| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
I shall now try to deal with the range of questions that were posed to me. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, each made reference to the shortened consultation period. I know that the consultation period we undertook in advance of laying the amendments was not as long as we would normally commit to but, of course, the department does not have a statutory obligation to consult on amendments to orders, although we recognise the importance of working closely with our key stakeholders. As I said, we wanted to stabilise the order as soon as possible, and the consultation we undertook was to ensure that we had the right wording to reflect our intentions, not because we were making a change of policy.
All noble Lords who have spoken made reference to the Shelter report and the question of a review. We will be conducting a full evaluation of the LHA against the original policy objectives and examining the experience of fairness, choice, personal responsibility, improved administration and reduced barriers to work. This will include the analyses of rent officer data and trends in LHA rates. It will also consider the experiences of a range of stakeholders—claimants, landlords and voluntary groups—in its operation.
The noble Lords, Lord Kirkwood and Lord Skelmersdale, raised the issue of employment. As they will know, we are currently conducting a radical and far-reaching review of housing benefit. This review provides us with an opportunity to consider all aspects of the LHA. We will be consulting more widely on the review later in the spring.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, asked about conducting an analysis of the Rent Service database to evaluate fully the extent of problems with affordability experienced by claimants. I think the expression was, “Are we sweating the database?”. We are analysing Rent Service data and monitoring closely trends in LHA rates as part of the evaluation of the first two years of the LHA’s full rollout.
The noble Lord asked about identifying neighbourhoods, localities and local authorities with particularly high or low rents of affordability for LHA claimants and putting into practice suitable ways of mitigating this. He referred to working more closely with local authorities, landlords and advice agencies as part of the formal review of BRMAs. It is part of the Rent Service’s usual business to keep these areas under review. We are aware of a number of areas, such as Cambridge—every noble Lord who spoke referred to Cambridge—where there are concerns about access to affordable accommodation. The Rent Service has already engaged with Cambridge City Council and other local authorities in the BRMA to review the area used.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to the Shelter research. We are already aware of the concerns about the effect of the BRMA for Cambridge, which is why we are engaging. I stress that the assertion that broad
10 Feb 2009 : Column 1090
Reluctance to let people who are in receipt of LHA have lettings is an important issue. We believe that the research was not comprehensive, and the views of landlords varied according to the area. We do not have data available at this stage but, as I said, we are reviewing the LHA over the first two years of its operation.
Employment has already been touched on. Because the definitions are trying to reflect the housing market, employment has never historically been included in that equation. As part of our full-blooded review of housing benefit, we have an opportunity to consider that more fully.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, was kind in his remarks about the effort that went into introducing the LHA, the pathfinder project, the evaluation and the associated transparency. In response to his request, of course I am happy to meet with him and colleagues, together with my honourable friend Kitty Ussher, who is the Minister with more direct responsibility for this issue. We will certainly contact his office to set that up.
The noble Lord also touched on large areas and small areas, as did other noble Lords. The areas need to be large enough to reflect the generality of the market, including a variety of tenures, property types and sizes, while allowing access to facilities for shopping, banking, health and education. Setting very small areas could increase the rates of allowance in some parts, while reducing them in others. Small areas may not reflect the size of the local housing market. Moving back to smaller areas would have a detrimental impact, we believe, on poorer areas.
The noble Lord referred to rent officer inconsistency. We believe that rent officers are professionals, working for not only the Rent Service but also the Welsh and Scottish devolved Administrations. It is important to have a consistent and even approach, and we need to ensure that that is the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked whether all advertised properties in an area are included in the database. Rent officers gather a wide range of evidence, not only from advertisements but from actual letting detail as well. We believe that they have a solid base for their judgments.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sorry to cross-question the Minister again, but will he use his good offices to discover whether the neo-DSS advertisement offers are included or not? I should be delighted to be proved wrong, but I have a nasty suspicion that I am right.
8.30 pm
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I shall double-check that point and revert to the noble Lord so that we are clear about it. The noble Lord also made
10 Feb 2009 : Column 1091
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I was aware of that but, unfortunately, in most local authorities, it does not go on for very long. It is time-limited. The reason for this may be to enable the lessees to find more suitable and cheaper property, but that is not always possible in every area of the country.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, my understanding is that they are annual allocations to local authorities. It is up to them how they use their discretion in the period over which they are applied.
The noble Lord referred to the administration of LHAs. Processing has improved substantially and new-claims clearance times have halved during the past few years. Performance is still variable, and the department works closely with those local authorities whose performance most needs to improve.
There will shortly be an opportunity to consider the fundamental policy issues raised in this debate. As we announced when we published our White Paper, Raising Expectations and Increasing Support: Reforming Welfare for the Future, we will shortly publish a consultation document on housing benefit reform.
