granted by local plans or registers, where effectiveness, they also have to think about what the they consider it expedient to do so. Amendment 107ZD subsequent conditions might be and the mitigation of will also enable us to set out sensible compensation effects. In their minds, they often want the two things arrangements in these circumstances in secondary to be separate. They feel, understandably, that—through legislation. The amendments will extend the existing the extent to which they offer recommendations to provisions that local authorities have to revoke or local planning authorities about modifications to an modify planning permissions to the permission in application, compromises that can be reached, mitigation principle system. They will ensure overall consistency that can be entered into and conditions to be imposed— and provide an important final safeguard to address they are opening the door to the principle. the rare and exceptional circumstances discussed in I think that here we could have something that, to Committee, where this may be needed. local communities, is much more rational. In the local Amendment 107ZZA tabled by the noble Lord, plan process, they should devote themselves to the Lord Beecham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, question of whether development in principle should will oblige every applicant to engage with the community happen in a particular site, knowing that subsequently, on their proposals before they submit an application through the technical details consent, in so far as there for technical details consent. I certainly applaud the is necessary mitigation—for example, something like intention to involve the community in the development the environmental assessment should establish whether of a detailed planning application. Indeed, the NPPF development in principle is right on a site—a detailed and our planning guidance stress the importance of impact assessment should be able to identify what is applicant-led, pre-application engagement. However, required by way of mitigation. For a local community, the power in Section 61W of the Town and Country these are two completely rational, separate processes. Planning Act, inserted by the Localism Act 2011, is They have to be sure—this comes to the point of the currently being used only to ensure compulsory pre- noble Baroness’samendment—that they will get adequate application consultation for onshore wind development notification and an opportunity to express their view above an appropriate threshold. This is a targeted about what that mitigation should look like in the requirement to help ameliorate local community concerns technical details consent. I know my noble friend is about and perceptions of such projects. I understand 693 Housing and Planning Bill [LORDS] Horserace Betting Right 694

[BARONESS WILLIAMS OF TRAFFORD] Schedule 12: Permission in principle for development that the noble Baroness has laid this amendment of land: minor and consequential amendments because she is keen to ensure effective consultation; I do not believe, however, that applying this requirement Amendments 107ZA to 107ZD to all technical details consent applications is the right Moved by Baroness Andrews approach. We have just finished consulting on an approach 107ZA: Schedule 12, page 161, line 27, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert— that would give local authorities the discretion to consult further at technical details stage, where they “( ) In subsection (1), for the words from “modify” to “the authority” substitute “modify— consider it appropriate. We consider this a more locally led and efficient approach to consultation that (a) any permission (including permission in principle) to develop land granted on an application made will minimise unnecessary duplication between the under this Part, or permission in principle and technical details consent (b) any permission in principle granted by a stages. The noble Baroness asked me about the expert development order, responses to the consultation. I understand that we have received 150 responses. The noble Baroness asked the authority”.” if we would place them in the Library; I am very 107ZB: Schedule 12, page 161, line 43, leave out “and in willing to do that. subsection (1)” 107ZC: Schedule 12, page 162, line 1, leave out “subsection (4), Baroness Andrews: May I just correct the noble for” and insert “subsection (1)— Baroness? I thought there were 850 responses. That is (a) after “planning permission” insert “or permission not my main point—I wanted to ask whether she in principle”; could lay an analysis of the consultation responses to (b) for “section 97” substitute “section 97(1)(a)”. the specific point about consultation on technical consents ( ) In subsections (2) and (3), for “this section” substitute stage. My reading of a handful of responses—but “subsection (1)”. important ones—showed that they are all very seriously ( ) In subsection (4)— worried that there will not be a requirement for local (a) for “this section” substitute “subsection (1)”; authorities to consult at that stage. (b) for” 107ZD: Schedule 12, page 162, line 2, at end insert— Baroness Williams of Trafford: I apologise to the noble Baroness; maybe my writing is playing up. I “( ) After that subsection insert— accept that that if there were 850 responses, there were “(4A) A development order may make provision for the payment of compensation, in such circumstances 850 responses and my writing is possibly wrong. The and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed Government will of course analyse the responses carefully in the order, where permission in principle is revoked and engage further, as appropriate. or modified by an order under section 97(1)(b).”” Baroness Andrews: Is the noble Baroness saying, on Amendments 107ZA to 107ZD agreed. that basis, that she can assure me that if the weight of opinion—by which I mean community and expert Motion opinion—is that this is not a good idea, they will Moved by Viscount Younger of Leckie simply revert to the normal planning requirements for proper consultation? That further consideration on Report be now adjourned. Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, I totally admire the noble Baroness for the way she is Viscount Younger of Leckie: In moving this Motion, pressing me on this. At this stage, given that I have not may I suggest that the Report stage begin again not seen the outcomes, I do not that I can make a before 8.30 pm precisely? commitment. But we will certainly analyse the results carefully and engage further, as appropriate. I hope, Lord Lucas (Con): My Lords, if I may add a rider to therefore, that the noble Baroness feels free to withdraw that, anyone who is interested in my Amendment 107A her amendment. had better look at Amendment 107B, which is a manuscript amendment that has recently appeared, Baroness Andrews: I am happy to withdraw my outside. amendment. I appreciate that it is not easy, not having Motion agreed. seen the consultation, but my instinct tells me that we Consideration on Report adjourned until not before will get the results that I am anticipating and I hope it 8.30 pm. will make an impression on the department—you do not want to ride roughshod over local opinion. The Government have committed to localism and to Horserace Betting Right supporting local authorities. I am very grateful for the Question for Short Debate support and wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in this respect as well. I beg leave to withdraw my 7.30 pm amendment. Asked by Viscount Astor Amendment 107ZZA withdrawn. To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made towards the introduction of the Amendment 107ZZB not moved. Horserace Betting Right. 695 Horserace Betting Right [20 APRIL 2016] Horserace Betting Right 696

Viscount Astor (Con): My Lords, since I put down on British racing, based onshore or offshore, will be this Question for Short Debate, events have moved on part of the scheme and it will no longer be worthwhile and the Government have proposed an extension of to export bookmaking jobs abroad. More importantly, the levy rather than their original proposed racing a fair return will need to be put in place from all right. Much has to be done to succeed finally in gambling operators who take bets on British racing. bringing a long-term funding solution for racing but it Will that include bets taken by remote operators on is worth reminding your Lordships that a year ago, the British racing but put on from somewhere totally Government proposed the racing right. It was, if one different in the world? There will have to be a separate can call it this in Civil Service terms, a bold move system, as there is now, for on-course operators. The which almost immediately ran into opposition from big questions that bookmakers and those in racing the entire betting industry. want to know the answers to are: how will the payable The scene had been set earlier when my noble rate be set, and how will it be enforced on overseas friend Lord Gardiner of Kimble accepted my amendment operators? Will it be subject to an annual negotiation to the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) or set for a number of years? How will a fair return be Act 2014—an amendment originally blocked in the assessed? Will it be on turnover rather than a share of Commons when it was moved there—to extend the the bookmakers’ gross profits? How will the proposed right to claim levy payments from bookmakers who VAT be set and what will it include? Will it, for had moved their operations overseas. Racing was set example, include advertising? to lose about £33 million a year in levy payments but The money under this new scheme will go to the the Government have not yet used this power. As I Horserace Betting Levy Board and then be passed to a said, their proposal ran into almost total opposition new racing authority, which will be responsible for mainly because the bookmakers feared that if the decisions on how the money will be spent. Can my noble principle was accepted, other sports would want the friend the Minister say how this body will be set up? same treatment. The Government had to think again Will it be statutory or an entirely independent body? I and in March announced a new levy scheme. understand that to bring in the new scheme, the changes One cannot blame the bookmakers for inventing required will need secondary legislation to the Gambling the most tax-efficient and profitable system for themselves Act 2014. Perhaps my noble friend can give your but to protect the punters and problem gamblers Lordships some details of what will be required. What betting on UK racing, it has to be regulated in this role, if any, will the bookmakers’ committee have in country. While the levy is only a small share of the the future, particularly on multiplatform betting? overall turnover of racing—less than 7%—it is a vital The next hurdle will be the European Commission. part of racing’s income. The levy was running at about The new scheme, although based on an existing scheme, £70 million a year, down from the highs of about will require state aid approval as was done for the £100 million, but was forecast to fall to under £50 million. French levy. The levy has not been subject to an It is fair to ask, as the bookmakers have asked, why assessment so far under state aid, as it originated prior this could not be made up by increasing media rights to this country joining the EU. Perhaps my noble payments. The answer is actually quite simple: most friend the Minister can explain why it is necessary online operators, in what is after all the fastest-growing when what is proposed is really only a variation on the sector of the market, do not provide television coverage present levy scheme. Why is legislation and approval for their customers. from the EU necessary? If approval is required and Racing has often been divided in the past but it has there are no issues, responses could be given in two come together and the majority of the major courses months but I am sure there will be objections from have agreed an authorised betting partner status, whereby some remote gambling operators. That would then bookmakers who do not contribute to the levy from extend the process, while the European Commission’s their overseas operations are not allowed to sponsor final decision is subject to review by the European races. Racing UK, the television subscription channel, courts. Some bookmakers have produced legal advice, followed suit and announced that it would not renew which I know we will hear of this evening, saying that contracts for on-screen advertising and sponsorship this cannot succeed. Others differ but, as those of us for those firms which had not signed up to the betting involved in debating the issues around racing know, if partner scheme. Critics prophesied that Cheltenham they are paid enough lawyers can produce almost any would be without a major sponsor but that did not review that the bookmakers or anybody else wish to happen. New sponsors were found and the festival was have. They will satisfy any criteria if they try hard enough. a great success. The bookmaking industry complained One should congratulate the Government. This only because too many favourites won. Of course, proposal will benefit racing, protect punters, stop the when this new plan is implemented this will not be flow of jobs and tax revenue going abroad and, in the necessary, as under it, all will contribute. Racing has long term, be good for the whole industry. Racing is a always had the power to influence events. I suppose major industry, providing work for more than 86,000 that an even simpler solution would be for owners and people, contributing £3.5 billion to the economy and trainers not to enter their horses in races sponsored by generating £10 billion in betting income. So what is bookmakers who do not contribute, but that is probably missing from the Government’s proposal? Perhaps too much to expect. they will consider this: racing needs to ensure that There are, if one can use a racing analogy, a number standard betting data are available for all. We also of hurdles to jump and questions that need to be need to know what the dispute mechanism will be. As answered. I am sure that the Minister will provide we have seen in the press, internet bookmakers are some detail this evening. All British bookmakers betting quite prone to cancelling winning bets. 697 Horserace Betting Right [LORDS] Horserace Betting Right 698

