Report stage in the Lords
- Speaker
Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 12:
- Time
- 20:22
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Dixon-SmithConservative- Quote
- My Lords, my Amendment No. 13 is grouped with this amendment. It relates to a subject that we debated fairly thoroughly in Grand Committee. We got what I would call a reluctant no, but very often what a community could pay for a bit of land is considerably less than its value on the commercial market. That is a reality. We have to be sure that there is flexibility so that where there is a real gain to the community there is some way of dealing with that situation. We thought we ought to repeat this amendment at this stage to see if we can persuade the Minister that a slightly more positive attitude to it would be helpful.
- Time
- 20:22
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness FordCrossbench- Quote
- My Lords, I hope the Minister can clarify a couple of points for me. The nature of urban regeneration is that a large proportion of time is spent assembling land for projects. Sometimes that can be just as tricky and complex with very small parcels of land as it is with much larger sites. My experience was that from time to time English Partnerships disposed of land at less than top whack for good reasons. Sometimes it was part of a land swap with a developer where it was advantageous to the public purse to dispose of a particular bit of land at less than best consideration because the swap was more valuable in the great scheme of things. Sometimes we were disposing of a community-related asset that was a legacy from the old new towns. Sometimes we were dealing with a ransom strip. I shall not go into huge detail, but there is a range of circumstances where it is important that the accounting officer of the organisation can make a judgment, particularly over small parcels of land or parcels of land that are part of a land swap. It is important that he retains the flexibility to do that within the general Secretary of State consent, which is how we have operated in the past. Can the Minister reassure me that we are not overdoing this and that not every single, tiny parcel of land that might be part of a swap or be otherwise disposed of or brought into a project at less than best consideration now requires the Secretary of State’s consent? I understand that the powers delegated to the accounting officer of the organisation go up to £20 million only and everything above that goes to the department and on to the Treasury in the normal way. I would have thought that in the normal course of events the accounting officer could reach that judgment within an overall direction from the Secretary of State. I would be grateful for some clarification—if not this evening, in writing—because as a result of the amendments that have been accepted, we now have a sensible regime, but if we go any further we could end up unintentionally fettering the organisation in a practical way.
- Time
- 20:22
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Bassam of BrightonLabour- Quote
- My Lords, the noble Baroness has invited me to put on the record our response, and I am happy to do that. We are committed to developing a general consent to make clear the circumstances under which the Homes and Communities Agency may sell land at less than best consideration without first obtaining the Secretary of State’s consent for that transaction. Officials are currently developing that, so it may be published for further discussion, but I am happy to do my best to set out here what it is likely to cover and again to state that I will share a draft with noble Lords when it is published for discussion in the near future. As noble Lords will know, the extent to which the Homes and Communities Agency should be able to make decisions regarding the disposal of land at less than best consideration has been the subject of extensive debate during the passage of the Bill. It is our view that, in the majority of cases, the agency should be empowered to dispose of land in the manner that best enables it to pursue its objects. We accept that this may not always mean selling land for the highest price, but we also accept that there must be appropriate and adequate safeguards in place to protect the public purse. The Bill currently contains a provision at Clause 10 precluding the Homes and Communities Agency selling land at less than best consideration without permission from the Secretary of State, but it also contains a provision at Clause 50 empowering the Secretary of State to give consent in general or specific terms. These provisions mirror those that apply to English Partnerships.
- Time
- 20:22
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, can the Minister give us an idea of the timetable for proceeding with this?
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Bassam of BrightonLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I do not know and I do not think that I will know in the time that it takes to get a note from the Box to the Dispatch Box. However, if the noble Baroness will be satisfied with me giving her an answer outside the Chamber, I shall be more than happy to oblige.
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Dixon-SmithConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a different question. Does he consider the record in Hansard to be publication? I should have thought that it might well be.
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Bassam of BrightonLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, it is certainly a record and in those terms it has to be properly considered.