It is clear that the functional administration of this order plays an important part in the delivery of housing benefit and supporting people on low incomes. That is why it is important to introduce these amendments and to provide a stable basis for rent officers to continue their work. Accordingly, I ask the noble Lord not to press his Motion—indeed, I think that he has already helpfully indicated that he does not intend to do so.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: My Lords, I am grateful, as I am sure my colleagues in other parts of the House are, for the Minister’s full reply, which we shall study with care. I sense a reticence, which I do not understand, about the Government’s consideration of this new area of policy—which is unfinished business and a work in progress. I would be much happier with more explicit consideration of some of the problems that we have aired this evening than with an internal evaluation by the department. I take that to mean that outside bodies which have an interest can start actively engaging with the department. If there is no other way of doing it, that is the best that we can hope for. If we are given that, plus the meetings which were helpfully suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Best, we can continue to tease this policy out. It is in everyone’s interest that we get it right, as I am sure the Minister recognises. I am grateful to colleagues who have taken part in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
10 Feb 2009 : Column 1092
8.34 pm
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Copy of Bill
Explanatory Notes
Amendments
Constitution Committee Report
1st Report from DP Committee
Committee (4th Day) (Continued)
8.39 pm
88B: Clause 49, page 24, line 35, leave out “the sustainable development of the area” and insert “sustainable development”
Lord Greaves: Clause 49(1) defines marine plans. Subsection (2) defines a marine plan as a document which, among other things,
- “states the authority’s policies (however expressed) for and in connection with the sustainable development of the area”.
The amendment would replace the words,
This is intended be a helpful amendment. It would not to change anything substantial in the Bill or the intentions or operations that will happen after the Bill has been passed, nor is it meant to poke or probe the Government; it would simply put in the Bill words that mean what we assume the Government want the legislation to mean.
Sustainable development is not something that is restricted to a particular area surrounded by a particular boundary. Clearly, if you are defining areas for the purposes of marine planning, you have to draw boundaries. To that extent, you have to have boundaries. If you are carrying out policies that involve what on land might be called land-use policies and perhaps should be called sea-use policies—I do not know—you are defining things within that area. However, if you are defining the aims and purposes of what goes on in that area, the boundaries are irrelevant. Therefore, the clause should refer to “sustainable development” rather than,
I have one or two examples. Marine conservation zones in the Bill will only be relevant as part of the network of marine conservations zones. Those which will be defined in the area of a particular marine plan can only be considered in terms of sustainability as part of that much larger network covering all British seas. The effects of extractive dredging or the dumping of any materials in the sea might go well beyond the boundaries of a particular marine plan area, affecting the movement of materials through currents and tides. Geomorphological processes on the seabed and the coast might go outside those areas. They are clearly aspects of sustainability.
The sustainable energy contribution of each marine plan to its area must be seen within the context of an energy plan for the whole country, on both land and sea as well as in other marine planning areas. The boundaries are irrelevant. The contributions of wind or tidal energy to the country’s overall energy supply—they
10 Feb 2009 : Column 1093
8.45 pm
A final example concerns what we have already discussed today, and no doubt will discuss further; namely, the integrated planning of the coast and the need for the sustainability of the marine planning area to be clearly closely related to the sustainability of the adjacent land. As regards integrated planning by the coast, you cannot refer to sustainability just within one area as it affects wider areas. It is a question of causes and effects. What happens in a marine planning area will affect what happens in surrounding areas, in the British seas as a whole and on land throughout the country. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing the amendment. We had considerable debate on sustainable development when we discussed Part 1 and the Marine Management Organisation and indeed when we discussed marine policy statements in Clause 42. In our previous Committee discussions we debated at length the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to Clause 42. I expect that just as she was concerned that there was consistency between the marine policy statement and between geographical areas, she is concerned here that the statement of sustainable development set out in the marine policy statement may be inconsistent with that set out in the regional plans drawn up by the planning authorities.
It is clear that the marine policy statement must contain a statement of how those participating administrations’ policies will contribute to the achievement of sustainable development of the UK marine area. Clause 49 requires that a marine plan should similarly state those policies in connection with the area for which that plan is prepared.
This gives me an opportunity to outline how marine plans are intended to operate at the regional level. They will help crystallise and implement the broader policy aims set out in the marine policy statement. The marine plan authorities may prepare plans for their particular plan areas. The Secretary of State can plan for English regions, the Scottish Ministers can plan for the offshore Scottish region, the Welsh Ministers can plan for the Welsh inshore and offshore regions and the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland can plan for the Northern Ireland offshore region. I do not think that there should be a risk of inconsistencies between the regional plans and the marine policy statement. Plans will have to be in accordance with the marine policy statement which will govern marine planning. There are a number of incentives in the Bill for plan authorities to draw up plans that will be agreed by the Secretary of State and that will deliver the holistic marine planning that everyone in the Committee wants to see. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State would not agree to plans which showed incompatibility with the marine policy statement.