[VISCOUNT ASTOR] with the British horse population as a whole—not just The racing industry and the bookmaking industry in matters such as a shared need for disease control, are a partnership—not always a happy partnership, but training those who will ride and care for horses but a necessary one—and I am glad that the Association later. A healthy equine industry, both people and of British Bookmakers has welcomed the Government’s animals, is an essential part of a strong, vibrant and announcement. It is a major step forward for the successful racing industry. industry and racing to work together going ahead. Finally, I also hope that the new fund will be at least However, betting is not just about racing, as it allows as generous in making grants for veterinary science bookmakers to cross-sell other products. Each cannot and training as the levy has been—I know that the survive without the other, and these reforms can benefit noble Lord, Lord Trees, will speak about that later— both. I look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s £32 million since 2000. I also hope that those who response. select the research projects will coordinate closely with the limited number of other equine research providers, 7.38 pm so that the wider horse population— Baroness Mallalieu (Lab): My Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount on securing this important and The Earl of Courtown (Con): My Lords, I beg the very urgent debate, and on attracting so many runners, noble Baroness’s pardon for interrupting, but can we although it means that we will all have to sprint from have the next speaker now? There are three minutes start to finish. I declare my interests as a former each, and the noble Baroness is on her fourth minute. member of the British Horseracing Board and a current trustee of both Racing Welfare, which is the charity Baroness Mallalieu: I apologise. for those who work in racing, and their union, the National Association of Stable Staff. I am also president 7.42 pm of the Horse Trust which, like the current levy board, Lord Addington (LD): My Lords, I have an interest makes considerable grants for equine scientific research. to declare that is not as extensive as those of the First, I am grateful that the Government have embraced previous speakers. I live in the village of Lambourn. the proposal for a new racing funding mechanism. As To anyone who knows anything about racing, that I understand it—and I hope this will be confirmed—they means that you are constantly surrounded by horses. are committed to having it in place in 12 months’ time, It is one of the few places where, if you are driving a in April next year. We need to know how this is to be car in the early morning, you will be stopped by a done, and the timetable for it, because the last time an string of racehorses—indeed, more than one, if you attempt was made to replace the levy it ended in tears time it properly. I fear that my only other connection in the European Court. Wewant to avoid that happening with racing is a secondary one, because I am the only again at all costs. member of my family who does not ride a horse Then, the levy had to be hastily revived, and has although, according to my daughter, many a racehorse continued up to now to do an excellent job against a is glad that I am not trying to get on it. background of a continuing drop in revenue and We are talking about money that goes into racing, expansion of offshore operations, some of which avoid and those communities in racing will benefit from the making a fair or any contribution to the industry from trickle-down. It may not be the most direct way to which they derive substantial profit. A new, fair, robust make sure that those communities remain vibrant, but system to finance the horseracing industry is long an entire society and small economy is dependent on overdue and is needed as soon as possible, before the that income. Wehave an industry here—an entertainment industry is damaged. industry, but an industry none the less—which sells to Despite this falling levy revenue, horseracing in this its market. People want to get in on it, but those who country, to my mind and, I think, most others, remains are buying it, or at least profiting from it, are not the best in the world. The breadth, quality and integrity contributing to it. Something is wrong. of racing here attract owners from all over the world The Government seem to be taking the right steps. and enable ordinary racegoers such as me to see most Will they ensure that the move to offshore gambling does of the best horses in the world run on our doorstep. not stop that income coming in? As the noble Baroness, With, I hope, more prize money generated from the Lady Mallalieu, said, the entire equine world in this new proposal, I hope we may see even more of those country benefits from what happens in racing. Everything horses. If we cannot produce the money, we shall lose comes in from it: vets, support, stables and everything them. For stable staff too—there are 6,500 of them else benefit from it. We cannot remove those sections working in yards—an increase in prize money would from each other. Indeed, equine activity at the Olympics be welcome, because it means a direct benefit in the benefits from expertise generated within racing. form of the percentage they receive from stable winnings. I hope the Government can assure us that they will The Government have said that racing will decide pursue this with all vim and vigour to make sure they how the new money is to be spent. Some of the objects get the money. It is not just racing—although racing is of the present levy scheme are not for the benefit just big enough—but the entire equine leisure industry of racing but of the wider horse population and that they will be supporting. included, for example, support for rare breeds. I hope there will be an undertaking from the Government 7.45 pm tonight, and from racing in due course, that spending Lord Smith of Hindhead (Con): My Lords, I rise to will continue not to be narrow and partisan and make a contribution to the debate which will be—using confined solely to racing. Racing is inextricably linked racing terms, which everyone else has employed—more 699 Horserace Betting Right [20 APRIL 2016] Horserace Betting Right 700 of a six-furlong gallop than a one-mile chase, with a 7.48 pm couple of questions that I suppose could be Lord Lipsey (Lab): My Lords, I declare an interest described as hurdles, as my noble friend Lord Astor as half-owner of Fearless Fantasy, which takes a chance did, but, I suspect, ones that are not too high for the in the bumper at eight o’clock at Exeter tomorrow, Minister to clear. My apologies in advance if I echo which happens to be my birthday. some of the points already made, or make some points that other noble Lords were hoping to make. The House is indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for giving the Government a chance to give a Like many other members of your Lordships’ House, straight answer as to what has happened to the racing I support the UK racehorse industry. We all know right. Noble Lords will remember that the racing right the figures, but they are worth repeating as they are made a cameo appearance in the 2015 Budget speech really impressive. It has almost 6 million spectators to give the Chancellor’s friend Mr Hancock something per year—the most popular spectator sport after cheery to tell his Newmarket constituents at the general football. Horseracing contributes £3.45 billion to election. That purpose has been served, so, in the UK plc each year and, of that, the total fiscal immortal words of Monty Python, the racing right “is contribution from betting to racing stands at about not pining, it has passed on, it is no more, it has ceased £270 million per year. The combined direct, indirect to be, it has expired and gone to meet its maker”. As it and associated employment of the industry runs north was unworkable, unfair, and probably illegal, thank of 85,000 people. God for that. As horseracing is such a popular British sport, it is What takes its place? In March 2016, the Government only right that we do all we can to ensure that, as far as published perhaps the thinnest paper in the history of possible, it continues to be profitable, successful and Whitehall, Implementing the Replacement for the Horserace beneficial for everyone concerned—both centre stage Betting Levy. I have studied it, but I have no clue what and behind the scenes—who puts on such great sporting it proposes. I commend to the House the briefing by entertainment, enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of Olswang’s Dan Tench, a leading gambling lawyer, people every week of the year. which asks six crucial, fundamental questions that the document utterly fails to address. These include: It is for this reason that I support the work the “The need and/or justification of any levy or funding for Government have done over the past few years on Racing in light of the revenue it now receives in terms of the sale rethinking the racing levy, a rethink that is long overdue, of media rights”. bearing in mind that the current arrangements are Even if the Government find an answer to Mr Tench’s based primarily on the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries six questions, which they show no inclination to yet, Act 1963, as amended. I should point out that I, too, they will face the fundamental problem of getting might need to have a long overdue rethink, having had European state aid approval—odds against, if not a disastrous Grand National this year, ignoring my long odds against. grandfather’s advice, which I mentioned in another So here is a puzzle. What is the answer to Mr Tench’s debate, that the best way to double your money is to question? Whyare this free-market Government proposing fold it once and keep it in your pocket. a massive new intervention in the market in one case Noble Lords who take an interest in this subject are and one case only—horseracing? They are not doing it aware that the levy is a complex structure, involving for greyhound racing, you will notice, but they are many stakeholders with many different needs, but I doing it for horseracing. I am afraid that the answer is consider the Government’s new funding arrangement all too simple and predictable. There is one principle to be both sensible and fair. I particularly praise which Ministers in this Government hold even more Ministers in the other place and my noble friend on dear than free-market economics: that money should the move to include offshore betting operators in the be taken from the poor—that is to say, poor punters in contributions which are collected. These operators betting shops—and given to the rich owners, such as benefit from our UK racing, so it is right that they me. should also contribute to the industry, just as betting operators in the UK have to. For far too long, operators 7.51 pm in the UK have been trading at a disadvantage, and I Lord Risby (Con): My Lords, I recently became a am therefore happy to see the playing field being government-appointed director of the Horserace Betting levelled—something that is essential in any form of Levy Board, which has acted as a bridge between fair gaming. betting and racing interests. At times these relationships I hope that the principle of collecting contributions have been positive and at other times very much less from offshore betting operators who benefit from UK so. It is also my privilege and pleasure to have represented players and sports can be extended to other forms of Newmarket in another place, so my interest in all this gambling, but I appreciate that that is a debate for is very long-standing. However, inevitably, there have another time. been problems for both sides and for the Government in the growth of online betting, a substantial amount I am aware that there are changes to the role of the of which has been taking place offshore. The traditional Horseracing Betting Levy Board whereby, under the betting shop has become less and less profitable—and, new plan, the board will be responsible only for setting of course, there is much greater diversity in betting the levy—or, as it will be known, the racing right—and opportunities. For the Government, at times having to enforcing it. A racing authority will be established to make a levy determination is inappropriate and most be in charge of distributing funds. unwelcome. For racing, the issue of prize money, 701 Horserace Betting Right [LORDS] Horserace Betting Right 702

[LORD RISBY] design and preparation, such as the investment by relative to the costs of racehorse ownership, remains a racecourses in watering systems to soften the going. source of concern. As a former part-owner, I am There have also been major advances in infectious acutely aware of this. disease control. There has not been a race meeting The levy board collects levy contributions only on cancelled because of an outbreak of infectious disease bookmakers located in Great Britain and only on among horses for 20 years—a tribute to disease profits generated here. Offshore betting has surveillance and the development of efficacious vaccines, inevitably reduced the ability of the levy board to such as the equine flu vaccine. In addition to these and pass on resources, and it is very important that in many other research benefits, the HBLB has funded future education and training, veterinary research and the education and training of equine veterinary specialists. other aspects of equine life are to have continuing The continuation of this support is essential and support. Thus reform affords an opportunity to deal should be given through a body that is transparent with two key issues—first, to create a structure that and independent, analogous to the HBLB Veterinary will, one hopes, minimise any further disagreement Advisory Committee. Can the Minister assure this between the two sides and remove direct government House, first, that the level of current funding for involvement. We shall know shortly what data and equine veterinary research will be maintained or even analysis have been deployed for this new architecture, increased by the proposed new arrangements and, provided by Frontier Economics. Could the Minister secondly, that such funding will be administered by a update the House on when that work is likely to be body that is independent? Let us not forget that the forthcoming? health of racing depends on the health of the horses Additionally,and importantly,I applaud the assurances on which it relies. from all sides that they will work with the Government to develop the details of the new proposed funding 7.56 pm system, to broker a deal in practice to their mutual Lord Suri (Con): I thank my noble colleagues for benefit. I look forward to further comments and details securing the time for this debate. This is an issue of about this from my noble friend the Minister.Horseracing great pertinence for me. Before I came to this wonderful gives pleasure to millions; we have the finest racing country, I had an interest in horseracing. During my industry in the world, and the creation of a new stay in Kenya, I used to import weekly racing journals structure to maximise its attractiveness and sustainability and horseracing papers for reselling through my bookshop. is to be clearly welcomed. I wish the Minister well in British horseracing has the longest pedigree in the bringing the process now under way to a satisfactory world, and, like our own English Premier League, is conclusion. widely regarded as the best in the world. Having noted this, I was glad to hear of a change in the law in the 7.53 pm 2015 Budget to reform the 1963 horserace betting levy Lord Trees (CB): My Lords, I welcome the proposals with a new horserace betting right. Some 200,000 to modernise the current levy system to ensure that the people are employed in jobs linked directly to horseracing, British racing industry receives due revenues from all as well as all the downstream jobs and multiplier sources of betting. It will help to maintain the health effects; 86,000 are employed in breeding alone. If we of the British racing industry,which currently contributes want to protect those jobs, which often tend to be some £3.5 billion per year to the British economy. But concentrated in small rural communities with few I want to focus on the health of something else—the other sources of gainful employment, we must secure horses, on which the whole industry depends—and to a viable and long-term funding mechanism. highlight the importance of the support provided by Many people watched and had a flutter on the the Horserace Betting Levy Board to racehorse health. Grand National two weeks ago. Whether they were Since its inception in the 1960s, the HBLB has contributed successful or not, many would have placed their bets some £50 million to equine veterinary research and on non-domicile remote gambling operators, and would education. It is vital that such support is maintained have paid nothing towards supporting the industry. by the new arrangements, not only because the industry This loophole, according to the industry’s own figures, depends on the health and welfare of its racehorses costs around £26 million a year,money that is desperately but because there are no alternative funding sources of needed for long-term investment to provide a secure such support, with the exception of one or two charities, future for British racing. I hope that the Ministers such as the Horse Trust. responsible will be bringing forward legislation sooner The major funders of biomedical research in the rather than later, as the industry loses money with UK, the Research Councils UK and the Wellcome every passing event under the current system. I also Trust, do not generally support equine health research, hope that this new levy will not be taxed by VAT under nor specialist veterinary education, as provided by the EU rules, as this will reduce the money paid to racing, HBLB Veterinary Advisory Committee. Over the last or increase the cost to bookies, who will pass it on to 15 years, racecourse horse fatalities have decreased by the consumer. Also, it would mean that non-EU betting about one-third, to a substantial extent as a result of firms would be exempt from VAT,making them cheaper HBLB-funded research. Major advances have included to bet with than our own bookies. This consultation the recognition of micro-fractures and their early diagnosis ought to be wrapped up soon, and I look forward to by advanced imaging, which has enabled horses to be having the opportunity to vote on legislation that will retired before the possibility of catastrophic major secure a good future for British racing, and remove the bone fractures during racing. The epidemiological study Government from the picture permanently by cementing of race injuries has led to improvements in course the relationship between racing and betting. 703 Horserace Betting Right [20 APRIL 2016] Horserace Betting Right 704

8 pm Malton and Middleham represent some of Britain’s largest racehorse-training centres. They have been Lord Donoughue (Lab): My Lords, at a canter, I synonymous with racehorse training for 300 years and wish to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, are home to some 45 licensed trainers and approximately on raising this important issue and to declare my 1,500 racehorses as well as to many stable lads and interest, as in the register, as chairman of the Starting lasses. Price Regulatory Commission and of the report on the future funding of racing which concluded that we I hope we can have an assurance from the Minister should replace the levy, but that it would provoke this evening that the Government will stick to and problems and legal challenges. respect the very tight timetable and that a statutory instrument will be presented to both Houses to be Fortunately, much progress has since been made voted on using the affirmative procedure before the and I welcome the new funding arrangement. I trust end of this year after clearance by the Commission, that it will maintain the historic balance between the following the precedent of the ruling on the French genuine financial needs of the racing industry and the parafiscal levy on online horserace betting. When my capacity of bookmakers to pay, noting that they are colleague Matthew Hancock was elevated to the under more pressure than at any time in my lifetime, government Benches, I was delighted to steer an embryo and that we will resolve any legal challenges and the Bill, which unfortunately did not pass all its stages, in familiar problem of European Union state aid. the House of Commons. I am delighted that the Of course, we might avoid many of these problems Government have run with this. I hope that it will end if we take the free market approach so lucidly expressed the move to offshore betting and will secure the future by my noble friend Lord Lipsey. His experience is for racing for many years to come. greater than that of most Members in this House. I have worked with him as a colleague and friend for 8.05 pm 40 years, and I usually take his advice and recommend Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab): My Lords, I hope his racing tips, as at Exeter tomorrow. On this issue, I that tonight, unlike in recent days, the Minister and I will not tangle with his arguments but will simply say will be able to agree. I, too, thank the noble Viscount, that I am reluctant to ignore the guaranteed financial Lord Astor, for initiating this debate. When the House aid for the sport of racing, which I love. I am confident debated the Gambling Bill two years ago, I was pleased that that money will eventually go to very capable to add my name to the noble Viscount’s amendment hands in the modern racing industry with its modern on the horserace betting levy. The debate reflected leaders—I have in mind people such as Nick Rust and genuine cross-party support for the levy and the principles Simon Bazalgette—among a new breed of professionals that underpin it. There might have been cross-party running the racing industry so well today. I have support, but there was some dissent within the party, confidence in them. and we have heard that tonight. In proposing this extension and simplification of Our achievement was followed by consultation the levy, it is now most important that the DCMS processes on extension, reform and the new right. The meets the April 2017 deadline to deliver its levy solution. Chancellor announced in his March 2015 Budget that That tired departmental horse needs a heavy whip the Government would, over the final furlong to the winning post. It is much “support the British racing industry by introducing a new horse more practical to resolve the offshore tax problem race betting right”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/15; col. 776.] than to pursue the complex journey of the original While we have not received what we hoped for, the racing right, which I, too, never understood. We may Opposition welcomed the Government’s announcement face difficult but familiar legal challenges, including last month and the further detail published on 16 March European state aid and negotiating a tax rate that to ensure that all betting operators contribute to racing. bookmakers can afford, but I trust that they can be Labour has been calling for action for a number of overcome, together with all the very pertinent questions years and I am pleased to see that the Government are raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, so that finally acting. Despite the potential opposition from racing can benefit and the often maligned bookmakers the betting industry, we believe that the Government can continue to flourish so that each can benefit when should use this opportunity to consider a wider sport both prosper. betting right to support the grass roots of sport to ensure that all sports are compensated by gambling 8.03 pm for the use of their intellectual property. Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con): My Lords, What is often overlooked is the work on training, it is often said that racing is the sport of kings, and I education and employment initiatives that the levy can think of no better time to debate this than on the supports. Also overlooked is the broader picture of eve of Her Majesty’s birthday. Racing makes a massive how the racing industry has a direct link into building contribution to the rural economy of north Yorkshire sustainable rural economies, as we have heard in tonight’s and many other parts of the country in terms of debate. There are a number of brief points that I employment, tourism and enjoyment of the countryside. would like the Minister to address, particularly on the It is obviously a source of concern that the yield from EU Commission clearance that is required. It is important the horserace betting levy has fallen from an average that the racing industry is properly consulted during of more than £106 million a decade ago to a forecast the notification process. of approximately £55 million in 2015-16. This puts I also understand that the Government have real pressure on the future of funding for racing. commissioned Frontier Economics to undertake an Yorkshire has nine of Britain’s 59 racecourses. Thirsk, independent analysis of the common interest costs 705 Horserace Betting Right [LORDS] Horserace Betting Right 706

[LORD COLLINS OF HIGHBURY] Last month we set out our plans for new funding between racing and betting. Does the Minister expect arrangements for British racing. This will ensure a that report to be concluded by the end of this month? level playing field and a fair return to racing from all While I appreciate that the Government recognise the gambling operators, regardless of where they are based. urgency with which a new funding model for the sport The funds will be passed to racing to make spending is required, there remains a significant amount of decisions and will benefit all those who play a part in work in order to meet the April 2017 deadline. Like enabling horseracing on which betting takes place. other noble Lords, I would welcome further information This includes racecourses, breeding groups, veterinary on the specifics within the timetable and on what groups, trainers and, of course, stable staff. contingencies will be in place should the timetable Investment in the equine veterinary profession, disease begin to slip. control, watering of courses and the role of the HBLB—I may have got that wrong—is very important; it was 8.09 pm raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department some of my noble friends. It will be for the racing for Business, Innovation and Skills and Department for industry to make decisions on the spending of funds. Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con): It is in the interests of racing as a whole that the funds My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their valuable raised benefit the entire industry. The current levy has contributions to this informative debate. I particularly supported the advancement of veterinary science, and thank my noble friend Lord Astor and the noble Lord, I very much hope, as do other noble Lords, that that Lord Collins, for the amendment they moved to the will continue. Gambling Act 2014 which underpins our proposed As my noble friend Lord Astor rightly said, racing changes. In a sense, they were the midwives to the is a huge industry contributing £3.5 billion to the proposals in the paper that we have recently issued. economy. There are 85,000 direct and indirect jobs The racing and betting industries in this country associated with it, including the 6,500 stable lads and have a unique interdependency going back more than lasses whom we heard about from the noble Baroness, 200 years. For most racegoers, their day out would be Lady Mallalieu. Attendance rose to 6 million last year, incomplete without a bet on the horses; it is a major so we are talking about a very popular sport. My part of British cultural life and heritage. While preparing noble friend Lord Suri added his own experience to for this debate, I was watching the Grand National, that picture. which is the toughest betting race. How happy the My noble friend Lord Astor also mentioned the bookies must have been as Rule the World overtook oncourse industry.Oncourse bookmakers have a distinct the favourite; I am very sorry that my noble friend and unique position in the betting and racing sphere; Lord Smith had a bad day. they have a vital role in providing better services for There are almost 60 racecourses spread across Britain. customers at the racecourse. We are considering how This is my first debate on racing but I have been to best to factor oncourse bookmakers into the new quite a few racecourses. I have been to York—I did not arrangements, and we will hold further discussions know that there were eight others to go to in Yorkshire. with that sector on this issue. I have also been to Ascot, Newmarket, Salisbury, As to how the rate will be set, the rate payable by Wincanton—and Chepstow, for those of us who love bookmakers will be informed by independent economic the Welsh. Each course plays a part in supporting analysis and further consultation with betting and local communities in driving inward investment, which racing. I will say a little more about that later. That is very important, and creating jobs. From recent stars will take account of all sources of revenue, including such as the wonderful Golden Horn—see my Twitter media rights, to pick up a point made by the noble account—to classic names such as Frankel, the British Lord, Lord Lipsey. I did not agree with every point racing industry continues to produce exceptional talent. that he made on this occasion; I do not think that he To ensure that this great British success story continues meant it seriously, but a purely voluntary environment to prosper,it is vital that the entire betting industry makes would mean that not all betting operators would continue a fair contribution to a sport from which it profits. to contribute. The mutually beneficial principle of transferring With regard to whether the rate will be assessed funding to racing from the proceeds of betting under against a bookmaker’s turnover or gross profits, this is statutory arrangements dates back to 1928. But the a point that we will be discussing with the industry. current levy system is, I think we all feel, broken The current method, based on gross profits, has been because it does not apply to bookmakers who are in place for more than a decade. It is consistent with based offshore. Following the introduction and rapid the approach taken to general betting duty. With growth of online gambling, this has meant that more regard to VAT, respondents to the consultations on and more potential funding is falling outside the scope the future of the levy raised serious concerns around of the levy. the application of VAT to the racing right model. I am We have an unsatisfactory, two-tier system where pleased to say that, as with the current system, whereby British-based bookmaker A must pay the levy, whereas levy payments do not attract VAT, the new model will bookmaker B, based offshore but otherwise in identical retain this key benefit. The racing authority will be set circumstances, does not. Statutory contributions have up by the racing industry and will be responsible for declined steadily, as has been said, and amounted to making spending decisions in line with the overall just £60 million last year. However, a number of purposes of the scheme, and with an appropriate bookmakers make voluntary contributions, which I reporting mechanism. This body will be referred to in welcome. legislation but it will not be a statutory body. 707 Horserace Betting Right [20 APRIL 2016] Housing and Planning Bill 708

The necessary changes will be made by secondary The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, asked about other legislation, as has been said, using powers in Section 2 sectors, particularly greyhound racing, which I know of the Gambling Act 2014. The regulations will, of he is very passionate about. I have not been to greyhound course, be subject to the affirmative procedure and racing for a very long time, and this reminds me that will therefore require debate and approval here and in that is something I should try to do in my ministerial the other place. I am not sure whether I can promise to role. He may be disappointed to know that we have no hit the 2016 timetable referred to by my noble friend plans to widen the scope to apply to other sports. Lady McIntosh, but I can take the House through the However, we have expressed a desire, which I very timetable as I see it. much endorse, for both industries to agree a mutually This is spring 2016—it is wonderful outside—and beneficial voluntary arrangement that demonstrates a following analysis from Frontier Economics, we will fair and just return to that sport. I should perhaps begin discussions with betting and racing industries to confirm that the Government have no plans to introduce inform the level of contributions from betting. To a sport betting right. reply to my noble friend Lord Risby,Frontier Economics With the extraordinary growth of online betting, is due to report to Ministers later this month, and I the current levy system is fair to neither betting nor think that it is reasonably on track. racing. The new funding model that we have discussed today will create a level playing field between all Secondly, we have set aside summer and autumn gambling operators. It will provide a fair return to this year for the state aid notification process with the racing and will ensure that our proud and vibrant European Commission. A good point was made about racing industry can continue to produce world-class how it can be valuable to consult during that process. racing for generations to come. I thank my noble This particular area is not one that I am dealing with friend for securing this debate and look forward to ministerially but I will feed that back because, having discussing these issues further with him and other dealt with other areas, I know very well how valuable noble Lords in the weeks and months ahead. stakeholder engagement can be in getting the right arguments and moving things forward efficiently. 8.22 pm We are planning to publish the statutory instrument Sitting suspended. and a full impact assessment by the end of 2016—which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who I see is in his Housing and Planning Bill place, will be glad to hear. That will enable us to bring Report (4th Day) (Continued) the new funding model into force in April 2017, which is what we are hoping to do. There will be no formal 8.30 pm role for the Bookmakers’ Committee in the new system, but racing and betting have shown that they can work Clause 137: Local planning authority to keep register together and I hope that such co-operation will continue. of particular kinds of land My noble friend Lord Astor also asked what dispute mechanism would be in place. With the rate set by the Amendment 107ZE Government, there will be less room for disputes in the Moved by Baroness Andrews new arrangements. However, we will retain the existing 107ZE: Clause 137, page 70, line 8, at end insert “, and in dispute and enforcement mechanisms, which I think particular the achievement of sustainable development and good are well respected. design” I come back to the important subject of state aid. Baroness Andrews (Lab): My Lords, we are a dwindling The levy has not been subject to an assessment under band but the issues are no less important. This amendment state aid rules because, as I think has been said, it repeats the amendment which I laid as Amendment 98 originated before our accession to the European Union. in Committee to stress the need for brownfield sites to The new arrangements will also cover the offshore achieve both sustainable development and good design. market, and we want to ensure that the new system is sustainable and can last for a number of years. It is We brought the amendment back not only because therefore prudent to seek clearance, which will provide we continued to see the need to reinforce and make certainty for all parties. clear on the record that the NPPF applies to brownfield sites on the register and that any developing local On the subject of timing, we have already begun authority must therefore ensure that those sites exemplify informal conversations with the European Commission. all the positive and best aspects of place-making. We That is why we believe that April 2017 is both a also brought it back to reiterate common concerns, realistic and an achievable target. I think I have already inside and outside this House,that these new developments said that we will ensure that the industry is kept in may fall prey to being a short cut to throwing up the touch as that process takes place. I was given some sorts of housing estates that we hoped we had seen the comfort when talking this morning to the officials who last of that are identikit and, frankly, alienating. We are involved in the early stages of that state aid process. want to ensure that developers who are under the cosh I thank my noble friend Lord Risby for his valuable get the clear message that it is possible to build quickly contribution. I have already explained the timing and but beautifully. There is nothing utopian about that—it said that Frontier Economics is making good progress. can be done. Following consideration of the report, the Government Sustainability means, of course, to build to sustainable will meet the betting and racing industries to discuss environmental, social and economic conditions, and the level of contributions from betting to racing. with regard to social sustainability it also means building 709 Housing and Planning Bill [LORDS] Housing and Planning Bill 710

[BARONESS ANDREWS] This clause will already require local planning in that which reflects, incorporates and makes a working authorities to have regard to the NPPF when, for feature of the heritage of the site, to give new inhabitants example, making decisions about sites to include in of an old and much-worked site a sense that they too local registers. As we discussed in Committee, the belong there in a new age. We often underestimate the framework makes clear that sustainable development importance of reflecting that sense of identity and should be at the heart of both plan-making and decision- belonging, yet it makes an enormous difference to taking. I emphasise that placing a site on a register is how people feel about where they live. not a permission to build—but I am sure that the That means that the second reason I have for bringing noble Baroness knows that. The consideration of detailed back the amendment is even more important. When issues, such as design, will not be feasible at the point we discussed it in Committee we had some exchanges that sites are entered on to the brownfield registers. about new town development corporations which led That will come later. Applicants will be responsible for me to reflect that the NPPF might not apply to these providing detailed information when they submit their new planning authorities and that, if they were to applications for technical details consent. This will develop to their very best—in terms of the rare ensure that design is also considered before consent is opportunity these developments offer to master plan granted in the same way as it would be for a planning to the highest standards—they most certainly should application. be under the same planning law. I am very grateful for The noble Baroness raised the applicability of the help of the TCPA in establishing this point. Again, sustainable development objectives and the NPPF to I thank the Minister for the help she has given and new town development corporations. As she will be thank her very helpful officials in this respect. They aware, we announced in the Budget our intention to have confirmed that I was right to raise this as an legislate to better support the delivery of new locally issue. The duty to work towards sustainable development led garden towns and villages. We want to ensure that as set out in Section 39 of the Planning and Compulsory they exemplify high design and sustainability standards. Purchase Act 2004 does not apply to new town It is absolutely our intention that when we legislate we development corporations. However, I am assured will ensure that sustainable development objectives that in practice, as the Minister said in a letter to me, and the outcomes set out in the NPPF apply with no “the Government does have the means to ensure that they have less force to new town development corporations than regard to the NPPF in drawing up its plan for a new settlement”. they do to local planning authorities in general. She has suggested that this could be done, for example, I also point out that it is the applicant and not local through provisions set out in Section 7 of the New authorities who should bear the cost of providing Towns Act 1981. detailed information in support of their application. I will quote the rest of the Minister’s letter, because Placing a stronger emphasis in the Bill could result in it is very important for the record. She says that she is, unnecessary burdens being transferred to local authorities. “aware that there is a strong case to ensure that there are explicit I emphasise that our proposals for the brownfield statutory obligations on”, register or permission in principle do not change the new town development corporations, protections in the NPPF in respect of sustainability or “to work towards achieving sustainable development, in the same design. way as they are currently on a local planning authority. I am I hope that I have been able to articulate our pleased to say that we will be bringing forward such proposals position and that the noble Baroness feels able to shortly”. withdraw her amendment. There will be amendments later on, possibly on Monday, on the same point, but it is apposite now to raise this issue on the amendment and to say again that I would Baroness Andrews: I am very grateful to the noble be very grateful if the Government were able to say a Baroness. Having read the contents of her letter, with little more about how this other loophole in the law its commitment to provisions set out in Section 7 of might also be closed. I beg to move. the New Towns Act 1981 and how they can be brought forward, I take that as a commitment—even if she cannot say so at this moment—that something will Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab): My Lords, my reflect that in forthcoming legislation. She is nodding noble friend Lady Andrews has showed the House her and I put that on the record. With that assurance, I am expertise in these matters and I fully support her happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment. amendment. I do not have any more to say than that. Amendment 107ZE withdrawn. TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department forCommunitiesandLocalGovernment(BaronessWilliams Amendment 107A not moved. of Trafford) (Con): My Lords, again I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, not only for eloquently Amendment 107B outlining her amendment but for how she has contributed Moved by Lord Lucas to this part of the Bill thus far. She outlined why she 107B: After Clause 139, insert the following new Clause— considers that this is an important opportunity to “Planning freedoms: right for local areas to request alterations place a high-level obligation in the Bill to ensure that to planning system the brownfield register contributes to sustainable places. (1) If the following conditions are met, the Secretary of I fully agree that local authority decisions should consider State may by regulations make a planning freedoms sustainable development and good design but I hope I scheme, having effect for a specified period, in relation to can outline why the amendment is not needed. a specified planning area. 711 Housing and Planning Bill [20 APRIL 2016] Housing and Planning Bill 712

A “planning freedoms scheme” is a scheme that disapplies thoroughgoing belief that local decisions, local plans, or modifies specified planning provisions in order to local ideas and local wishes as to how an area can best facilitate an increase in the amount of housing in the develop and contribute substantially to providing more planning area concerned housing are things that we should encourage. I think (2) The first condition is that the relevant planning that the amendment provides a good way of doing that. authority or authorities have requested the Secretary of State to make a planning freedoms scheme for their area. There is a supplementary amendment to come on (3) The second condition is that the Secretary of State is Monday which will make this subject to the affirmative satisfied— resolution, and another one to make sure that hybridity (a) that there is a need for a significant increase in the is dealt with. At this late time of night, I shall leave it amount of housing in the planning area concerned, at that, other than to very much thank the noble Lord, (b) that the planning freedoms scheme will contribute Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, who stepped in to move to such an increase, and my amendment in Committee when I was laid low (c) that adequate consultation has been carried out. with a bad back, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, (4) The third condition is that— for his consistent support. I beg to move. (a) the relevant planning authority or authorities have prepared a summary of the views expressed in the Lord Kerslake (CB): My Lords, I support the consultation referred to at subsection (3)(c), and amendment. Indeed, I added my name to the previous (b) the Secretary of State has considered that version of this amendment but was not quick enough summary. on the draw to add it to this latest version. Among the (5) For the purposes of subsection (3)(c) consultation is very many amendments that we have seen, this is a “adequate” only if— genuinely original and, I think, positive proposal. It is (a) the relevant authority or authorities publish an in every sense localist. explanation of what the proposed planning freedoms scheme is expected to involve, and Before I move on, I should declare my interests as (b) persons in the planning area concerned, and other chair of Peabody, president of the Local Government persons likely to be affected, have a reasonable Association and chair of the London Housing opportunity to communicate their views about the Commission. proposed scheme. I have felt for some time that we make progress on (6) The Secretary of State may decide to restrict the number these issues through local initiative and through learning of planning freedoms schemes in force at any one time from different models in different parts of the country. (and accordingly is not required to make a scheme merely because the conditions in this section are met). Indeed, I think that that is exactly how we developed the model for city deals through the Localism Act. (7) The Secretary of State may by regulations bring a planning freedoms scheme to an end, and must do so if Proposals came forward for permissive powers to enable the relevant planning authority or, as the case may be, local authorities to make proposals for the Secretary any of the relevant planning authorities so request. of State’s approval. That set of amendments, sponsored (8) In this section— by the Core Cities Group, paved the way for what I “planning area” means the area of a local planning think has been an entirely positive process of city deals authority, or an area comprising two or more and devolution of powers according to local need. adjoining areas of local planning authorities; This proposal opens up the opportunity to try new “planning provision” means a provision to do with models at local level and to give local places, whether planning that is contained in or made under any it is an individual local authority or a set of combined Act; authorities, the chance to take the initiative. There are “relevant planning authority” means the local safeguards which have been strengthened: first, it would planning authority for an area that is or forms part be through affirmative regulations, as we have already of a planning area; heard; secondly, there would need to be consultation; “specified” means specified in regulations under and thirdly, of course, the Secretary of State would subsection (1).” need to give approval to any proposal. The test here is whether in a situation where there is high need for Lord Lucas (Con): My Lords, I wish to claim a housing, and where the proposal envisages more housing record. I have just seen the first clothes-moth of the being possible through the alternative, we should give spring so, now that the weather is warming and clearly the freedom to try it out. In my view, very clearly we the Minister is warming to the amendments being should. presented, I very much hope that I shall be on a run There is an added reason why I am very strongly in here following the success of the noble Baroness, Lady support of this amendment, and that is to do with the Andrews. issues in London. Noble Lords will be aware that I I apologise for the introduction of a manuscript chaired a commission on the housing crisis—I think it amendment at a late stage but this is due to constructive is a crisis—in London, which looked at issues of how conversations with the Minister’s colleagues as to how supply in London might be doubled over five years we can put something in the Bill that enables local and then held there. Nothing less than that will address initiative to be given more scope than it is at the the issues in London. The overwhelming conclusion of moment. My inspiration for this was the Wolfson our panel was that it was simply not possible to deliver Economics Prize in 2014. The winner was Oxford—a this scale of change without a new, significant package well-known Labour council—and the runner-up was of devolution to the London mayor and the London Shelter,which is also not listed as a government supporter. boroughs. One part of that devolved model is greater So this is not a partisan amendment but is based on a powers on planning. This amendment would open up 713 Housing and Planning Bill [LORDS] Housing and Planning Bill 714

[LORD KERSLAKE] for example, in relation to energy efficiency or other the opportunity for a new devolution package in London aspects that one would expect to be part of planning and the opportunity, I think, to tackle a growing and consent for new schemes. desperate crisis.I hope that this proposal is sympathetically I do not quite understand what the decision-making considered by the Government. mechanism would be. Once the scheme had been floated, would it still involve applications having to be 8.45 pm approved within the new framework by something Lord Shipley (LD): My Lords, I note that this equivalent to a development control committee or amendment has been supplied to us only today in the sub-committee of the kind that most councils now form of Amendment 107B, having previously been have, or is it to be a sort of executive process without Amendment 107A. The basic thrust behind the member involvement at the level of individual local amendment is broadly the same but the wording has authorities or perhaps a combination of authorities altered. I had some doubts about Amendment 107A, when one is looking at a wider area? It is not quite and I still have those doubts. Perhaps, in replying, the clear how the practical side would be handled. Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, could explain I share the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley—if the position. I do not want to see one of the cornerstones not doubts, then questions—about the nature of public of British democracy, which is the town and country involvement and how that would be fed into the planning system, upended by this amendment. Certainly process. Can the noble Lord identify any experience in the previous version, particularly subsections (1) and another jurisdiction—one which is somewhat analogous (3), was very worrying. Those subsections have been to ours—of this kind of approach? Is there experience altered in Amendment 107B, but a number of questions of this way of dealing with applications that we might still arise. learn from in terms of how it might develop here? I The first question is around how neighbourhood would certainly be interested in seeing the matter planning fits with this structure. A great deal of emphasis progressed, but I do not think that we have enough has been placed on the importance of neighbourhood information positively to affirm that it should go planning. However, I am looking at subsection (3)(c), forward as part of the Bill—it is a bit early for that subsection (4)(a) and subsection (5), and although without knowing a good deal more about how it they refer to consultation that is deemed to be adequate, might work. It may be that some further indications there is no indication of what “adequate” consultation can be given and the Minister wants to take the matter is. Nor is it clear what would happen if the local back, although not necessarily with a view to dealing reaction of a neighbourhood is very negative to a with it in a week’s time at Third Reading—we are proposal. It is also not clear how the summary views pretty late in the process to bring something as potentially expressed—let us suppose that 90% are against—will radical as this into the Bill. Even if it does not go very be considered by the Minister. That is one aspect of far on this occasion, it is certainly a concept that is this that causes me concern. I do not really understand worth exploring, but if I were the Minister, I do not how we can have a system of neighbourhood planning think that I would be jumping at incorporation into and then alterations to a planning system, as proposed the Bill quite at this stage. However, she may have a in this amendment. different view. Secondly, there is the issue of sustainability. I do not understand to what extent planning freedoms Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, I thank would mean that a local area could disregard issues of my noble friend Lord Lucas for his amendment and sustainability. I am thinking of issues around drainage the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, who and water supply, but there are other examples. I feel moved it in his absence just before the Easter Recess. uncertain about exactly what is being proposed here The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, had a bad back at that and why it is deemed to be so important, with an stage and half the noble Lords who are interested in assumption that the current planning system cannot this Bill were somewhat indisposed, but I am glad that deliver the answer that is required: to build more everybody is now feeling much better. We may well, of houses. We already heard earlier, in the debate about course, be ill before Prorogation. I also thank the the neighbourhood right of appeal to a planning noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, who spoke as well. approval on neighbourhood planning, that 10% more homes are being built in areas with neighbourhood My noble friend made some interesting arguments plans than would otherwise have been the case. about the benefits of this model. He made a compelling case for the leadership role of local I am struggling to understand what problem the authorities and their ability to innovate in a way mover of this amendment is attempting to solve. It that reflects the needs and voices of their local would help enormously to have some concrete examples communities. There is also a pressing need to build to work with. When I hear about combined authorities, new homes, and I am strongly convinced of the which are huge structures that do not have much importance of the role that local authorities play in connectivity with electors, I wonder how this will build that. I am therefore open to new approaches such as public confidence in the current planning system. this which might achieve our dual obligations of housing growth and localism. I want also to reflect further on Lord Beecham (Lab): My Lords, I also come to this how a model such as this might be used in practice—both without a full appreciation of the implications. In the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Lord, particular, I wonder whether schemes would be able to Lord Beecham, raised some questions which are worthy depart from what might become requirements elsewhere; of consideration. 715 Housing and Planning Bill [20 APRIL 2016] Housing and Planning Bill 716

My noble friend has made it clear that his amendment incidental to the performance of their functions, and is simply enabling. If a clear case could be made for may vary such fees or charges according to the value of the circumstances where these measures might apply, the project concerned or any other material concerns. such circumstances would need to be set out in regulations (2) Fees or charges under subsection (1) may exceed the which would have to be debated in both Houses. On costs incurred by the local planning authority in that basis, and with those checks and balances in performing functions relating to the relevant project. place, I am willing to accept the amendment at this (3) Local planning authorities shall retain any fees or charges paid in accordance with subsection (1), and use stage, but subject to considering further whether any them as they see fit.” technical adjustments are needed for the remaining stage of the Bill. Baroness Gardner of Parkes: In moving this amendment I will also speak to Amendment 116. Although they Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am very grateful to my are on different subjects, they are very similar in that noble friend for her response. I thoroughly appreciate they are setting right something that is very wrong at what noble Lords opposite have said. The winners of the moment. The amendments would give local authorities the Wolfson Economics Prize in 2014 were big schemes, more control over how they deal with the costs involved but they were very much supported locally.They clearly in handling planning applications. There is no doubt did not go through the processes that are envisaged in that handling a very large and expensive operation my amendment, but the Oxfordshire scheme was 150,000 that may involve hundreds of millions of pounds is houses. It was supported by Oxford City Council in its rather different in terms of cost to the council than generation, and the Shelter scheme in the Medway was handling a little room or basement extension that of a similar size. These are transformative schemes someone wants to add on to their house. At the and it is quite difficult, I am told by those who moment, local authorities do not have that choice. It is supported them, to see how one fits them within wrong for people to pay the same amount. The council existing planning law. should be entitled to charge fees according to the work At the same time, we do not want, as the noble involved and the cost of the development envisaged. Lord, Lord Shipley, says, to completely reconstruct 9 pm planning law bit by bit. I do not lay claim personally The other point which I think will appeal to every to deep expertise in this area, but my intention is that council is that Amendment 108 provides that councils we should not be doing that. We should allow local should have the right to retain the fees. At the moment areas to operate as standard bearers to look at something councils are being burdened with more and more that really makes sense to them and has strong support expense, and if something goes to appeal and they locally, to take that forward and see how it goes. If have to defend a case, it can be very costly. These they get it right then we will all learn from it and have discretions would be good. a process that helps us advance planning law. If they do not get it quite right then it is what they wanted and Amendment 116 concerns retrospective planning they did their best but the planning arrangements for permission. It is a different issue but again, the payment the rest of us remain as they were. I am for innovation of fees arises. I have consulted a number of planning and encouraging, above all, localism and letting local officers who say that the only way to discourage communities really have a say in what is happening to retrospective planning permissions is for people to them and an ability to tackle things on a large scale have to pay more for them than for planning at the where that is needed. That is something we should right time. They say that the reasoning is that if encourage. someone just goes ahead and does something, they may get away with it and not have to pay anything at I am depressed that it looks like my children will all because it is not picked up. If it is found, it means live in smaller houses than I did, and I live in a smaller that someone has had to go to more trouble to find the house than my parents did. I think that that is pretty problem, so it is right that someone should be charged standard across the country. We ought, as we get more. It should not be a question of a standard fee richer, to have better and nicer places to live in. We that people pay when they do things the right way; it need more innovation and more understanding to should be a punitive fee to indicate that it was wrong work out how all the conflicting demands of the not to have applied in the first instance. environment and us as a society and individual people Recently I have come across various expensive can best be met. I am a great fan in that context of developments in London, sometimes involving historic local innovation. I am comforted by what my noble homes, where the problems are even more serious. friend said. I do not pretend that this does not require People have been given planning permission to do a further thought and consideration and I am certainly certain number of things, but they have gone right open to all suggestions on this. ahead and done everything else. Local residents are up Amendment 107B agreed. in arms about what has been an attack on a special listed property. Although they could tolerate a modern extension which had been allowed, they think that it is Amendment 108 going too far when certain historic parts of a building Moved by Baroness Gardner of Parkes are attacked. I know that special provision already 108: Clause 141, page 72, line 20, at end insert— applies to historic properties. “(1) Local planning authorities may make provision for the The amendments are related in that they will both payment of fees or charges to them in respect of the give councils the right to charge according to what performance of their functions and anything done by they believe is right, with an additional charge in the them which is calculated to facilitate or is conducive or case of retrospective planning permissions. Equally 717 Housing and Planning Bill [LORDS] Housing and Planning Bill 718

[BARONESS GARDNER OF PARKES] the ability to set fees at a reasonable level must surely important in respect of retrospective planning permission form part of any package. I simply cannot see any of is the question of why someone should just go ahead the external agencies that the Government want to and do something. In the last house I lived in, it was involve in planning process work being willing to agreed that the houses behind could have a certain undertake it if their fees are to be equally constrained. angle of light and have an extra floor put on them. Yet, where planning departments have been allowed to That happened with the first development—these were charge realistic fees, such as for pre-planning applications, listed buildings—but then I saw the second one was many have developed an efficient, speedy and high-quality being built straight up. I phoned the council and told service. Were councils able to charge realistic fees that them that the development was not being built in at least recover their full costs for their main planning accordance with the planning permission. “Nonsense”, functions, I am confident that the quality and speed of they said, “of course it is”. Some 18 months later work would improve, to the enormous benefit of when people had moved into that house, the chairman developers. It should be noted that such fee increases of the planning committee called me to apologise. He would in the vast majority of cases be very small in said that now that people had moved into the property comparison with the other very much larger costs and had gone to so much trouble, the council did not incurred in any development of any size, and that the feel that it could do anything about it. That is pretty negative impact would be more than outweighed by unsatisfactory for the people who have lost their light— the benefits of the improved service offered. someone just got away with it; that is what it boiled I know that some noble Lords will have concerns down to. I have had that happen to me several times in about subsection (2) of Amendment 108, which would my life. It is more that someone feels that they can get enable councils to set fees or charges that, away with something, so it is important that local “may exceed the costs incurred … in performing the functions people should be consulted because it is often those relating to the relevant project”, who live close to these developments who notice that but there will be cases where planning fee costs, if at something has been done that is not in accordance full cost recovery for a small development, may well with planning. I beg to move. deter that development. If the overall costs of the planning department can be spread so that larger Lord Foster of Bath (LD): My Lords, I am very developments take a little extra of the share and thus happy indeed to have my name associated with enable the fees for smaller developments to go ahead, Amendment 108. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner we can have the best of both worlds. I say to the of Parkes, has eloquently set out the case. The current Minister that this would in no way be contrary to the fee levels are determined centrally by government and requirements imposed on local councils in the Local they do not enable council planning departments to Government Act 2003, which makes it clear that councils achieve full cost recovery. London Councils claims a are under a duty to ensure that, taking one year with shortfall of around £40 million a year, while we have another, charges do not exceed the cost of provision. heard from the noble Lord, Lord Porter, that the LGA Therefore, taking a little less from some developers estimates that the shortfall across the country is some and putting a little more on others is perfectly legitimate £150 million a year. The fees were last reviewed in in existing legislation. 2012 and the future is very uncertain. The Government The Government continue to claim that they support consultation finished only at the end of last week, and localism. They can demonstrate that by supporting we have no idea what the outcome will be. the amendment. Should they fail to do so, I hope there I am sure many noble Lords were as pleased as I will be an opportunity to test the opinion of the was to receive what has now become the almost ritual House, but I hope that will not be necessary. letter from the Minister just a few hours before each of our sessions debating the Bill. But I note that in today’s letter we are told that, because of the high Lord Kerslake: My Lords, I speak very briefly in response rate to the consultation, she is unable to support of the spirit behind the amendment and what is share with us any information about what respondents sought to be achieved. I will not repeat the arguments have said or, indeed, how the Government will react. that have already been made, but I will refer to the But the Minister has already admitted in answer to my experience I had during the London Housing questions in Committee—and it is repeated in the Commission,whereIconsultedextensivelywithdevelopers letter we received today—that it is likely that councils across every type and scale.The consistent and unanimous will get an inflation-based rise, with those deemed to view of all those developers was that they were willing be poorly performing getting even less. So the shortfall to pay more to get a better service. will continue, and many hard-pressed planning What they described to me was a service that was departments will be unable to give the quality of truly struggling to do the job, where major and important service they would like and that developers need and applications were held up through the absence of deserve. good-quality staff and where they often experienced The Minister offers in today’sletter one small glimmer dealing with temporary staff who were learning on the of hope, where she refers to, job and did not have the authority to make decisions. “greater fee flexibility for the truly radical”. This is, in any description you care to think of, a false I hope she will be able to offer some insights into what economy. The improvement by way of inflation will be she has in mind. I genuinely believe that councils are helpful but it does not go to the heart of the core capable of radical approaches to service delivery—indeed, problem, which is that, in the situation of severe there are many examples that demonstrate this—but funding challenges in local government, authorities 719 Housing and Planning Bill [20 APRIL 2016] Housing and Planning Bill 720 are unable to resource, in the way that is required, the I think it is important that councils are able to set level of planning services that we need to deliver the fees that enable them to recover their costs, or at least increase in housing supply. a larger part of their costs, in undertaking the work I am absolutely of the view that there should be a they need to do to ensure that applications are processed link to performance here, but I also believe very efficiently. This would, of course, mean that for larger passionately that we should give local authorities the developments developers would pay more, or more local initiative and flexibility to set their own fees. realistic costs, than someone who wants to build an Over time the consequence of this will be that they will extension to their home. be able to plan for increased resources and, crucially, I agreed with the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord recruit new, skilled staff and rebuild a profession Porter of Spalding, when they said in Committee that which, in the public sector, has been severely reduced it is probably going too far to allow councils to make in its capacity. money out of the planning application process, but it is right that they should be able to recover up to all their costs, which is the intention of my Lord Porter of Spalding (Con): My Lords, strangely, Amendment 116BA, which we will come to later. I am I am going to speak against the amendment, because disposed to test the opinion of the House on that if of the second part. I am not sure why this amendment the Minister does not make a reasonable offer in that is not linked to the one about the private sector being regard before Third Reading. able to compete against local government to do planning. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner,made a compelling In my mind they should go together. There is no way point on Amendment 116, to which the noble Lord, that the private sector will pick up any planning Lord Porter, referred. At my last planning committee applications if it is only allowed to charge the current meeting, I recall that a public house in Blackheath was fee structure that we as councils are allowed to charge. seeking retrospective approval for the substantial changes That is because in the last three years the taxpayer it had made to the fabric of its building without subsidy to planning has been £450 million. The private planning permission. It obtained the approval. We sector will not engage on that. made it very clear to the applicants how unhappy we Without the second part being in there, it would were that they were there in front of us, but that was allow local government to be put in the right place to all we could do. They got their permission and paid prevent the private sector being able to take the work the nominal fees. It would be good if such applicants at a subsidised rate for itself. The risk seems to be that, could be made to pay a little more, given the work that when we get to that part of the Bill, private sector we had to do. firms will be allowed to charge excessive fees and make money, safe in the knowledge that there will be an 9.15 pm expectation that they will be more sympathetic to the applicant. I think a true level playing field would be Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, I thank one in which we charge full cost recovery and for those the noble Lords and my noble friend Lady Gardner applications that are minor, where that would not be of Parkes for speaking to this amendment, which possible, there needs be a different mechanism. That is would allow local authorities to go beyond cost why I cannot support the amendment as written. recovery.Wecurrently work with the Town and Country Planning Act and the Local Government Act 2003, On the next amendment, on the retrospective planning which places a duty on authorities, requiring them to application, again, we need some way to penalise serial ensure that, taking one year with another, any income offenders who wilfully abuse the planning system by derived from planning fees or fees from discretionary not seeking planning permission in the right way when services does not exceed the cost of providing the they first set out on their projects. Again, I am not sure service. However, what cost recovery means in how that should be worded in a way that will deliver it practice in terms of fee levels and increases could vary to best effect for everybody, because there will be widely. I am deeply concerned that this amendment, genuine cases where some people simply were not and another we will debate later, have no protections aware that they needed to make a planning application. or safeguards to prevent local authorities setting So any amendment must recognise that for me to be excessive and unreasonable fees, leaving the potential able to support it. As I have said before about any for substantial increases in fees for applicants. My amendment that has “local government must” in it, noble friend Lord Porter outlined some of the snags in there is no way I can support the third part of that this approach. Although noble Lords might argue amendment, where it says that we “must consult”. I do about recovering costs, where is the protection for not think that local government ever “must”do anything. applicants so that they are not simply funding a highly I think we should always “may” do something. inefficient service, as he said? Without safeguards for applicants, this amendment, and the one we will debate Lord Kennedy of Southwark: My Lords, I have later, are flawed. There are real technical challenges considerable sympathy for the amendment moved by with the amendments we are debating. That said, it the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. I regret has been interesting to hear noble Lords’ comments, that we were not able to get Amendment 116BA into so I shall go into further detail about some of the the same group, as it covers the same issues. It makes issues raised. clear that local authorities may recover their full costs I appreciate the strength of feeling on this issue, in respect of the work they are doing on planning particularly from my noble friend Lady Gardner. It is applications,which is the intention behind this amendment easy to be seduced into thinking that resource and as well. performance challenges in planning departments can 721 Housing and Planning Bill [LORDS] Housing and Planning Bill 722

[BARONESS WILLIAMS OF TRAFFORD] their own level of fees up to cost recovery. We already be resolved by localising fee setting. The arguments have the powers to enable local fee setting, but handing for and against local fee setting are more complex and local planning authorities a blank cheque in this way nuanced than has been suggested. However, to give does not guarantee a better-resourced planning carte blanche to local authorities to recoup whatever department or incentivise authorities to drive down their costs, whether or not they are efficient, cannot be their costs. This is why we want to test the approaches right. This is why we want to test and learn from that we are developing to tackle resourcing pressures different approaches to fee setting to better understand in local planning authorities. how we can secure well-resourced and top-performing I have already set out that there are legislative planning departments. provisions that prevent authorities from going I shall set out why I am not convinced that allowing beyond cost recovery. Additionally, the Government’s local planning authorities to set their own planning guidance on handling public funds, entitled Managing fee levels at this time is the answer to resourcing Public Money, states that charges and fees, such as challenges. Local authorities have told us, supported those for planning applications, should be set at cost by some evidence from the NAO, that there have recovery so that the Government do not profit at the been disproportionate cuts to planning services since expense of applicants. The proposed amendment also 2010. Such local decisions suggest that additional does not have any safeguards—for example, to prevent income from local fee setting may not necessarily local planning authorities from profiting from fees set make its way into planning services, particularly against at excessive levels that could dissuade applicants, the backdrop of local government arguing for, and particularly smaller ones, from bringing forward gaining, reductions in ring-fenced budgets and development—or any requirement on authorities to income. Local planning authorities are monopoly consult on fee proposals. I feel very strongly that it is providers of planning services in their area, which up to local authorities to determine how fees are used does not provide much incentive to innovate, reduce and that the income generated from planning fees costs and provide the most efficient and effective service. remains with the council. Local fee setting could compound this because it enables planning authorities to pass on their costs to Lord Shipley: My Lords, before the Minister sits applicants, despite any inefficiencies in their planning down, I just want to say that we will be returning to service. Fees could rise in a way that dissuades small or this issue next Monday, as the issue of pilots and medium-sized developers from undertaking developments. testing is in a later set of amendments. There is one Local authorities tell us that resource pressures are under my name to be debated then. Does the Minister most acute in small development schemes, and fees for accept that local planning authorities are not recovering this type of development could rise proportionately their costs now and does she believe, in principle, that the most significantly. While local authorities have they should be entitled to do so? transformed many of their services, they have been Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, although slower to transform their planning services. Those that there has been the ability for fees to go up in line with have introduced new ways of delivering planning services inflation, there is a general acceptance of the anecdotal have shown that performance can be improved and evidence from local planning authorities that their costs reduced. costs are not being met, but we have to marry that up We have set out three proposals for tackling resource with performance and efficiency. pressuresinplanningdepartments.First,wehaveconsulted on increasing national fees in line with inflation since Lord Kennedy of Southwark: I know that we are the last fee increase in 2012 for those authorities that going to come back to this next week but, before the are performing well, with annual increases thereafter noble Baroness sits down, can she confirm that, when also linked to inflation and performance. We have we have all these reviews, she does not envisage a also proposed testing the provision of greater flexibility situation where we end up with the local authority in fee setting, on top of our proposals for national being able to charge one set of fees for a planning increases in fees linked to inflation, where local application, while a lot more could be paid to another areas come forward with ambitious plans for reforms provider who could also do it but at a more expensive and improved performance. This could mean some cost? I think that it would be totally wrong to allow limited, localised fee setting in a few areas or small there to be two levels of fees—you could have the additional increases in fees above inflation. This council charging a fee but allow some other provider approach will allow us to test and better understand to do the same job for a larger fee. whether fee flexibility directly linked to service reform and performance can secure better planning services Lord Shipley: Before the noble Lord sits down—that for communities and developers alike. We want to is actually the subject of the amendment that I shall be introduce pilots to test competition in the processing moving next Monday. of planning applications. We think that the market might work best where service providers are free to set Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, what we their own fees so we are minded, subject to consultation, are discussing at the moment are fees that go beyond to enable authorities in pilot areas to set their own fee cost recovery. I am talking about efficient and effective levels. local planning— Section 303 of the Town and Country Planning Lord Foster of Bath: I apologise but can the Act 1990 allows the Secretary of State to provide, in Minister explain why she keeps referring to us discussing regulations, that local planning authorities can set fees that go beyond full cost recovery? She has 723 Housing and Planning Bill [20 APRIL 2016] Housing and Planning Bill 724 acknowledged that a local authority will clearly want 9.28 pm development to take place, so there will be constraints on that authority not to set unrealistic fees that Division on Amendment 108 prevent the development going forward. But she has repeated what I said in repeating what she said during Contents 36; Not-Contents 129. Committee: that the Local Government Act clearly states that a council cannot make a profit year on year Amendment 108 disagreed. from its services. There is a clear constraint in the existing legislation and I think that we all acknowledge Division No. 3 that. CONTENTS Bakewell of Hardington Paddick, L. Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, I am Mandeville, B. slightly confused now because Amendment 108 says Parminter, B. Barker, B. Randerson, B. that all local authorities may increase fees beyond cost Beith, L. Scriven, L. recovery. Bowles of Berkhamsted, B. Sharkey, L. Cotter, L. Sharp of Guildford, B. Cox, B. Sheehan, B. Dholakia, L. Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, this Shipley, L. debate has been very interesting and it has certainly Featherstone, B. Foster of Bath, L. Shutt of Greetland, L. ranged widely. I still think it very important that Gardner of Parkes, B. Smith of Newnham, B. fees should be related to the cost of the project. I Grender, B. Stephen, L. cannot reconcile the small, individual application Hussain, L. Stunell, L. for something in your own home as compared to Jolly, B. Taylor of Goss Moor, L. that for a multimillion pound development. There Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L. Thomas of Gresford, L. must be variation in that; there is certainly a big Kramer, B. Tonge, B. Ludford, B. Tope, L. variation in the amount of work involved on the Maddock, B. [Teller] Wallace of Tankerness, L. part of the council in considering the other type of Newby, L. [Teller] Walmsley, B. application. I was interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord NOT CONTENTS Kerslake, that people had said to him that in general Ahmad of Wimbledon, L. Goodlad, L. they would like a better service. They were not so Altmann, B. Hague of Richmond, L. worried about the cost of it—that is, the person Anelay of St Johns, B. Hamilton of Epsom, L. who has the big development. The small development Arbuthnot of Edrom, L. Harris of Peckham, L. person is very worried about their one little bit and Ashton of Hyde, L. [Teller] Hayward, L. would rather wait longer and pay less. But I can Astor, V. Hodgson of Abinger, B. understand that if you are doing big business and Astor of Hever, L. Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, hoping for a huge profit at the end of your Attlee, E. L. Barker of Battle, L. Holmes of Richmond, L. project, speed is of the essence in getting it on and Berridge, B. Horam, L. sold. The papers today tell us how this year will be Borwick, L. Howard of Rising, L. a terribly bad one for London at the top of the Brabazon of Tara, L. Hunt of Wirral, L. property market yet last year—or it might have Bridgeman, V. Inglewood, L. been the year before—was fabulous. Whenever it was, Bridges of Headley, L. Jenkin of Kennington, B. the people developing for a big profit are out to catch Browne of Belmont, L. Jopling, L. the market at the right time, so time is very important Carrington of Fulham, L. Kirkham, L. Cathcart, E. Lang of Monkton, L. to them. If you are doing your own small building, Chadlington, L. Lansley, L. you would rather be sure that you can afford to do it Chisholm of Owlpen, B. Lawson of Blaby, L. than suddenly pay an extra fee to get permission Cope of Berkeley, L. Lexden, L. quicker. Cormack, L. Lindsay, E. Courtown, E. Lingfield, L. The Minister referred to pilots. I would like to think Crathorne, L. Liverpool, E. that she really does have pilots under way and that we Deben, L. Lucas, L. are going to learn something from them. I understand Dixon-Smith, L. Lyell, L. from what has been said that that will be discussed Dobbs, L. McColl of Dulwich, L. next week. I am therefore encouraged by her saying Empey, L. MacGregor of Pulham Evans of Bowes Park, B. Market, L. that these pilots are being worked on. I will reserve Fairfax of Cameron, L. McIntosh of Pickering, B. my views and not press this amendment tonight Fall, B. Mackay of Clashfern, L. because it is late. A lot of interesting points have been Farmer, L. Maginnis of Drumglass, L. raised and I would like the opportunity to discuss Faulks, L. Marlesford, L. this matter with the Minister. I would also like to see Fink, L. Mawson, L. the result of the debate on pilots next week but, as Fookes, B. Mone, B. Forsyth of Drumlean, L. Morris of Bolton, B. there are not enough Members left in the House to Fowler, L. Moynihan, L. give us a true vote tonight, I beg leave to withdraw the Freeman, L. Nash, L. amendment. Freud, L. Neville-Rolfe, B. Geddes, L. Newlove, B. Gilbert of Panteg, L. Noakes, B. Some Lords objected to the request for leave to withdraw Glenarthur, L. Norton of Louth, L. the amendment, so it was not granted. Glendonbrook, L. O’Cathain, B. 725 Housing and Planning Bill [LORDS] Housing and Planning Bill 726

O’Neill of Gatley, L. Skelmersdale, L. the law. I spoke to the leader of one London council, Oppenheim-Barnes, B. Smith of Hindhead, L. who said, “We can’t stop these basements unless you O’Shaughnessy, L. Somerset, D. change the law to enable us to do so”. That is the Patten of Barnes, L. Spicer, L. Perry of Southwark, B. Stedman-Scott, B. purpose of these amendments. Pidding, B. Stowell of Beeston, B. Even if your Lordships live in an area where there Popat, L. Suri, L. are no basements, they are coming your way—even in Porter of Spalding, L. Taylor of Holbeach, L. Price, L. [Teller] Northern Ireland, they will happen sooner or later. Prior of Brampton, L. Tebbit, L. But certainly they will happen all over London and Redfern, B. Trees, L. in other cities. So it is no good saying, “This does Ribeiro, L. Trefgarne, L. not affect my area”, because it certainly does, or Risby, L. Trenchard, V. certainly will. One only has to look at the coverage in Rock, B. Trimble, L. the . Week after week, there are Rogan, L. True, L. Evening Standard Scott of Bybrook, B. Tugendhat, L. stories of horrific basements being built. There are Seccombe, B. Verma, B. different types of basements; nevertheless, the Selborne, E. Warsi, B. stories are there, and they are pretty awful. My noble Selkirk of Douglas, L. Wasserman, L. friend Lord McKenzie of Luton wanted to be here, Shackleton of Belgravia, B. Whitby, L. but I said I would do a little piece for him. He said that Sheikh, L. Wilcox, B. Sherbourne of Didsbury, L. Williams of Trafford, B. one has to be careful when digging basements. The Shinkwin, L. Young of Cookham, L. construction industry is a dangerous industry, and Shrewsbury, E. Younger of Leckie, V. there can be accidents in digging basements and there are important health and safety considerations that 9.40 pm ought not to be forgotten. Not long ago, a basement was being excavated under a house in Barnes which simply collapsed, so it is not straightforward. There Amendment 109 are quite horrific examples. Moved by Lord Dubs I have met with the Minister a couple of times. We 109: After Clause 141, insert the following new Clause— have had good discussions, and I found her extremely “Code of practice for subterranean development works helpful. I am hoping she will be even more helpful on (1) A local planning authority may promulgate a code of this occasion and give me some encouragement. If she practice on the excavation and construction of a is, we can move on quickly. I beg to move. subterranean development with a view to lessening the adverse impact of the excavation and construction on adjacent properties and their owners and occupiers and Baroness Williams of Trafford: I thank the noble on the wider neighbourhood. Lord for the manner in which he has engaged with me (2) The code may include, but need not be limited to, the and Members of your Lordships’ House in addressing provisions listed in Schedule (Provisions in local authority not just the basement development issue,but the associated code of practice for subterranean development). problems and the misery of people’slives being disrupted (3) Local planning authorities shall take account of any by such developments. He has certainly enlightened guidance issued by the Secretary of State in drawing up me as to some of the problems in London, in particular. such a code of practice. The Government are very aware of them now, if they (4) If a local planning authority has promulgated such a were not previously. code, it may make the granting of planning consent for a subterranean development conditional on the developer I take this opportunity to tell the noble Lord and undertaking to abide by the code or specified elements your Lordships’ House that in the light of the concerns of it.” he has raised on this and many previous occasions, we will commit to carrying out a review of the planning Lord Dubs (Lab): My Lords, I hope to be brief, law and regulations relating to basement developments. despite the length of the amendments down on the The noble Lord promised me that I would be splashed Order Paper. The more I look at this issue—and it is all over the Evening Standard for this, so I await his called “subterranean development”, which most people side of the deal—that is a metaphor. would call “basements”—the more I realise that planning We will publish a call for evidence for the review by law is incredibly complicated. I spent some time as a the summer this year, and we hope we will receive councillor in Westminster and, in fact, I was a Minister responses from a range of authorities and stakeholders for Northern Ireland, and I had direct responsibility and, of course, from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, so for planning decisions. Nevertheless, despite all that we can take on his views and expertise. experience, my knowledge was still pretty thin; I have learned quite a lot, but not as much as I ought to. Basements are a real problem. Anybody who lives Lord Kennedy of Southwark: My Lords, I welcome in an area where basements are spreading will accept the Minister’s statement and congratulate my noble that they are a problem. If you talk to people who live friend Lord Dubs, who has been doggedly pursuing next door to where a basement is being dug out, they this issue for some time now. He produced a Private will tell you, “For heaven’s sake, we have no peace, we Member’s Bill and pursued this matter here, and we cannot sleep”. If they are shift workers, they cannot have a very good conclusion. do their work in the daytime. They will say, “For heaven’s sake, stop it”. Addressing this issue has all-party Lord Dubs: This is a very happy occasion when we support in both Houses, so it is not a partisan matter are all in such agreement. I am most grateful to the at all. Local council leaders are keen on a change in Minister for what she said and for the commitment 727 Housing and Planning Bill [20 APRIL 2016] Housing and Planning Bill 728 she entered into, which I think is pretty good. Everybody was an ideal site—by a £180 million West End property I have spoken to says it is pretty good and that we can company which is pushing out a number of businesses move forward with it. I cannot guarantee that the in the mews concerned. Minister will be a headline in the Evening Standard, There is a problem and I cannot understand why a but she jolly well ought to be. I beg leave to withdraw Government who believe in small business, endeavour the amendment. and hard work cannot see that there needs to be a tweak at the edges of the current regime to make sure Amendment 109 withdrawn. that we can safeguard these hard-working people. Amendments 110 to 115 not moved. That is all I am hoping to achieve in the context of this debate. Amendment 116 not moved. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, and I understand that there are difficulties with my amendment 9.45 pm as it stands. There are understandable fears on the part of the Government that if the amendment were Amendment 116A accepted it might apply halfway across the country where it was not justified as it is, I submit, in my area. I Moved by Lord True am very willing to find a compromise; if that takes 116A: After Clause 141, insert the following new Clause— time over the next few days, I would be willing to do “Compensation to businesses expelled from premises to enable that and withdraw the amendment. That would be the conversion from office to residential use preferred course. With a will, it should be possible to Any property owner, developer, or agent, who gives notice find a way to preserve the policy which the Government to a solvent and active business in order to enable the rightly think has been a success in using disused and conversion of office premises to residential use, shall be unwanted offices, and allow it to continue in areas required to— where it is appropriate, while finding a way to stop (a) meet the full costs of the planning authority in active businesses being forced out on to the streets. advising on and determining such an application; I have every hope that we can find a way forward. I (b) make a contribution to the local planning authority will not prolong my remarks because, as I say, I spoke of not less than 20% of the net profit gained from the difference between the office and residential on this issue at some length in Committee. Circumstances value of the property concerned; and have not improved since then; they have got worse. I (c) share not less than 50% of the net profit gained from beg to move. the difference between the office and residential value of the property concerned with any business or businesses expelled from the premises to enable Lord Tope (LD): My Lords, I have added my name the change of use.” to this amendment, as indeed I did in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord True, is quite right: he made an Lord True (Con): My Lords, at this hour I will seek excellent speech then, at some length and with some to be as brief as possible. It was very good to hear passion. I know this is an issue about which he rightly another concession from the Front Bench; the gracious feels very strongly. way in which our Government have listened to Opposition I am no longer a south London councillor, but I representations has been striking in the course of the was until two years ago and I know the effect that this Bill’s proceedings, and I welcome it. policy, which came in under the coalition Government I made a speech in Committee, and there is a good in 2013, has had in my borough, which I think is rule in this House that we do not repeat at length similar to that in much of London. Like the noble arguments made there. I considered that speech to be Lord, Lord True, I am not going to repeat everything clear and, without being arrogant, I thought that it that I said in Committee. One thing startled me, was quite compelling. It was Conservative; it was, in though: in my borough, the London Borough of Sutton, my submission, common sense; and it spoke for itself. 62% of the conversions permitted in the two-year I am not certain that it has been read as widely in period under the permitted development right have government as I would have liked, but I still have happened to offices that were occupied, and the occupiers hopes that it might be. It was also, if I may say so, a have been removed. That is serious and damaging for compassionate speech in terms of conservatism. the local economy. I ask why the Government are so The issue I wish to highlight, which does not affect keen to pursue this, and I am told that it is because of the whole country, is what is happening to small the drive to provide more homes. That is an ambition businesses as a result of the order as it is operating. In that we all support strongly. my borough, we have recently seen a local estate agent I therefore asked my borough—I repeat that I am ousted by landlords operating under a nominee company not a councillor now—for the housing figures. They which wished to develop the property; the estate agent showed me the figures for housing in the borough for could not find a suitable high street replacement and is each of the last 10 years, long before the policy came now renting in less suitable premises at more than in as well as since. Sadly I do not have the figures with double the cost. Asset and flood risk management me, but in all of those 10 years, and overall, for consultants employing 10 in a town centre have been permissions granted the borough is, from memory, ousted, forced to move to a less favourable site, again 132% above the target in the London Plan—in other with a far higher rent. The winner of our local Best words, the target set for the council. Possibly more Business award, employing six, has been ousted from importantly, on housing completions it is still very premises that were found after three years of searching—it nearly 130% above target. So this is an authority that 729 Housing and Planning Bill [LORDS] Housing and Planning Bill 730

[LORD TOPE] values that can be achieved through economic use is more than meeting its housing targets—whether or such as offices, retail space and so on. Instead of not that is enough is a different debate—and cannot taking sites that will never be used for economic be said to be, nor has it been said to be, failing in that development, we are taking perfectly viable business regard. Yet the borough, particularly its employment sites and then forcing them into residential use, often prospects and the whole nature of its town centre and at high values, which is not helping with the immediate other district centres, is hit hard by this policy. housing need, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has just The other aspect is the housing being permitted described. There are plenty of different ways that this under the permitted development rights. We all want issue can be addressed, but I urge the Minister to look to see more homes being provided, but not just anything. constructively at how this issue can be tackled. It is None of the properties provided could be designated likely to carry on growing in areas where these values as an affordable property. Demands are different in are so different. Its consequence will be to damage the different areas, and the demand in an area like mine is character of those areas and permanently lose economic very much for two-bedroom and three-bedroom activity. properties, but virtually all those provided are one- bedroom and not affordable, so not what is actually Lord Beecham: My Lords,I support Amendment 116B, needed in the area but, frankly, what developers can in the names of the noble Lord, Lord True, my noble turn a quick profit on. They are permitted to do that; friend Lord Kennedy and the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake they are not breaking the law. So I question whether and Lord Tope. They made a powerful case for dealing the policy is actually meeting housing demand either. with what is potentially a damaging development in We all want to see more homes built but not any old many town and city centres and some of the suburban homes anywhere; we want the right quality and design areas as well. I am not so keen on Amendment 116A of homes, and the homes that people actually need. I but I think that the Minister should go back to suggest that this policy is failing on that front as well. Amendment 116B. I would urge her to give serious It is not failing everywhere; I know that in some consideration to the suggestion it contains. To adapt authorities—the Minister said that her former authority an old phrase, I would advise her, “to her own True, be was one of them—it is very welcome. That is fine and I helpful”. It would be wise not to ignore the experience have no problem with that. Our issue is that having of significant change—and change not for the better— had this policy in practice for a couple of years now, particularly as identified by the noble Lord, Lord we can see in reality the effect it is having in large parts Tope, as a result of allowing this kind of development of London—and, I expect, in other parts of the country to take place and, indeed, under the legislation, actually too, although I know less about that. facilitating it. So I hope there will be some second It really is time for the Government to review and thoughts on this. relax this provision. In my view, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord True, meets that requirement. It Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con): My Lords, I is fully in keeping with a localist policy. I am not support in principle the Government’s view on this competent to discuss whatever technical flaws there change of use from offices to housing and do so may or may not be in it, but the amendment’s intent is because over the last three years, more than 7,500 very clear and it is absolutely right. I am pleased to much-needed houses have been delivered for this country. support it. However, I have sympathy for my noble friend Lord True’s amendment, not for the same reason as he and Lord Kerslake: My Lords, I have added my name to many other speakers gave, and certainly not from a the other amendment in this group for the simple London-centric view, because I come from a rural part reason that the intended effect of the policy has not of the country, but because there needs to be further been how it has worked out in practice. If we cast our guidance about this. minds back to when this policy was developed, the The change of use of large office blocks in business economy was still struggling to recover from the impact parks, which is an issue that is hitting many other local of the financial crisis and the intention, therefore, was authorities, is unacceptable. To put housing in the to unlock animal spirits and let the market take its middle of a business park does two things. First, it is course. There is no doubt that permitted rights has not suitable for the people who live in those houses; unlocked a series of new developments of housing. and secondly, it does not help the businesses that are However, the intention was for it to address industrial there at the time or help to market any further units sites or office sites where the prospect of new economic for businesses in the future. It just does not work. development was unlikely ever to happen but, for Quite honestly, local communities, local authorities whatever reason, the local authority was not recognising and anyone else who has anything to do with this that reality and moving on. In that sense, it had its think it is crazy that we would even think of people effect. Where it has not done what we anticipated was living in a business park or an economic development that there was a policy of exemptions which would park. prevent particular areas being unduly affected. The So, although we have Article 4, it would be useful if City and Westminster formed part of those exemptions, the Government made stronger recommendations or but the area was not drawn widely enough. produced guidance saying that these are areas where Let us move forward to the present. The values that we would not accept a change of use. That would then can be achieved through the development of residential stop all the bureaucracy and the cost of fighting these housing, particularly in London—and I believe that things, and it would make it clear to developers that this is predominantly a London issue—far exceed the there are places that we will talk to them about and 731 Housing and Planning Bill [20 APRIL 2016] Housing and Planning Bill 732 consider a change of use, but there are certain places The next question is: has this policy worked? Again, that are just not suitable and therefore they should not the unequivocal answer is yes. JLL Residential Research try to speculate on them. Therefore, I would welcome estimates that 8,000 prior approvals were secured in it if the Minister would look at this matter again and the first two years of the policy and that, if implemented, give local authorities stronger guidance so that they they would have created 60,000 homes. New homes could say no and stop speculation. created by change of use rose from 12,500 in 2013-14 to 20,650 in 2014-15. Critically, this has not impacted 10 pm office development. Much of the talk in this debate has been about London, but in London construction Lord O’Shaughnessy (Con): My Lords, unfortunately levels for commercial reached a seven-year high in I want to express my concern about these amendments 2015. Therefore, it is not having the negative effect that and, in doing so, for the second day in a row on Report some people have said. will no doubt fail to ingratiate myself with a local authority leader who is a noble friend. Moreover, important protections are in place. They I declare an interest in that I was one of the are being used and provide local flexibility. There are architects of this policy when I was director of policy 33 exempt areas. Local authorities can use Article 4 for David Cameron in my time at No. 10, so noble directions—indeed more than 500 are in place—and Lords will understand that I might be a bit defensive any other enlargements or changes would clearly be about it. subject to planning permission. We had presaged the permitted development policy So it seems to me that the current policy, which in the 2010 manifesto, explaining that we would amend would be made permanent in the Bill, provides the the use class orders as part of our plan to deliver more right balance between higher levels of development, housing. That policy,like so many ideas in the manifesto, more homes and more office space, and exemptions was based on the principle of devolution, but a richer where necessary.Unfortunately, what these amendments view of devolution than is assumed by some, who would do is take us back to the status quo ante, when think that this means only pushing power down to that imbalance was allowed to emerge. That would be local authorities. To quote directly from the manifesto: a step backwards that would hinder a necessary and effective new part of the planning system. It would “So we want to pass power down to people—to individuals where we can”. hinder the rights of landowners to respond to market The permitted development rights brought in initially conditions to provide the housing that we need. On by the coalition Government are, to me, a classic that basis, I cannot support these amendments. example of that principle in practice: devolving power to individuals and organisations—in this case, building Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, I thank owners—to use their private property as they see fit the noble Lords who have spoken on both sides of the and in response to changing market conditions. This argument. My noble friend Lord True and the noble kind of transfer of power, which the former Labour Lord, Lord Tope, spoke about safeguarding some of Cabinet Minister, David Miliband, once called “double the economic well-being of their areas. My noble devolution”, is what these amendments would curtail. friend Lord O’Shaughnessy demonstrated that this Therefore, the underlying principle at stake here is has been deeply beneficial to areas such as mine in devolution, but it was put to work to solve a very Trafford, revitalising our local high streets and bringing pressing problem, which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, office buildings back into use where once they stood has recognised and which everyone in this House empty. My noble friend Lady Scott talked about recognises—a chronic shortfall in new-build homes. In inappropriate use of permitted development rights for 2010, as the coalition Government came to power, things such as building houses in industrial estates. As there were just over 100,000 housing completions, my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy said, we have compared with an annual household formation rate of Article 4 to implement in places where it is simply not around 250,000. The housing vacancy rate was around appropriate to move from office to residential use. 3%, and much of that was tied up in moves, probate As I outlined in Committee, the office to residential and so on. At the same time, the high-street vacancy PDR is making a very important contribution to rate was 16.5% in 2010, and in the south-east—obviously delivering the 1 million homes that we want by 2021, one of the strongest regional economies—the office while making the best use of brownfield sites and vacancy rate was 17%. I repeat: 17% against 3%. In reducing the pressure to build on greenfield land. 2010, over 260,000 offices of all shapes and sizes were Take-up of the temporary permitted development right vacant. has been very high, with more than 6,500 applications So there was, and indeed had been for many years, a since April 2014, demonstrating the demand for such clear imbalance between demand for residential versus conversions. This has led to over 5,300 permissions for office and retail uses. There were many causes for office to residential conversions. this: population growth and demographic change; Our data show that in 2014-15 we saw a 65% changing working habits,such as increased home working; increase in the number of new homes created through changing demands for office space, including different change of use, and the office to residential permitted designs required for computer cabling and air development right will have helped to deliver around conditioning; and changing shopping patterns, such 8,000 new homes. Data from the sector also indicate as the rise of internet shopping. Whatever the reasons, that the temporary right has delivered much-needed it was clear that the old approach was not working and new homes to buy or rent, including in London and that change was required, and that was brought in by the south-east, where we continue to face a housing this policy. shortage. The British Council for Offices has estimated 733 Housing and Planning Bill [LORDS] Housing and Planning Bill 734

[BARONESS WILLIAMS OF TRAFFORD] I appreciate the strength of feeling in certain areas that, nationally, 7,600 dwellings have been delivered on this matter, but I cannot accept the amendment since May 2013. Evidence to date shows that the that would introduce this new clause into the Bill. The light-touch planning process has resulted in new homes issues raised relate to specific areas, as I have already being brought forward. The British Council for Offices outlined. The amendment would apply nationally and notes that some of the developments would be unlikely would create uncertainty within the market. It would to have come forward via a planning application and undermine the important role that the right plays in are therefore additional to the number of homes that the supply of new homes. It would also have a negative would otherwise have been delivered. effect on the growth of the development industry. The amendment is also unnecessary,as appropriate protections I will now address the new clause proposed in my are already in place to meet local conditions. noble friend Lord True’s Amendment 116A, and speak first to subsection (c). I understand that the aim The office market continues to evolve to meet the behind it is to compensate business tenants where business community’s needs and respond to the right. property owners exercise their permitted development Where it is necessary to protect the economic well-being rights to change use from office to residential. However, of a specific area, local authorities can bring forward this is not a planning issue. an Article 4 direction to remove the right and allow for consideration of a planning application. That is a fair The amendment is unnecessary as there are already and proportionate approach. But I recognise that my adequate protections for business tenants under the noble friend Lord True also has concerns about Article 4 Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. Under the general directions. However, the process is straightforward law, business tenants have security of tenure until their and provides robust safeguards by allowing for local lease expires. On expiration, the tenant has important consultation on the scope of the direction before it rights under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant comes into force. Act 1954 to have a new lease at the market rent, unless I hope that this reassures noble Lords that while we he has explicitly opted out of these rights at the understand their concerns about the impact of the beginning of the tenancy.Section 30 of the Act specifies right in specific parts of the country,there are appropriate certain circumstances in which the tenant is not entitled existing safeguards. But while the Government’s position to a new tenancy. These include where the landlord is on this issue will not change and while I urge my noble able to demonstrate an intention to undertake substantial friend not to press his amendment, I will undertake if works at the premises, which could be where approval he wishes to have further discussions on this matter. is secured under the permitted development right. As always, I am very happy to meet him. Under these circumstances, the tenant would be entitled to compensation from the landlord under Section 37 Lord Kennedy of Southwark: On Amendment 116A, of the Act. The compensation is set at the rate of one we see these developments all around here in Westminster, times the rateable value of the premises, or twice the with offices now being converted into very expensive rateable value if the same business has been in occupation homes. Why would it not be right for a planning for more than 14 years. authority to get somewhere near its full costs on this?

I now turn to subsections (a) and (b). We consider Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, I am that the introduction of the PDR for change of use sorry. Could the noble Lord repeat that? from office to residential has resulted in new homes that would not have been brought forward under a Lord Kennedy of Southwark: On Amendment 116A(a), planning permission. We consider that imposing such we can see all around here many developments where additional requirements on developers is likely to offices have been converted into very expensive properties. undermine the contribution the right makes to the Why would it not be reasonable for a local authority—in delivery of new homes which are so badly needed. this case, Westminster—to cover a larger proportion In relation to subsection (a) of the proposed new of its costs in fees, considering what these properties clause, local authorities are already able to charge a fee are now selling for very close to this Palace? for prior approval applications for change of use. The fee is set at a level which reflects the light-touch Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, I think approach for processing these applications, as only that it is because it is not a planning consideration, so certain specific issues require approval. I hope that the tenant would be entitled to compensation from the this provides reassurance that appropriate safeguards landlord rather than the local authority. are already in place and I invite my noble friend to withdraw the amendment. Lord True: My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken, including my noble friend. It is important On Amendment 116B, as I agreed in Committee, I to understand—perhaps I should say this twice, because have since met my noble friend Lord True and the it needs to be understood—that I am not seeking to noble Lord, Lord Tope, to discuss their concerns defeat the whole order; that is a separate matter. My about the impact of the office-to-residential right. I amendment refers to a small part of the order relating have also listened carefully to the debates both in to office to residential. I am not seeking an untrammelled Committee and on Report on this issue and recognise power; I am seeking an audience in Parliament for the concerns expressed by my noble friend and the people who are suffering adversely from the way in noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Kerslake, about which the policy operates. My amendment states that the loss of office space in some areas and the impact the local authority can seek to opt out only if it that it can have on local businesses. demonstrates, 735 Housing and Planning Bill [20 APRIL 2016] Housing and Planning Bill 736

“that active businesses within its area are being expelled from Lord Kennedy of Southwark: My Lords, this office space”— amendment covers the issues previously discussed under businesses thrown out under this Administration— Amendment 108. It enables local authorities to recover “to enable conversion to residential use”; up to the full costs and no more in determining that is to say, “When the lease terminates, go: we are planning applications. Noble Lords who were not turning this into a home”; or the local authority must persuaded by Amendment 108 could give this amendment show that there is economic damage. some further consideration, as it proposes not to go beyond full cost recovery. 10.15 pm My amendment would allow a more realistic fee level to be recovered from large-scale developments I am extremely grateful for what my noble friend and differentiates between that and someone who said. I am not ideological about this. I am seeking a wants to build an extension to their home, for example. practical solution for local needs, not an overall position. I grew up in Southwark and in the north of the Of course, I am prepared to have further discussions borough we have seen a boom in large-scale developments to see if we can find a way. It need not be my way and in recent years. A more realistic fee level would have this amendment. I am not arrogant enough to demand made no difference to those developments. I now live that. I can see the defects. I understand the Government’s in Lewisham and, again, we are seeing a large number concerns about the order. But I ask for a degree of of residential developments in Lewisham, Deptford, compassion and understanding. Catford and elsewhere in the borough. Again, I do not I mentioned some examples and I will not go on believe that a more realistic fee level would have made with the list, but there is a fast-expanding consultancy any difference whatever to the viability of those with six employees that was ousted from central developments. Twickenham to a fringe location with a higher rent; In responding to this short debate, I ask the Minister there were relocation costs of almost £1,000 and a loss to address the point made during the debate on of parking. That should not be happening. In an Amendment 108. I know we will come to this issue intelligent country and with the wisdom there is in the when we discuss further amendments on Monday, but Government—exemplified by my noble friend—we I am worried that we could get a two-tier system must be able to find a way between now and Third whereby other providers are able to provide planning Reading to take both tricks. That would allow the advice. I do not want a private provider to be able to Government to keep the overall order and enable it to charge a much larger fee, and a local authority to be operate, and find a way of protecting these small limited as to what it can charge to do the same work. businesses that are suffering. I am grateful for the offer That would be totally wrong, and it would be very from my noble friend to meet. helpful if the noble Baroness assured us that that is I was obviously disappointed by my noble friend not the case. It would be a very unfair situation for Lord O’Shaughnessy.I understand that he is the author local authorities and completely wrong. With that, I of the policy. I had not realised that, but it does not beg to move. affect my estimation of him. It is too late at night to be bitchy and I did not intend to be; but for good policy- making you sometimes have to trim your sail after a Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we had a very good bit of time. You do not always have to cling to the and thorough discussion on the recovery of full-cost ideological principle you had at the start. It is a good fees on a previous amendment. I want to draw attention principle and I agree with him on the principle of to a few statistics to reinforce the case that my noble getting homes that way, but can we not just trim the friend made and to point out that the flaw in the sail? Ideology and policy must at times meet real life. present system is that you cannot get speedy,authoritative In parts of London, as we have heard this evening, it is and consistent decision-making at local planning level clashing with real life and we must find a way forward. if the expert workforce is being run down and starved Given what my noble friend said, I still travel in hope of resources. I have just a few statistics that pick that we might find a way of squaring the circle. Therefore, that up. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. The audit committee reported in 2014 that planning departments were taking the brunt of funding cuts—a Amendment 116A withdrawn. reduction, in real terms, of 46% across the planning and development budget between 2010 and 2014. These are horrendous figures in the context of cuts of 37% in Amendment 116B not moved. local authorities as a whole. How much deeper have these cuts been since 2014? In expert areas such as Amendment 116BA archaeology and conservation officers, there has been a drop of a third in local authority staff. In Lancashire Moved by Lord Kennedy of Southwark the entire archaeological team has disappeared. How 116BA: After Clause 141, insert the following new Clause— the Government expect local authorities to deliver a “Local authorities and development control services speedy, efficient and good planning service with this (1) A local planning authority may set a charging regime in level of cuts is absolutely beyond me. Therefore, the relation to their development control services to allow only answer to building the capacity of local authorities for the cost of providing the development control service to do what the Government so desperately want them to be recouped. to do, and to deliver a speedier, more efficient planning (2) Any such charging regime must be subject to system, is to build the capacity of local authorities consultation prior to implementation.” themselves, because development control is the 737 Housing and Planning Bill [LORDS] Housing and Planning Bill 738

[BARONESS ANDREWS] Baroness Williams of Trafford: I thank noble Lords fundamental business of planning authorities. There for their comments and contributions. To respond to is an urgent need to reinvest in local authority planning the noble Lord, I can confirm absolutely, for the services. Full-cost fee recovery can contribute to that. avoidance of doubt, that planning authorities will not I have one question for the Minister. In the previous be able to charge one fee and private providers another. exchange, I was not quite sure whether she believed We do not intend to create two tiers within the planning the figure published by the Local Government system—it would be most undemocratic and unfair, Association—that there is a shortfall of £450 million generally. to local authorities because of the difference between The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, asked about the cost they have to pay and the fees they receive. She the £450 million disparity that the LGA found between talked at great length about the vitality needed to costs and fees. I need to make the point that there will enable local authorities to do their job, but she did not be differences between the efficiency and effectiveness address the question of the reality of what is happening of local authorities in delivering planning services. on the ground. There is an absolute, logical and fair Some show that performance can be improved and case for recovering full-cost fees, and I hope she will costs reduced, and more should follow their lead. respond positively to it. Authorities have done a phenomenal job in sharing services for many of their functions but have not Lord Porter of Spalding: My Lords, I speak in moved quickly enough in doing so for planning services. favour of the spirit of what the amendment is trying to I said that to the noble Baroness either earlier today or achieve, but against it because of the way it is worded. on Monday—the days have merged into one. No one from a local government background would Amendment 116BA, as I said on a previous believe that it is right that we are unable to collect amendment, allows local authorities to go beyond enough fees to cover the cost of the service, and it is cost recovery. We are absolutely clear that these not right that local taxpayers are subsidising the services and other discretionary services should not development industry to the tune of about £150 million exceed the cost of providing the service. I have been a year—£450 million over the last three years. But the through the argument previously that what cost recovery amendment as worded could have a quite negative means in practice, in terms of fee levels, varies from impact on some areas. If a fully staffed planning team local authority to local authority. We want a highly received only 10 planning applications in a year, the efficient service, and there are real challenges up-front brunt of those costs would fall on those 10 applicants. in doing this for some local authorities, but we want That cannot be right. There needs to be a way for better-performing planning departments for better central government to get away from setting fees at an performance in terms of planning outcomes. I talked inflationary uplift. As welcome as that will be, it will earlier about our proposals for tackling resource pressures be insufficient to get anywhere near cost recovery. in planning departments. I hope that noble Lords will not mind that I do not go through these again, and Given that the Government propose to put private that with those words the noble Lord will feel able to sector competition into the space of a public sector withdraw the amendment. monopoly, there must be a way to increase fees that works for local government, the local taxpayer and the private sector. I still do not understand why we Lord Kennedy of Southwark: My Lords, I thank all are dealing with these amendments separately from noble Lords for speaking in this short debate. My the amendment that opens the door for the private noble friend Lady Andrews highlighted the cuts that sector to compete. At that point the Government will have fallen on local authority planning departments in be sure that the fees local government charge are recent years. I was pleased that the Minister was able proportionate for the service being delivered in their to give us some reassurance on the issues. I am sure we area, because if local government charges too much, will be discussing again on Monday the fees that can clearly, the private sector will take all the work. We be charged by a local planning authority and those need to find a way of getting that done but, from my that can be charged by a private provider. That will be end of the telescope, this amendment still does not very welcome news for local government. deliver what needs to be done. I would love to able to I thought I had written my amendment in such a support somebody who is clever at writing an amendment way that it would not allow people to charge more in a way that I am not. than the costs involved, so clearly I am no better than Again, the word “must” has been used for local the noble Lord, Lord Porter,at writing these amendments. government. People should not put “must”in anything. Maybe we need to get together and we will get one Local government likes “may”, not “must”. right at some point. I certainly do not see my amendment as doing what the Minister says it does, so I am a bit disappointed in her response. I know it is late but I am Lord Kennedy of Southwark: Before the noble Lord going to test the opinion of the House. sits down, I did put “may” in for the main part and then “must” for the consultation. I thought I was 10.30 pm getting somewhere with the noble Lord. I think we should talk outside the Chamber—he may well be the right person to write this. Division on Amendment 116BA Contents 19; Not-Contents 116. Lord Porter of Spalding: You should never have me write anything, because you will not be able to read it. Amendment 116BA disagreed. 739 Housing and Planning Bill [20 APRIL 2016] Housing and Planning Bill 740

Division No. 4 10.41 pm

CONTENTS Clause 142: Resolution of disputes about planning Andrews, B. Ludford, B. obligations Bassam of Brighton, L. McAvoy, L. [Teller] [Teller] Paddick, L. Beecham, L. Shipley, L. Amendment 116C Beith, L. Shutt of Greetland, L. Moved by Lord True Foster of Bath, L. Smith of Newnham, B. 116C: Clause 142, leave out Clause 142 Grender, B. Somerset, D. Kennedy of Cradley, B. Taylor of Goss Moor, L. Lord True: My Lords, the hour is late and I should Kennedy of Southwark, L. Tope, L. Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L. Watson of Invergowrie, L. make it clear that I have never had any intention of pushing this amendment to a Division. The reason that I bring it before your Lordships is that this clause NOT CONTENTS is effectively a proposal to set up a new quango. I Ahmad of Wimbledon, L. Lyell, L. welcomed the meeting that I had with officials earlier, Altmann, B. McColl of Dulwich, L. and I was grateful to Ministers for facilitating it. I was Anelay of St Johns, B. MacGregor of Pulham told that it will probably not be formally a quango but Arbuthnot of Edrom, L. Market, L. Ashton of Hyde, L. [Teller] a new, independent body to be served by people as yet Mackay of Clashfern, L. unspecified. It will have a series of functions as set out Astor of Hever, L. Maginnis of Drumglass, L. Attlee, E. Marlesford, L. in part over several pages of Schedule 13, which might Barker of Battle, L. Morris of Bolton, B. have been drafted—it is a bit late, so I am perhaps a bit Berridge, B. Moynihan, L. free with my words—as in that famous scene with Borwick, L. Nash, L. Groucho Marx and the contract and “the party of the Brabazon of Tara, L. Neville-Rolfe, B. first part”. There is a whole mass of regulatory powers, Bridgeman, V. Newlove, B. Bridges of Headley, L. with prescribed persons not defined and circumstances Browne of Belmont, L. Noakes, B. which the Secretary of State will determine later. Carrington of Fulham, L. Norton of Louth, L. O’Cathain, B. This clause was introduced to Parliament in the Cathcart, E. other place on Report, after midnight and with a Chadlington, L. O’Neill of Gatley, L. Chisholm of Owlpen, B. Oppenheim-Barnes, B. 185-word introduction by the Minister. There was no Cope of Berkeley, L. O’Shaughnessy, L. debate on the subject and the technical consultation Courtown, E. Patten of Barnes, L. that went out really answered no questions at all. Crathorne, L. Perry of Southwark, B. Theoretically, I believe in arbitration, but to set up a Deben, L. Pidding, B. statutory process of compulsory arbitration without Dixon-Smith, L. Popat, L. defining particularly what you are about is risky. I Dobbs, L. Porter of Spalding, L. Empey, L. Price, L. would much prefer to have seen this properly scoped Evans of Bowes Park, B. Prior of Brampton, L. and perhaps included in subsequent legislation, if Fairfax of Cameron, L. Ribeiro, L. there were some. What is this new body? Who will staff Fall, B. Risby, L. it? Where will it be based and what will its budget be? Farmer, L. Rock, B. Quangos and their functions are never cheap. Faulks, L. Scott of Bybrook, B. Fink, L. Statutory arbitrators will be sent in at the request of Seccombe, B. Flight, L. unspecified third persons—in some circumstances, not Selborne, E. Fookes, B. Selkirk of Douglas, L. even the two parties to the dispute. We do not really Forsyth of Drumlean, L. know who those third persons are yet, although the Fowler, L. Shackleton of Belgravia, B. Freeman, L. Sheikh, L. Government are asking who they might be. Will they Freud, L. Sherbourne of Didsbury, L. be interested local people? The new body can charge Geddes, L. Shinkwin, L. fees. Well, any government body likes to charge fees Glenarthur, L. Shrewsbury, E. and we can be sure that the fees will not be cheap—and Glendonbrook, L. Skelmersdale, L. it will probably expand. Goodlad, L. Smith of Hindhead, L. Hamilton of Epsom, L. Spicer, L. I do not want to labour the issue but I did raise it in Hayward, L. Stedman-Scott, B. Committee. While I do not criticise my noble friend on Hodgson of Abinger, B. Stowell of Beeston, B. the Front Bench—she has done an absolutely fantastic Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Suri, L. job on the Bill in my submission—it was in a large L. Taylor of Holbeach, L. group so there was no real response on what it was all Holmes of Richmond, L. [Teller] Horam, L. about. As I said, 185 words were spoken in the Commons, Tebbit, L. and there was no response. Howard of Rising, L. Trefgarne, L. Hunt of Wirral, L. Trenchard, V. What is the calculated impact on affordable home Inglewood, L. Trimble, L. provision? What local knowledge will these statutory Jenkin of Kennington, B. arbitrators require? What will be their qualifications? Jopling, L. Tugendhat, L. Kirkham, L. Verma, B. How will they relate to the existing inspectorate, Lansley, L. Warsi, B. which is supposed to resolve difficulties between local Lawson of Blaby, L. Wasserman, L. authorities and developers? Will their decisions be Leigh of Hurley, L. Whitby, L. judicially reviewable? Any statutory body lets the lawyers Wilcox, B. Lingfield, L. loose. Liverpool, E. Williams of Trafford, B. Lucas, L. Young of Cookham, L. If she can, I should like my noble friend to say at Lupton, L. Younger of Leckie, V. what stage those questions will be answered for Parliament, 741 Housing and Planning Bill [LORDS] Housing and Planning Bill 742 because I am concerned that, well-intentioned though external component on to the resolution of what this might be, we risk creating a statutory body that ought to be determined locally between the local will run out of control, cost more and lead to more authority and the applicant. Moreover, the whole delay in the system rather than less. Will the public be thing is another bureaucratic nightmare. There are five able to make representations to these arbitrators? Will pages of the schedule. The Explanatory Notes make it they meet in open session? If so, what role is there for clear that there are also to be regulations—surprise, the planning committee? Where do we go with appeal surprise, once again made by the Secretary of State. afterwards? We could have a three-stage process. They say: I beseech my noble friend and her colleagues to “The Secretary of State can also make regulations setting out think about what this new statutory body might be. … who, other than the local planning authority and applicant, They might even know what it might be called. could make a request for the appointment of a person”. So it need not even be the planning authority or the Lord Shipley: My Lords, I speak in support of the applicant who makes that application. Who else might amendment of the noble Lord, Lord True, who asked make it is presumably at large—anybody could. The a set of important questions. I shall not repeat them, regulations can also deal with, and I am pleased that a large number of Members of “the timing and form of requests”, the House are here to hear him ask them. This is an and, example of the creation of a bureaucracy that may not solve a significant set of problems. In other words, “that a person can be appointed if outstanding issues have not because there may have been some difficulties in a been resolved within set timeframes”, limited number of cases in some places, we may set up as well as, a large bureaucratic structure to solve them. “further detail about appointments … what qualifications or I have read the impact assessment and the Bill very experience the appointed person must have”, carefully, but I am still at a loss to understand what and “fees payable”. Those will all be determined by problem the Government are trying to solve. It may in regulations. some cases speed up some Section 106 negotiations The Explanatory Notes say: but, in the main, I am not sure that it will. It may “The appointed person must take into account any template create a set of unintended consequences. When I read or model terms published by the Secretary of State. Regulations line 1 of the impact assessment— can also set out other details … Regulations can also set out “The Government wishes to provide for someone to be appointed restrictions on the local planning authority’s ability to ask for to help resolve, within a set timescale, outstanding issues about additional obligations”, planning obligations relating to individual planning applications”— as well as, I immediately wonder who the “someone” will be. “periods for determining planning applications after a report is How will you ensure that they do not have some kind issued; of interest? How will you know that there is a firewall circumstances or cases where the consequences in this Schedule between that person and their conclusions? For example, don’t apply; and the impact assessment does not answer the question any further steps required to be taken by the appointed person”. asked by the noble Lord, Lord True: what might the Once again, we are going to have myriad regulations, impact be on starter homes? That is a very important the sight of which is withheld from us, presumably question, because the funding of starter homes comes because they have not yet been drafted. They will be from reductions in the amount of Section 106 money produced at a later date, again without any prior received by local authorities. consideration by Parliament at the time when the Bill On page 167, at lines 10 to 12, the Bill states: has gone through. There is also the possible perverse “The local planning authority must not refuse the application effect that, given that applicants may have, as they on a ground that relates to the appropriateness of the terms of the perceive it, difficulties with the local authority, why section 106 instrument”. should they not seek the involvement of the appointed I understand that statement in one sense, but at the person—not so much by way of an appeal but in the heart of our debate about starter homes is the fact that initial part of the process? They could delay things Section 106 provision will be reduced to help to provide even more. If they thought that they were not going to the developer subsidy for those starter homes. There get entirely what they wanted from their application, are major implications in this, and I see more potential why not go through this process? That unintended problems over Section 106 negotiations. I am not effect seems to me a ridiculous proposition, and I very convinced that setting up the kind of bureaucratic much hope that the noble Lord will test the opinion of structure that the noble Lord, Lord True, described, the House—and, if he does not, I will. will actually help us to solve that problem. It will be solved if local planning authorities are properly resourced, have the proper powers and there is a proper context Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, I thank within which they are to work to build the homes that noble Lords for contributing to the debate and raising the country needs. some very valid questions about how the process will work. Dispute resolution is part of the wider measures Lord Beecham: My Lords, I wholeheartedly endorse that the Government are introducing to make the the critiques of the proposal by the noble Lords, Lord planning system simpler and encourage housebuilding. True and Lord Shipley. Several real problems have We anticipate that it would be used only for a small already been identified, but it is worth reminding number of applications, as a last resort, and that its ourselves that this is yet another incursion on the existence will encourage all parties to work constructively rights and roles of local authorities, imposing an together and agree planning obligations earlier in the 743 Housing and Planning Bill [20 APRIL 2016] Housing and Planning Bill 744 planning process. Only 7% of major and 1% of minor The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Stedman-Scott): Is it planning applications both include a Section 106 your Lordships’ pleasure that this amendment be agreement and are decided outside the statutory time withdrawn? frameworks or agreed extension. The objective of dispute resolution is to avoid protracted Section 106 negotiation, Noble Lords: No. not to add unnecessary steps. I have listened to the debate in Committee and this 10.57 pm evening, and recognise that several noble Lords have valid concerns about how it will all work while, I Division on Amendment 116C think, supporting the general principle of arbitration. A key concern of my noble friend Lord True is not Contents 5; Not-Contents 101. [The Tellers for the only the bureaucracy but the complexity of negotiations. Not-Contents reported 101 votes; the Clerks recorded However, the schedule has been drafted this way to 100 names.] encourage the parties to agree matters between themselves wherever possible. For example, taking out Amendment 116C disagreed. the cooling-off period would detract from the objective of speeding up negotiations. This process would be Division No. 5 used only in cases where the local planning authority would be likely to grant planning permission were it CONTENTS not for unresolved issues relating to Section 106 Andrews, B. Kennedy of Southwark, L. obligations. Beecham, L. [Teller] The legislation is also intended to be flexible enough Kennedy of Cradley, B. McAvoy, L. [Teller] to respond to feedback from the Government’s technical consultation,whichhasrecentlyclosed.Inthisconsultation NOT CONTENTS we sought views from the sector on, among other Ahmad of Wimbledon, Jenkin of Kennington, B. things, the cost of the process, the matters that should L. Jopling, L. be taken into account in dispute resolution and the Altmann, B. Lansley, L. necessary qualifications of the person to resolve the Anelay of St Johns, B. Leigh of Hurley, L. disputes. These matters will be set out in regulations, Arbuthnot of Edrom, L. Lingfield, L. as the noble Lord said, and I acknowledge the expertise Ashton of Hyde, L. Lupton, L. of my noble friend Lord True as leader of the London Barker of Battle, L. Lyell, L. Borough of Richmond upon Thames. I would therefore Berridge, B. MacGregor of Pulham welcome ongoing dialogue as we develop the regulations. Borwick, L. Market, L. Brabazon of Tara, L. Maginnis of Drumglass, I reiterate that dispute resolution is intended to be Bridgeman, V. L. activated by parties to the Section 106 agreement. It Bridges of Headley, L. Marlesford, L. therefore should be seen as a tool to aid negotiations Browne of Belmont, L. Morris of Bolton, B. where necessary rather than as placing an additional Carrington of Fulham, L. Moynihan, L. burden. The Government are committed to doing Cathcart, E. Nash, L. whatever they can to unlock stalled sites and to increase Chadlington, L. Neville-Rolfe, B. Chisholm of Owlpen, B. Newlove, B. the delivery of housing. We have just concluded a Cope of Berkeley, L. Norton of Louth, L. wide-ranging consultation which will inform the detail Courtown, E. O’Cathain, B. of how it will be applied through regulations. I hope— Crathorne, L. O’Neill of Gatley, L. although I doubt—that I have been able to provide Deben, L. Oppenheim-Barnes, B. additional reassurance, and that noble Lords will not Dixon-Smith, L. O’Shaughnessy, L. Dobbs, L. Patten of Barnes, L. divide the House on this. Empey, L. Perry of Southwark, Evans of Bowes Park, B. B. Lord True: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for Fairfax of Cameron, L. Pidding, B. Faulks, L. Popat, L. that answer. I repeat what I said at the outset: that I Fink, L. Porter of Spalding, L. have no intention of dividing the House, although I Flight, L. Price, L. cannot speak for others or for the reasons that they Fookes, B. Prior of Brampton, L. might wish to do so. Forsyth of Drumlean, L. Ribeiro, L. There is a danger of legislation drafted by bureaucrats Freeman, L. Risby, L. Freud, L. Rock, B. about bureaucracy for bureaucratic solutions. Sometimes Gardiner of Kimble, L. Scott of Bybrook, B. Ministers have a very useful word in their vocabulary, [Teller] Seccombe, B. which is “no”. I hope that, as the deliberations on this Geddes, L. Selborne, E. very cumbersome-looking new body go forward, Ministers Glendonbrook, L. Selkirk of Douglas, L. will whip out that word quite often. I am grateful for Goodlad, L. Shackleton of Belgravia, Hamilton of Epsom, L. B. what my noble friend said. It is the first time that a Hayward, L. Sheikh, L. Minister at the Dispatch Box in the course of the Bill Hodgson of Abinger, B. Shinkwin, L. has really set out some of the details—although my Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Shrewsbury, E. honourable friend Mr Lewis said 185 words on them—and L. Skelmersdale, L. I thank her for that. I beg leave to withdraw the Holmes of Richmond, L. Smith of Hindhead, L. Horam, L. Somerset, D. amendment and I hope that, on reflection, the noble Howard of Rising, L. Spicer, L. Lord, Lord Beecham, will not press the House to Hunt of Wirral, L. Stedman-Scott, B. divide at this hour. Inglewood, L. Stowell of Beeston, B. 745 Housing and Planning Bill [LORDS] Energy Bill [HL] 746

Taylor of Holbeach, Wasserman, L. Bank of England and Financial Services L. [Teller] Whitby, L. Tebbit, L. Wilcox, B. Bill [HL] Trenchard, V. Williams of Trafford, B. Returned from the Commons Tugendhat, L. Young of Cookham, L. Verma, B. Younger of Leckie, V. 11.08 pm The Bill was returned from the Commons with amendments Amendment 117 not moved. and a privilege amendment.

Schedule 13: Resolution of disputes about planning Energy Bill [HL] obligations: Schedule to be inserted in the Town and Returned from the Commons Country Planning Act 1990 11.08 pm Amendment 117A not moved. The Bill was returned from the Commons with a reason. Consideration on Report adjourned. House adjourned at 11.09 pm.

Volume 771 Wednesday No. 138 20 April 2016

CONTENTS

Wednesday 20 April 2016 Questions Council Tax: Social Care Precept ...... 619 Scotland Act 2016...... 621 Companies: Overseas Territories Registration ...... 623 Strathclyde Review...... 626 Border Force Budget 2016-17 Statement...... 628 Housing and Planning Bill Report (4th Day)...... 633 Horserace Betting Right Question for Short Debate ...... 694 Housing and Planning Bill Report (4th Day) (Continued) ...... 708 Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL] Returned from the Commons ...... 746 Energy Bill [HL] Returned from the Commons ...... 746