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, perhaps I should speak very slowly as I am not sure that everything is winging its way quickly to the Minister. Of course, what I requested—the information that we had been circulated with—was put on to the record, so, to that extent, I am satisfied. He could not see the expression of the noble Baroness, Lady Ford, as he described some of the contents and, in particular, the limits. However, as he said, this is a draft that is being worked on for consultation and I think that he has already had a pretty hefty hint about some of the response to that consultation.
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Bassam of BrightonLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I had gathered that the subject of limits had caused a frisson of excitement, and that is why we thought it was useful to add the point about consultation on the limits. I am sure that that was appreciated. At present, we do not have a worked-out timetable but we will consider it as a matter of urgency.
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, I am glad that I asked for that point to be covered. The House and, more particularly, those outside have benefited from the very practical contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Ford. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 13 not moved.] Schedule 3 [Main powers in relation to land of the HCA]:
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Andrews)Labour- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 14:
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 16:
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 20 to 24:
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 27:
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 34:
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 35:
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 36:
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 37:
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 38:
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 39:
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 40 and 41:
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 42:
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 43A:
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Dixon-SmithConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, perhaps I may put a penn’orth in on the amendment. Promoting the reuse and reclamation of brownfield land is absolutely fine; I have no difficulty with that. The puzzle that I have is: when does land go from being commercially developed to being derelict and to being “brownfield”? I can think of one site not so far from me where development started but was never completed. Is that or is it not brownfield? When the brownfield site concept started, it was quite obvious what such a site was, because there was much virtually derelict land and there were a lot of completely unused sites about the place. Some of them were arguable—hospital sites in greenbelts and that sort of thing—but development tends to be progressive. Industrial and commercial sites in particular are vulnerable and can go out of use. Are they immediately brownfield sites just because they happen to be out of use? Someone may come along and find a use for the buildings anyway and we may not need to redevelop them. At what point do we make the distinction between an unused site and a brownfield site? We need to think about that a little.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness FordCrossbench
- Quote
- My Lords, the noble Lord has put his finger on a very important point. I recall having a lot of conversations when the surplus National Health Service portfolio was transferred to English Partnerships about whether a multi-acre former mental hospital site was genuinely a brownfield site. If my memory serves me right—I think that this speaks to the noble Lord’s point about a partially developed site or a used site—we classified previously developed land or brownfield land as land on which rates or some residential charge had been paid, or which had plainly, over a period, been used for some commercial or other purpose that generated income and where the land had been productive. That is probably not an entirely satisfactory explanation, but it distinguishes between a partial development and something that was genuinely used for a long while. Practitioners increasingly interchange the terms “brownfield land” and “previously developed land”. Brownfield has a connotation of post-industrial use—gasworks, or whatever. That is certainly the image conjured up in my mind, whereas previously developed land can have different connotations. We have had numerous Questions in the House, even in the short time that I have been here, about whether disused airfields, for example, are brownfield land, previously developed land or whatever. I am not sure whether that helps the noble Lord on the classification of “brownfield land”, but, if my memory serves me right, it is land on which some kind of taxable charge or local charge has been made as a result of the land being used productively. I am not sure whether it takes us any further, but I think that that is the correct definition.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Brooke of Sutton MandevilleConservative- Quote
- My Lords, I must confess that I have not revisited what the Minister said in Committee, although I well recall the debate to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred, about gardens. The subject is of such importance that the whole House should be grateful to the noble Baroness for having brought it back at Report, although my recollection—I am relying entirely on my memory—is that the Minister, in Committee, implied that the Domesday Book process was already being pursued. I hope that out of this short debate will come a clear picture from the Government of exactly what HCA will do in the brownfield area, because of its importance to the whole development process.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Bassam of BrightonLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, the amendment takes us back to those long wistful days in Committee but, wistful though they may have been, I am not sure that I can move the argument on that much further. We said in Committee that we felt that the amendment confused the brownfield argument. I think that it does, although I appreciate that it has been moved with good intent. Existing government policy is set out in planning policy statement 3. It provides that previously developed land—in particular, vacant and derelict sites and buildings—is the priority for housing development. I guess that we could all fairly readily agree to that. It also sets a national annual target that at least 60 per cent of housing should be provided on previously developed land. Again, we raised the threshold when we first came into government. It is perhaps worth adding, however, that this does not mean the development of brownfield land at any cost. Indeed, PPS 3 advises that there is no presumption that land that has been previously developed is necessarily suitable for housing development. In some cases, a greenfield site near to transport, shops and jobs may make for a more sustainable community and be more sustainable in other ways than a brownfield site. As the past leader of an urban authority with a lot of green space hard up to the urban fringe, I can see some sense in that argument. Clearly, access by car to those areas where families are not close to local schools bears some fair consideration. The HCA will be as subject to the policy in PPS 3 as any other body is, so a statutory duty of the nature suggested in the amendment is unnecessary and could add inflexibility, which would not help us greatly. A blanket duty to promote previously developed land at any cost could be counterproductive and could inhibit the HCA in fulfilling some of its objectives. The amendment also refers to monitoring the use of brownfield land and would place a requirement on the agency to publish its findings. This part of the amendment is also unnecessary, as English Partnerships already has responsibility for the National Land Use Database for previously developed land. This responsibility will pass to the agency as a matter of course. The continuing management and development of the database is probably the practical solution to the problem that the amendment seeks to wrestle with and find an answer to. The database aims to provide an inventory of the national stock of vacant and derelict land and buildings, as well as of land and buildings in use with planning consent or the potential for redevelopment. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, asked some pertinent questions about this issue. All I can usefully say is that brownfield definitions are set out in considerable detail in PPS 3. I am more than happy to add to the fascinating volume of correspondence that the Bill has already generated by responding to his queries about the various distinctions—queries that were well made. I hope that that answers the points that have been made and I trust that the noble Baroness will be happy to withdraw her amendment.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, I am never sure how much happiness comes into it. So I have confused the brownfield argument? Oh well. Of course we have PPS 3, but it is not a statutory duty. The hierarchy of duties and responsibilities is being mixed up quite a lot as we go on. PPS 3 does not have the status of a statutory duty and the Government can reissue it in a different form—I am not even talking about national policy statements. I hesitate to say that they can do so at whim, because Governments do not have whims, but they can simply get on and reissue it. The amendment seeks to get to the kernel of the issue. Moreover, PPS 3 does not extend to the second limb of my amendment about monitoring and publication. For that not to be necessary because the database for which English Partnerships has responsibility will pass on “as a matter of course” is my point, which is to make sure that it does. Whether or not I am happy, I at least see withdrawal facing me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 33 [Community services]:
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 44:
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Brooke of Sutton MandevilleConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, it would be difficult to forget our debate on this clause. I also recall the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, participating. We had a quite substantial linguistic debate on ambiguity. I recall volunteering to assist the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who I should like to congratulate on the substitute text that she has found. I am not fussed about the ambiguities of social and religious services having been dispensed with in the revised text. Had I not been, in alphabetical and chronological order, in Canada and Cardiganshire since Grand Committee, I would have added my name to her amendment in terms of its responding to the invitation which the Government gave us. I am not quite clear on whether, if one wishes to ask a question about the government amendments, one does so now before the Minister has spoken. Under the rubric, I am assuming that I do. I have a purely technical question on the government amendments. If Clause 33(1)(e) and (f) is left out, as is recommended under Amendment No. 45, we would proceed to Amendment No. 46, which adds another subsection. In the existing text, if paragraphs (e) and (f) disappear, paragraphs (g) and (h) would become paragraphs (e) and (f). Am I right to assume that technically that is regarded as happening automatically or does it require an amendment to achieve that objective?
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I hope that this is not going to sound churlish. We did issue an invitation to see whether the noble Baroness could improve on what we have set out in Clause 33. Having considered her suggestions carefully, we consider that the original formulation was better. Replacing a specific list with a general provision could leave room for doubt as to what the HCA can provide, and it is therefore important to have the capacities regarding the encouragement and development of new businesses, the provision of employment and of safe and attractive environments and so forth spelt out directly. They reflect the characteristics of what comprises regeneration in many areas, whether carried out under the New Deal for Communities or otherwise. It is important that there should be no doubt about the nature of the community services that the HCA will offer. I appreciate that the noble Baroness has struggled with this, but I suggest that the clause is sound because, while it retains the specific elements that leave people in no doubt, they are balanced by the provision in paragraph (h) to “provide other community services”. That will cope with the breadth of what she is aiming to do in her amendment without losing the specific instruction, as it were, set out in the other paragraphs. I hope that the noble Baroness is not too disappointed or maddened by this response, but perhaps there is some solace in the government amendments we are bringing forward in response to an important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. He said that things often sound bizarre if you turn the wording around, and that it is sometimes useful to see whether the wording makes sense when turned into a negative. He concluded, as did the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that the wording of paragraphs (e) and (f) is flawed. While I do not think that anyone would disagree that the sentiment of the original wording of these two paragraphs is right, we have reflected on the point. It seems entirely sensible in terms of both the legislation and the English language to bring forward the amendments. They provide that the HCA “may assist in” preventing or reducing anti-social behaviour and crime and the, “fear of anti-social behaviour and crime”. That makes better sense than the previous incarnations by making it clear that the HCA will have a role to play in combating these problems, but of course the agency could not achieve those goals on its own. That goes to show how careful one has to be in drafting legislation. As we considered in Grand Committee, as part of creating sustainable communities, it will be important to ensure that, whenever possible, anti-social behaviour and crime are positively designed out in the first instance. But it may also be necessary for the HCA to undertake activities of this nature in established communities, and thus contribute to sustainable development in what are living communities. I hope that we can agree that we have improved the clause, and I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that there is an automatic process that will swing into action when the amendment replaces the previous wording. It will happen as if by magic, and neither he nor I has to do anything about it. I hope that that will bring some comfort to him.
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, I am neither saddened nor maddened; it would be impossible to go on if one were saddened or maddened by almost every point in this process, but I log it. I come back to my concern about what reads as the direct provision of not just services, but more. The clause states that the HCA “may”—when the Government say “may”, we are intended to understand it as “will”—“provide employment”. It will employ people, but I am sure that that is not what is intended. Of course I accept that employment is central to regeneration but I find it very hard to understand what the HCA will do that equates to “providing employment”. That is an extreme demand on it.
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I interpret that—I am thinking aloud—to mean the sort of work that was partly possible for English Partnerships but the HCA, because it has the function of developing communities, will be able to be much more interventionist. I imagine that in the course of a regeneration project, it will be able to invest its own money to build, for example, a training or skills centre—there may be a link to a local hostel—where it can offer employment for trainers or those who progressively move upwards through a qualification route. It would be able to do innovative things. It is difficult to be definitive at this point but I could find out from officials and talk to Sir Bob Kerslake about what, of an innovative nature, he envisages being able to do, and come back to the noble Baroness.
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, I am grateful for that. Without wanting for a moment to inhibit regeneration, it is important to be clear about what the powers cover. I have had problems with the terminology in the clause before. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and I were puzzled by the phrase “social services”; the letter that we received says, “in this context, we mean the HCA is empowered to provide or facilitate the provision of services which contribute to the smooth running of a society such as education facilities or civic amenity sites”. That is hugely broad stuff. At the Bill’s previous stage, I said that I could understand the building of health facilities or education facilities—I know that regeneration is much more than bricks and mortar—but that is a world away from the service provided in them. As of this moment, I am neither saddened nor maddened but determined; I may well table this amendment or something similar at the next stage to get this defined on the record so that we are very clear about the clause’s full meaning. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 45 and 46:
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Dixon-SmithConservative
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 47:
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I will address the wider question that the amendment poses as well as the specific question raised by the noble Lord. However, I will not be able to untangle the conundrum and I am going to pretend that he has not asked the question. Essentially, the amendments address the HCA’s powers to fund unregistered bodies for the provision of low-cost home ownership accommodation. This issue came up in Committee and I am happy to return to it and to offer the noble Lord the further assurances that he asked for. Government Amendments Nos. 49 to 52 respond to the concerns and I shall treat them as being all in the same group. The noble Lord raised concerns in Grand Committee that the HCA’s powers to fund low-cost home ownership schemes could give unregistered profit-making providers a competitive advantage over registered providers, who would be subject to the regulator’s standards. The National Housing Federation was also concerned about this at the time. But that has never been our intention and the amendments I have tabled will, I hope, reassure the noble Lord and clarify the issue. On the general background, noble Lords will know that we are not requiring the profit-making sector to register with the regulator unless it provides rented accommodation. When finding new low-cost rental accommodation, the HCA is required to ensure that the landlord is a relevant provider, either a registered provider of social housing or a local authority. The same is not true for low-cost home ownership, which can be provided by an unregistered provider. I explained in Grand Committee that there is a successful established practice in this field through the Housing Corporation’s grants to the non-RSL programme. In that programme, the Housing Corporation has replicated, through funding conditions, the key elements of the regulatory system for low-cost ownership, which has a much lighter touch than that for rented homes. I was clear that this alternative route for unregistered providers does not mean lower standards or fewer controls—it is simply an alternative route for the delivery of similar standards—and I argued that it did not give unregistered providers a competitive advantage. However, I recognise that there are significant concerns within the RSL sector about this and I want to make it clear that it is most definitely not our intention to disadvantage registered providers. The concern among stakeholders which needed addressing was how we would ensure that the HCA’s conditions of funding were not significantly less burdensome than the regulator’s standards for low-cost home ownership. Using their words, how will we ensure that there is a level playing field? The Bill already offers some protections. The HCA and the regulator have mutual duties to co-operate, and that is backed up by the Secretary of State’s powers to direct the HCA and to set objectives for the regulator to have regard to when setting standards. It is unlikely therefore that the regulator’s standards and the HCA’s funding conditions would be widely divergent. However, I am happy to give further assurance and the proposed amendments require that when awarding funding for the provision of low-cost home ownership the HCA must consult the regulator about the proposals. This should ensure that the two bodies work closely together and develop systems which will ensure comparable outcomes for purchasers, thereby providing the level playing field on which the National Housing Federation is very keen. I am assured by the NHF that these changes meet the points that it raised, so it has been a useful opportunity to revisit that debate. We have to think slightly differently about elderly and vulnerable people. We agree that some schemes should be regulated, and those are the source of conditions and situations that we think need to be directed. We accept that there might be some schemes—for example, specialist schemes for elderly or disabled purchasers—where we might want purchasers to have a higher level of protection. In these cases, it could be a condition of HCA funding that the provider be registered with the regulator. We will ensure that that happens, where appropriate, through the Secretary of State’s power to direct. We will ensure that if we have cases where there are vulnerable people, the Secretary of State can exercise that power. We must remember that the HCA’s power to fund unregistered providers is simply that—a power. It is a flexibility that the HCA will use with care. I hope that will answer both the noble Lord’s broader question and his specific question about vulnerable people.
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Dixon-SmithConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. It looked as though there was either a competitive gap or a gap. Now she has said that the Secretary of State will have power to direct so that when the Homes and Communities Agency is considering a problem in this field, it will consult the regulator. That assurance has been worth pushing for. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 49:
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 50 to 52:
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 53 to 57:
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 58 to 62:
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 63:
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness MeacherCrossbench- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 64:
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Dixon-SmithConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, my name is down to support these amendments. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is not able to be with us this evening. I understand that he is not well and I hope that he is soon recovered. It always seems amazing to me—but I have been very fortunate with my life—that on almost a day-to-day basis throughout the country children at the age of 16 or 17 are literally dumped on the street. I find it appalling that adults can do that, whether they are official carers, irresponsible parents or whatever. The fact is that it happens. For the individual concerned, that is a total tragedy. I know through work that my wife has done that some have been picked up and literally put together, arriving on somebody's door at 6 pm or 8 pm and saying, “Can you help, please?”. It is not easy or straightforward. I know of one YMCA that runs a very successful daytime/evening operation, but it has a single-storey accommodation. There was eventually a proposal that it should try to redevelop and, if it could get enough commercial flats for sale into its site, possibly get a few units of accommodation. As the financial equation got worse and worse, the amount of residential accommodation that it had to sell became a greater proportion of the totality. In the end, it was undertaking a commercial housing development rather than the social development that it wished. I state that simply to illustrate how difficult these problems are for people who will help. This is of course outside the direct purview of local authorities. What is worse, because of the way in which the general housing market has gone, I suspect that such developments will now have come to a complete stop. If these kids can be picked up and rescued—I say rescued but I mean given stability and the opportunity to start doing something worth while—it is remarkable how rapidly they will improve. As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said, this is a wonderful way of preventing young people falling into crime or prostitution. That is why I support these amendments. This is a very small but very significant sector; it is so small that it is not easy to keep an eye on, but we need to remember it. Anything that the Minister can do to help in this field will be very welcome.
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Brooke of Sutton MandevilleConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who brought me into the Grand Committee debate on the strength of my previous constituency in the Cities of London and Westminster. Homelessness there was so prevalent that clinics were set up by private charities to administer healthcare to the homeless. This went to the extent of having records of 12,000 homeless people, so that if a homeless person turned up in the accident and emergency department of a hospital in Liverpool, the staff there could communicate with a clinic in Soho to get the individual’s full medical records. In Grand Committee I sympathised very strongly with what the noble Earl said. In addition to making references to those who had been in care, as the amendment had described, I also cited the case of a prison leaver and my correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, to check whether the experience I observed as one of the final cases I had as a constituency MP was commonplace. He replied in correspondence that he was sure that it was. I shall not rehearse that argument. In echo and support of what the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said, I say that all constituents are equal, but some are more equal than others. I remember the case 15 years ago of somebody who had been homeless for a very long time and was desperate to have a home of his own. It took an immense length of time and some effort to secure such a home. I can remember his pleasure, gratitude and joy on moving into it. I remember his handwriting; he always signed his name simply with his initial. I can also remember the absolute tragedy that, within 10 days of moving into that home, he declared that he was unable to cope and would have to give up the home and go back to his previous experience. I mention that because of the noble Baroness’s reference to supported housing, in which young people are given a chance to make their way on their own without being left wholly to themselves. I congratulate the noble Baroness on her extremely comprehensive and detailed argument on supported housing and how the Bill has just been amended. I am happy to lend her my support.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, we are all sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is unable to be in his place this evening. He has campaigned relentlessly on behalf of these vulnerable young people, certainly for as many years as I have been in this House. He would have been proud and pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, speak. The noble Earl came to see me last week, and I had a long and helpful conversation with him and some of his expert advisors. He is in no doubt that I share his concern to ensure that care leavers can access appropriate accommodation. The example that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, has just given us was extremely powerful, in suggesting the vulnerability but also the difficulty that those who have not had a home find in adjusting to having one, and the responsibility that follows. I also share the noble Earl’s concern that local authorities should exercise their responsibilities to assist care leavers to secure suitable accommodation, which will give them the security that so many of them lack. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, will know that I am deeply sympathetic to these amendments. She also knows that we are seeking the most effective ways of supporting young people. It is not perverse to say that putting a duty on local authorities is not appropriate for the Bill. That is not through hostility to finding a way forward, but my belief that the amendment would not necessarily achieve what the noble Baroness wants. It might also have perverse consequences for other vulnerable people within the range of local authority responsibilities. I shall come back to the noble Baroness’s specific points at the end. It is important that we set out the context in which we have been working following the Care Matters White Paper. It gives me pleasure that, over the past five years, care leavers and children in care have been given the sort of priority in legislation and government support that they should have had many years ago. We have made it clear that we give young people in care genuine priority in services and support; so we should. Many of them simply do not recover from their traumatic experiences. Among those initiatives, we have the Care Matters White Paper, which includes a range of commitments to improve the quality of care provided to looked-after children. Primarily, however, we have a vision of moving away from the idea of “leaving care” as a single, cliff-edge event in favour of supporting young people to make a gradual transition from their care placement so that they can take on those greater adult responsibilities that are so difficult for them, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, described. Through the Children and Young Persons Bill we are introducing a requirement that children in foster placements or children’s homes who move to independent living only do so as a consequence of a review of their care plan. That way, they only move on from their final care placement when it is recognised by all those responsible for their care that they are ready to take that significant step and have been properly prepared to handle it. As part of the Care Matters programme, funding has recently been allotted to contribute to the costs of building additional units of supported accommodation for care leavers. It has not been easy to achieve that. The strength of this commitment right across government is reflected in one of the few cross-government public service agreements, number 16, relating to adults at risk of social exclusion. The PSA focuses on four client groups that may be negotiating a difficult transition point, including care leavers. The two national-level indicators in the PSA target for the care leavers group concern the proportion of former care leavers aged 19, who had left care aged 16 or over, who are in suitable accommodation, and the proportion of former care leavers aged 19, who had left care aged 16 or over, who are in employment, education or training. It is a big challenge to give this group effective priority and provide more support for them and an accommodation pathway. I hope that that reassures the noble Baroness that we attach a very high priority to the needs of this vulnerable group. However, if we placed a specific legislative duty on housing authorities to provide accommodation for young people leaving care, and placed their need for housing over and above the housing needs of other vulnerable groups, we would create additional problems. For example, we would be less able to support other young people who had been the subject of domestic violence and those with physical or learning disabilities who required specially adapted homes. Meeting the needs of vulnerable people across all sections of the community poses a very difficult challenge for local authorities; however, that is what they must do. It is not just a question of providing solely for vulnerable groups and care leavers. The noble Baroness addressed the fundamental point that we have to increase the supply of homes available for these young people. That is part of the challenge of supplying affordable homes in a society where their price has spiralled beyond reach. The Homes and Communities Agency will work with local authorities to address the particular housing needs in their area. This means delivering new housing that addresses the needs of all vulnerable groups, which, of course, includes care leavers. The noble Baroness asked me about putting guidance on a statutory basis, amending the Children Act and tackling homelessness in other legislation. I hope she will forgive me if I do not answer those points in detail. I want to read her comments because she referred to four or five very important ideas. I want to give a thoughtful response but it is essential that I do so in writing. I hope that she will take back to her noble friend not only the fact that a consensus was expressed around the House that this group is particularly important, but that across government we are trying to find the most effective way to provide for it. She is right to say that this measure would help us to achieve the goal expressed in government Amendment No. 46, to reduce crime and the fear of crime. There is no more telling statistic than the number of young people who have been in care who end up in prison. For that reason alone, we need to take vigorous action.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness MeacherCrossbench
- Quote
- My Lords, I thank the Minister for that thoughtful response. However, I want to put it on record that when we talk about Every Child Matters and so on we should remember that carers in children’s homes are still unskilled. They tend to have an NVQ1 and are completely unable to provide the therapeutic and medical support that these children need. They therefore leave care needing substantial further support. The Minister referred to the gradual transition of these children. There is a desperate need to adopt a strategic plan to provide this housing so that when young people suddenly need to leave a children’s home there is something for them. That is the point of these amendments. Of course, I understand that other vulnerable groups need housing, but the vast majority of people in those groups have family. That is a big difference. Care leavers comprise a very specific group. Having said that, I again thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 44 [Control of subsidiaries]:
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Bassam of BrightonLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 65 and 66:
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Bassam of BrightonLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 67:
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 68:
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 69:
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 70 to 72:
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 73:
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 75 to 79:
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 80 to 82:
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 83 to 86:
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord BestCrossbench- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 87:
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, I have put my name to the amendment; I should have put it to the second amendment as well and my failure to do so was an oversight. I warmly support the noble Lord. At the previous stage of the Bill, I explained how important it was that the culture of the organisation should be such that local authority housing is not just an add-on in a year or two. The noble Lord explained and unpacked that in his description of how the agency will get going. I am grateful to him for that. At one point, I suggested to the Minister informally that if the Government were concerned that we should wait for primary legislation, they could meet everyone’s concerns by providing that the regulation-making powers in the Bill should not come into effect until a certain period—we were led to expect that we would have primary legislation during that period. I accept that that might be a bit of drafting too far but, as I said earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Ford, things can be entirely benign and the Minister’s assurances can be taken absolutely in the way that she intends them to be taken but life moves on. Who knows what might preclude the primary legislation or knock it back a little? In any event, planning and working for the inclusion of the whole domain from the start is enormously important and will have a very different effect on the way in which the agency gets started. We all wish it well and I support the amendment.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Dixon-SmithConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, although I have some doubts about the powers of the regulatory procedures to deal with a matter of this complexity, if I may put it that way, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Best, when he suggests that a bird in the hand is worth two wherever. That is the situation that we are in. The future is unpredictable but tonight we have an opportunity to do something about this problem. We all agree that it would be a really progressive move, and we think that it should be planned for now because, if it is not done now, no one can say with any certainty when it will be done. The Government may have plans for future legislation but the future of a Government is never certain, least of all at present. I have not suggested who else might have the responsibility. I would venture prophecy if I were dared to do so but I shall not do so. We support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and look forward to it being a great success in due course.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, although the House is not full, I feel that I am in the grip of an irresistible force—cometh the hour; cometh the man. The noble Lord, Lord Best, has led this charge from the front and has done so admirably. I could cut to the chase very quickly and say that I agree to the amendment but I shall take a little longer to say why I have been persuaded that this is the right way forward. There has been huge interest in this issue. In Committee, noble Lords talked about the importance of culture change, coherence, equity between tenants and sending the right signals, and all that has been absolutely consistent with what we in government understand. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, we have been completely committed to cross-domain regulation, and the only point of difference has been in relation to the process that we should adopt in getting there. The amendment involves taking enabling powers and introducing a necessarily wide-ranging Henry VIII clause. Noble Lords normally have serious concerns about such a power but it is clear to me that that is wanted across the House and that, under these circumstances, it is acceptable to take a power of that nature to secure a means of delivering what we all want, which is a system that works for all social tenants, no matter who their landlord happens to be. I shall not dwell on the arguments. During Committee, I discussed the virtues of a full debate on the decision in the fourth-Session Bill that we will bring forward next year. I remain convinced that that will give us the opportunity for a better debate and that regulations are a second-best option in terms of scrutiny. It has become clear that because of the weight of support across the House we should give this serious thought. We have done so and are content that we should return to the matter on Third Reading. We will table our own amendment, which will provide for an enabling power. I hope that the very wide range of interests that the noble Lord, Lord Best, has been representing and the interests inside the House will meet that with favour.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord BestCrossbench
- Quote
- My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for their support, and for the support of all their colleagues for the amendment. Most of all, I thank the Minister who spent not just today, but days leading up to today, finding ways of accommodating the wishes of noble Lords. That culminates tonight in her promise to bring back an amendment that will satisfy us all on domain-wide regulation. I am deeply grateful and have the greatest possible pleasure in begging leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 88 not moved.]
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Bassam of BrightonLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to. House adjourned at 10.05 pm
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