It is important for marine plan functions in Clause 49 to be allowed to be operated either at a regional or sub-regional level. As marine plans will relate only to
10 Feb 2009 : Column 1094
Clause 42 requires the marine policy statement to state general policies for contributing to the achievement of sustainable development in the UK marine area. Given the obligation to state general policies in Clause 42 and policies in relation to plan areas in Clause 49, I think that we have met the objectives which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, sought to emphasise in the amendment in relation to sustainable development. I hear what the noble Lord says in relation to the territorial authorities, but he will recognise that the Bill legislates on the marine authorities and the responsibility in those areas. Of course, he is right that the whole sustainable policy has to be taken in the round, but what I have identified, in particular in Clauses 42 and 49, is the comprehensive nature of the demand on the general policies for marine development to be based on the necessity for sustainable development. I hope, with that assurance, that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment with confidence.
Baroness Hamwee: My noble friend may withdraw the amendment, but I hope that he does not do so with confidence. I do not understand why the Government are defensive about this. Clause 49 could have referred back to Clause 42, period, but it does not. It uses different terminology, and it is more limited. That must mean something. The Minister’s reply was to the effect that we should not worry about it, it does not mean anything and it does not reduce the impact of Clause 42. I, for one, am not very confident about it. I am less confident than before we started, in fact.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, and I am sorry that the phrase that the noble Lord should withdraw his amendment “with confidence” caused a little frisson. By that, I meant that I hoped that I had been confident enough in my presentation to reassure the noble Lord. The noble Baroness has indicated why I have not been so persuasive. I emphasise that the two clauses may use different terminology, as she indicated, because they relate to two parts of the planning process. Nevertheless, this overall commitment is emphasised in Clause 42 with the marine policy statement.
I assure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that we have clearly spelt out within the framework of the Bill the obligation on the need for sustainable development as an absolute priority for both component parts of the planning mechanism. I do not think that the amendment adds anything to that. Is the noble Lord saying that the Bill does not have enough emphasis on sustainable development? I heard that point being made when we discussed the earlier amendments. Of course, the Government recognise this commitment, and it is clearly emphasised in both these crucial clauses. I hope that, having pressed the Government on our commitment, which is clearly expressed in these clauses, the noble Lord will feel that he has had a reasonable response to his interesting amendment.
10 Feb 2009 : Column 1095
Lord Greaves: My noble friend is right that I am not going to withdraw the amendment with confidence, though I will withdraw it with hope. Having listened very carefully to what the Minister said and to his careful and thorough discussion of this issue, I think that he was arguing in favour of accepting my amendment rather than rejecting it. His arguments were impeccable, but they were not logical in relation to the words that we have here.
If the concept of sustainability in relation to development applies only within the borders of the UK marine zone in terms of the MPS or of each planning area, important areas are missed out. The noble Lord dismissed the idea that the land might have relevance, but what you do in the sea along the coast has a huge effect on the land. It is not just what happens in the sea that matters, but what happens on the seaward or oceanward edge of the UK marine area and beyond.
Lord Davies of Oldham: Of course.
Lord Greaves: That happens for other countries’ territorial areas, such as the rest of Europe, including Ireland. There are strange gaps in the UK marine area around the Crown territories. All these surely have to be taken into account. All that we are saying is: talk about sustainable development and not just sustainable development in the area.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I understand that. I accept entirely the objective in those terms. It will be necessary for the appropriate authority to make sure that it meets this absolutely critical objective of the Government. However, we are talking about the powers of an authority in relation to a plan that is specifically linked to its area. Of course the clause indicates that the sustainable development aspect relates to the effect that it has on any related area, but the plan is bound to relate to the authority which derives its power from the Bill. For us to introduce into a Bill related to the marine environment obligations that relate to other authorities would clearly not be appropriate.
We are saying that where these authorities act, they must have regard to sustainable development. Of course the noble Lord is right that the concept of sustainable development cannot have a boundary in that sense, but, equally clearly, you have to put an obligation on a specific authority and then, beyond that, you need co-ordination between authorities. That is a matter for the wider government position in its pursuit of authorities, but this Bill is about these authorities, and that is why in this case the sustainable development aspect relates specifically to the area for which the authority has responsibility.
Lord Greaves: I am grateful for that explanation. We should not discuss this much further, but I should be clear that I am talking not about co-ordination but about policies carried out within a planning area, regardless of whether people outside it want to co-ordinate and co-operate. It does not matter. They might refuse to talk and to co-ordinate, but the policies carried out within the area should still have regard to the effect on
10 Feb 2009 : Column 1096
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |