Grand Committee
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley)
My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, moves the Motion that the first statutory instrument be considered, I remind noble Lords that in the case of both statutory instruments, the Motion before the Committee will be that the Committee do consider the statutory instrument in question. In the case of the first statutory instrument, further proceedings in the Chamber will need to be tabled for further action to ensue. In the case of the second statutory instrument, the Motion to approve the draft regulations will be moved in the Chamber in the usual way.
I further remind noble Lords that if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Health Authorities (Membership and Procedure) Amendment Regulations 2011
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Health Authorities (Membership and Procedure) Amendment Regulations 2011.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I beg to move that the Grand Committee should consider these regulations, SI 2011/2200. I thought that it would be worth while to have a discussion about these regulations—which I think have now technically come into force—because they will be used, as far as I can see, to establish at least two of the bodies which we know about arising out of the Government’s legislative programme. Indeed, my first questions are: how many more, which and when?
The first instrument concerns the establishment of the NHS Commissioning Board as a special health authority as a result of the legislation that is before the House right now and which we will be discussing in the Chamber tomorrow. The second instrument concerns the establishment of a research organisation as a result of the Public Bodies Bill and the proposed abolition of the Health Protection Agency and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. I think that the order will also be discussed in due course.
My first question to the Minister has to be this: do the Government have further proposals to use this legislation in order to set up more and new special health authorities, and if so, which ones, where and when? Will we see orders, for example, to establish special health authorities for the new sub-national bodies that David Nicholson keeps referring to? Will those bodies have formal status in legislation and will that be done by order?
I turn now to the substance of the regulations, and while I am not going to take very long, I have some questions to ask. One of the key issues is the removal of the restriction that prevents chairs, non-officers and officer members of strategic health authorities from being appointed to more than one strategic health authority at a time, a rule which I think is entirely reasonable. What has changed so much that a chair could or might want to serve, or indeed where it might be desirable for them to serve, on a special health authority as well as a strategic health authority? Do the Government propose to establish so many special health authorities that that could become a problem? For example, would it be possible for someone to be the chair of a strategic health authority that exists now, a member of another strategic health authority and a member of a special health authority as those bodies emerge? Apart from anything else, I would like to know whether those individuals would be paid for doing all those different jobs, and how much that is likely to cost. Is that envisaged as the purpose of this order?
Moving forward, what happens to the strategic health authorities in this process? Where are all the authorities going to be? Are they going to be sucked up into the sub-national bodies, and are they therefore going to be special health authorities? Is that going to be done slowly or will it all happen in one go in 2013? How will the new chairs and members of special health authorities be appointed, and by whom? Will there be an independent element in what happens in the appointments procedure—will it be open to public scrutiny or will it just be done by the Secretary of State? Will that be on the public record? How much will they be paid, for how many days and what will their jobs involve? Does the Minister expect or envisage that there may be a clash of interests as this policy develops?
As we head towards 2013, special health authorities—these sub-national bodies or whatever they are to be called—may bring forward and carry out the work of the national Commissioning Board. What will happen in those areas where you have members on the sub-national bodies and on the strategic health authorities? There may be discussions between the two about where the policy goes and there may be clashes of interest. I am thinking about things like the developing role of commissioning and the clinical commissioning groups, and the role and powers that strategic health authorities have had in the past to drive forward, for example, stroke strategies or support for cancer networks. Where does the Minister see those? What happens if somebody who had responsibility for them in a strategic health authority now serves on one of the other bodies and there is a clash of interest over where the resources are going and how they will be supported? How could that be resolved? I am thinking in particular about things like failure regime, reconfigurations, training and workforce planning. As the Minister knows, that is an important role of strategic health authorities. Who will be the arbiter if there are those sorts of clashes of interest about the new structures as they move forward? Would it be the Secretary of State or the NHS Commissioning Board?
There are a variety of questions, some of which it may not be possible to answer now, but which will have to be looked at as we move forward and if the proposals to establish more of these special health authorities are carried through with the different roles. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling this debate on the Health Authorities (Membership and Procedure) Amendment Regulations, and I welcome the opportunity to respond. As she pointed out, we will gather in Committee several more times this week to review the impact of a number of pieces of legislation introduced by the Government and challenged by the noble Baroness.
I believe that the combination of these statutory instruments provides security to hard-working NHS staff to maintain the continuity and quality of services that patients need at a time of considerable pressure. We cannot forget that the NHS has been challenged to make up to £20 billion in savings over the next three and a half years, which will be reinvested back into front-line patient care. Alongside this, we are seeking to move to a more autonomous and locally accountable patient-centred NHS, focused on improving outcomes for patients. That is the background although—in reply to the points made by the noble Baroness at the beginning of her speech—I make it clear that this order has nothing directly to do with the establishment of the two special health authorities, the NHS Commissioning Board Authority and the Health Research Authority, as special health authorities. We will debate both tomorrow.
The effect of the Health Authorities (Membership and Procedure) Amendment Regulations 2011 is to allow the clustering of strategic health authorities and to provide greater flexibility among the non-executive and executive community to take up other board level posts in the health sector during the transition period. The 10 strategic health authorities have been clustered into four: NHS North of England, comprising North East, Yorkshire and the Humber and North West; NHS Midlands and East, East Midlands, East of England and West Midlands; NHS South of England, South West, South Central and South East Coast; and NHS London, which will simply encompass the existing strategic health authority.
That does not change the current structure of the NHS. There are still 10 strategic health authorities with the same boundaries which exist as legal statutory bodies. We have just simplified the governance of the strategic health authorities in order to sustain structural stability and reduce management costs. To do that, the Government are using powers that exist in legislation previously scrutinised by your Lordships' House. The correct procedures were followed in making appointments to the new clusters which complied with both the Commissioner for Public Appointments’ code of practice and employment law, as appropriate. The posts are time-limited and will be disestablished when strategic health authorities are abolished—if the Bill goes through the House and becomes law—on 31 March 2013.
Each cluster board now comprises a chair, up to eight non-executive directors, four executive directors with voting rights and up to five other non-voting executive directors who lead and scrutinise the decisions of each of the constituent SHAs within the cluster. Clustering SHAs, as we have already done with PCTs, supports the delivery of the £20 billion NHS efficiency savings through significantly reducing the cost of NHS administration—a commitment of both this and the previous Government. The creation of SHA clusters is a step towards that. PCT and SHA management costs increased by more than £1 billion since 2002-03, a rise of more than 120 per cent. It would not be possible to make savings on the scale required while retaining the administrative superstructure of PCTs and SHAs.
In addition to the pressing needs that I have outlined, the Government have a responsibility to ensure that the transition to the new system of working in the NHS—subject to the passage of the Bill—supports the integrity of the health service, as well as continuity of accountability and minimised disruption to those working hard to deliver and maintain high-quality services on the front line.
In the current system, SHAs have a key role to play in ensuring the quality and safety of services, in driving performance and delivery, including safeguarding the cash limit and in responding to the QIPP challenge. SHA managers have done a commendable job in delivering that agenda. That is in part why the Government's response to the Future Forum report extends the life of SHAs to the end of March 2013. Until then, SHAs will retain their statutory responsibilities and remain accountable for delivery and transition. Given the context of major change, with new leadership starting to take up roles in the system, it is critical that strong SHA leadership teams continue in place to provide the right focus on delivery and ensure effective accountability.
Clustering provides resilience and alignment for the future. Already, a number of senior posts in SHAs are either not filled or are being covered through interim arrangements. That is not sustainable for a 17-month period, and the position is likely to deteriorate further over time. The risk posed by SHA atrophy is therefore too great, and clustering for greater collective resilience over the next 17 months is an essential response.
Sir David Nicholson has announced that the initial sub-national arrangements of the NHS Commissioning Board will mirror the geographical footprint of the SHA clusters. To give the board a greater sense of having a stake in the future, there is a strong argument for moving early to future geographical footprints. The Government are moving swiftly with those arrangements, drawing on the lessons learnt from PCT clustering, which show that once a decision to cluster is made, it is better to implement the changes quickly. It is also important to embed these arrangements before winter to reduce the impact of the extra operational pressure that the health service is put under at this time.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, first, I apologise for not being present for the opening part of the debate. I have just a couple of questions to put to the Minister. The first relates to the appointments to these very large bodies. Four bodies now cover the whole country, which is half the number of the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy of some centuries ago; they cover very wide geographical areas. I wonder whether the noble Earl can indicate what steps are being taken to strike a geographical balance for the executive and non-executive appointments so that local knowledge across these very wide regions is reflected to the best degree possible—it is of course not completely possible, given their size—in the new arrangements.
The second question relates to the issue of scrutiny and the extent to which, if at all, the new bodies will be subject to the scrutiny of local authorities’ health scrutiny committees under the existing framework. I am not sure the extent to which they would want to pursue that, but there may be cases when they would, and of course geography may play some part in that. It would certainly be welcome if the Minister could be clear that, in principle, the new SHAs, pending the creation of the new special health authorities, will be subject to the scrutiny process.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to ask the Minister a couple of questions as well. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for raising this issue with a statutory instrument.
I am delighted to hear that some form of the SHAs will continue in the interim period—I think that they have, on the whole, done a very good job—and that there is a real sense that they can continue to play a significant part in the transition. It looks very much like, with the clustering, we are making a clear transition from where we are to where we are going. I, for one, would not object in the least to their remaining like that.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. The first is whether he envisages that the regional offices of the NHS Commissioning Board—which, admittedly, we have not yet passed through Parliament—are likely to be very closely aligned to where the strategic health authorities are. Obviously, there is a lot to be said for continuity.
The noble Earl also mentioned the need for flexibility, on which we could not agree more. Perhaps I may ask specifically whether one could raise the question of March 2013 not being a final date. There has, as we know, already been some softening of the original timetable as a result of the Future Forum and the listening exercise, which I think was broadly very much welcomed, partly because it enabled the new system to keep some of the quite distinguished and very experienced staff from the past. The noble Earl had the kindness to say that one of the problems is how one maintains experienced and well qualified staff. The more the transition can copy the strategic health authority structure, the more likely it is that we will be able to retain some of those very qualified and experienced staff. We know that quite a few of them have been lost and that the NHS could do with not more being lost. Is there any prospect of greater flexibility about the timetable, which was strongly supported by the Future Forum?
The second question is a more specific one about SHAs. As the noble Earl knows, SHAs have a large part in education and training, which is still a major area of uncertainty until the education and training legislation comes forward. Under Regulation 2.2 of the 1996 regulations, there was a specific commitment that where a strategic health authority contained medical or dental schools, a member of the authority would come from that background. They specifically stated that he or she should come from the background of education in the medical or dental school that was part of the strategic health authority. Will that be respected in the new circumstance? That would clearly be helpful in addressing future education and training issues.
My last question is a broader one about the Government’s feeling that there was no need for an impact assessment. I confess that I am a little worried about that, because the clubbing together of membership has certain possible impacts. Lastly, as the noble Baroness properly mentioned the issue of the involvement of HealthWatch, will there be an insistence that at least one member of the cluster should be someone with a background on the health and well-being boards—in other words, representing the HealthWatch interests—in the decisions of the new cluster groups?
Let me say loud and clear that all of us regard the cluster groups as a good development; I did not want to quarrel with that. Our questions cluster around the cluster, rather than concerning the cluster itself.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I will add to the points raised hitherto. I welcome the emphasis on continuity, but I wonder whether there is an opportunity to think whether we are closing the door completely on appointing new non-executive directors. We are moving into a new world with a new mindset and culture. If we are going to retain non-executive directors currently in situ in SHAs, will that opportunity be lost? I should like that to be clarified.
We must not lose sight of the fact that these are enormous organisations geographically. From one end of Cornwall to the other end of Kent is further, distance-wise, than from London to Edinburgh. There are issues about representation on boards. There must be complete understanding of the different issues in metropolitan, rural and urban settings. That will be critical for any board.
Also, does the noble Earl have any figure for what the savings in management costs might be? I seem to remember that when this was done for PCTs and they were all enlarged to become coterminous with local authorities, management savings were promised but not delivered. What is the size of the savings that we hope for? Have the Government factored in the risk with all of this?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their questions, which I will try to deal with in order. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked about the extent to which the new bodies will be subject to local authority scrutiny. There is no change to the existing arrangements for scrutinising SHAs. All 10 SHAs still exist. They must meet their duties as set out in legislation.
The noble Lord also made a good point about geographical representation, geographical balance and the spread of local knowledge. What we tried to achieve with the ring-fenced competition, to which I referred, across the geographical boundaries of each cluster was to arrive at a point where we had as much geographical representation as was practicable. The chairs of individual SHAs who were not appointed as cluster chairs were invited to become vice-chairs so that corporate knowledge could be preserved.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the Minister, and everyone else, for taking part in this short but extremely useful debate. The Minister started out in his introduction by saying that this is all being done in the context of the £20 billion Nicholson challenge. However, I am certainly not convinced that setting up double structures will help the delivery of that particular challenge. I accept that there has to be some clustering of strategic health authorities because, as the Minister said, the clusters are a response to atrophy and, I would add, demoralisation among the staff. On the one hand, everyone who has spoken said what valuable institutions strategic health authorities are and what a valuable job they do. On the other, there is an acknowledgement from the Government that there is a danger of atrophy here. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, said, that poses risks. Those risks need to be addressed.
I will read what the Minister said, but I am still unclear whether the clusters will cease to exist in 2013 or whether they will become the national Commissioning Board’s sub-national instrument for delivery. Perhaps we will need to address that question tomorrow when we look at the NHS Commissioning Board. The issue of conflict of interest is potentially real and the Government will need to think about it as the process moves forward. When two mechanisms are in place for delivering healthcare in an area, conflicts of interest will need to be looked at. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, raised some important points, particularly about HealthWatch. As I listened to her I thought, “I wish I had thought of that myself”—as I usually do when she speaks.
I am still not sure about the accountability of the national Commissioning Board. We will address its accountability at a national level, but I am also worried about the accountability and transparency of the clusters were they to become the sub-national boards for the national Commissioning Board. That is a bigger issue than we can possibly deal with here, but I am adding them, as it were, to the agenda of issues to be addressed as we move forward.
Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2011
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, the regulations before the Committee today relate to the registration of providers of NHS primary medical services with the Care Quality Commission. The effect of the regulations is straightforward. It defers the registration of most providers of NHS primary medical services by 12 months, until April 2013. The registration of a small number of out-of-hours providers of such services will still go ahead in April next year, and the commission has started the process of registering these providers.
As the independent regulator, the Care Quality Commission has a key role in assuring the public and people who use services that health and social care providers of “regulated activities” meet certain requirements. In order to be registered, providers must meet a series of essential safety and quality requirements on an ongoing basis. Where a registered provider fails to meet these requirements, the CQC has a range of enforcement powers that it can use to bring a provider back into compliance. In the case of the most serious failings, the CQC is able to cancel a provider's registration, which would result in the provider's closure.
The Committee will be familiar with some of the criticisms that have been levelled recently at the CQC, in particular that the number of inspections of providers that it carries out has fallen to unacceptably low levels and that it failed to respond appropriately to serious service failings, most notably in the case of the appalling abuse of residents at Winterbourne View, a hospital for people with learning disabilities.
The Government attach the highest importance to the role of the regulator in carrying out its statutory functions in an efficient and effective manner. The regulations before us are part of the process of how we and the CQC respond to these issues. Deferring the registration of around 9,000 providers of NHS primary medical services will give CQC additional time both to improve the registration process for this tranche of registrants and to increase the compliance activity of providers that are already registered with it.
Implementing the new registration system has required the Care Quality Commission to register around 21,000 providers already, bringing in, first, NHS providers; then independent sector healthcare providers and adult social care providers; and then independent ambulance and primary dental care providers. This has been a major programme of work for the CQC, which it has carried out well. However, given the scale of the task, it is perhaps not surprising that the number of compliance inspections carried out by the regulator fell. The current timetable set in regulations brings providers of NHS primary medical services into the registration system in April 2012. This would bring in around 9,000 additional providers and includes GP practices, out-of-hours primary medical care providers and some NHS walk-in centres.
Although we remain committed to the registration of providers with the CQC and are confident that this will provide effective levers to tackle providers who deliver sub-standard care to patients, we have reconsidered the timing of registering the majority of these providers in the light of the challenges that the CQC has faced. Following a consultation that came to an end in July, and engagement with key stakeholder representatives, we have decided that providers of NHS primary medical services who provide out-of-hours care to patients who are not registered at their practice will be required to register with the CQC as planned from April 2012.
Out-of-hours services tend to treat unfamiliar patients in unfamiliar surroundings and see a higher proportion of vulnerable patients with urgent care needs that are often more complex than those generally found in daytime general practice. As such, there is a more pressing need to register these services than other NHS primary medical services, which is why we are forging ahead with the registration of this group of providers. All other providers of NHS primary medical services will now be required to register in April 2013. The regulations before us amend the regulated activities regulations in order to achieve this delay.
In parallel with our consultation on the proposed changes, the CQC has reviewed its registration process, looked at streamlining its registration systems, and is increasing its scrutiny of providers that it already registers. Consultation responses made clear that a streamlined process would be welcomed. I am pleased to assure the Committee that the commission is taking steps in this direction. On the registration process for primary medical services, I am informed that the CQC is overhauling its online application process so that providers will be able to start completing the application sooner than in previous application rounds. The website will contain full information on the registration process and will provide updates on the progress of an application and how long it is anticipated that it will take for key decisions to be made. The CQC will also put in place a central team to handle applications, avoiding the risk of the registration of NHS primary medical care providers impacting on the CQC’s ability to monitor the compliance of other registered providers. Noble Lords may recall that there were delays in registering dental practices earlier this year due to the volume of Criminal Records Bureau checks required. The CQC is considering a different approach, which I am assured will go a long way to resolving these problems.
The CQC will engage with providers of medical services over the coming months to ensure that they have a clear understanding of what registration will entail and how compliance with the registration requirements will be assessed. The CQC’s compliance inspections have been increasing steadily since the spring. and I am confident that the delays proposed and the arrangements the commission is putting in to handle registration in April 2013 will allow this to continue and be sustained.
Looking beyond initial registration, the CQC is also proposing changes to strengthen and simplify its regulatory model. Importantly, the commission is planning to increase the number of inspections that it carries out. These proposals would see all registered providers of hospitals, social care providers and independent healthcare providers being inspected at least once a year, with primary dental care providers inspected at least once every two years.
I hope that the Committee will be reassured by the progress that the CQC is already making to improve its registration processes and to increase its focus on compliance and inspection. The delay to the registration of providers of NHS primary medical services that we are considering today will allow the commission the space and time that it needs to move further in this direction more quickly. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I thank the Minister for his remarks about the regulations. I must admit that when I read the words:
“These Regulations may be cited as the … Regulated Activities … Regulations”,
I felt as if I was participating in a Marx brothers’ movie, as you wonder which part relates to which. However, behind the regulations lies a very important human story. I want to focus my comments and questions on some of those issues. The Minister referred to the fact that in respect of NHS primary care services there is clearly a risk that the problems which the Care Quality Commission faces now could still apply in 2013. Apart from simply delaying the requirement to register again, has the Minister any other contingency plans to deal with the capacity problems in the CQC?
A human-issue story concerning out-of-hours services relates to the report that the CQC wrote arising out of the Daniel Ubani case, where the real risk posed to patient care from out-of-hours services was apparent. I would like the Minister to spell out how the small number of—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber. The Committee will adjourn until 4.29 pm, taking note that the Clocks in the Room are an hour fast.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I have received a warning that I must not repeat myself, so I shall try to start from where I left off, which was highlighting the CQC report on out-of-hours services arising from the Daniel Ubani case, which highlighted that we have a nationwide problem. Delaying the requirement to register for a further year means that a lot of the issues that need to be addressed by proper monitoring of compliance will not be.
My other questions relate to which organisations are covered by the regulation. The estimate was about 230 organisations. Does that include the co-operatives such as SELDOC, established in south-east London? Is it simply those organisations separate from GPs? There is an issue about high-risk out-of-hours services stemming from provision within GP services by the use of locums employed directly. I would appreciate clarity about the risk assessments. What concerns me most is that within a 12-month period, the Care Quality Commission will be required to get in to 9,000 organisations, but the Government have given it 12 months to deal with about 230. Having been on the commission’s website and seen the processes and procedures, and the advice being given to primary health services, I think we have a difficult job ahead of us.
I leave my remarks to those few specific points. On the extension of out-of-hours—I must not say out-of-office services, that is my trade union background coming out—the flexibility of the provision of services by primary health services is most important. People are reverting to organisations that do not have their medical records or knowledge of their conditions because they have to work and cannot get to a surgery within its opening times. I know from personal experience that even booking a medical appointment can be extremely difficult. You have to do it within a particular time frame. With those concerns, I leave my remarks.
Baroness Jolly
I should like the Minister to clarify one point. Out-of-hours services providers need to register a year early if they are not in the practice of treating patients from outside their area. Can the Minister clarify the situation regarding itinerant or travelling workers? Where I come from, huge swathes of people come in to pick strawberries, daffodils or whatever. They certainly do not register. I am not clear whether the out-of-hours providers would treat them as temporary residents. What is the case in those circumstances? Would GPs who currently provide services in Cornwall in a co-operative be required to register a year early?
Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, I, too, have a couple of questions. I very strongly support my noble friend's question about itinerant or temporary workers. In addition to the people about whom the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, spoke, there is also the Traveller community, which does not stay permanently in a single place, as we know from the Dale Farm episode. I am very concerned—I am sure that others in the Committee are, as well—about the position of mobile workers whose life involves moving from place to place, and about where they will be picked up by the providers.
My second question concerns the position of out-of-hours services. The General Medical Council has raised many concerns about out-of-hours providers who are not familiar with the English language, let alone some of the other languages that we have in this country. Will there be additional requirements for out-of-hours service providers above the basic medical requirements that they will have to meet?
I should know the answer to my third question, but I confess that I do not. However, I am sure that the Minister does. When providers are registered, are the lists of those who are registered made available to local HealthWatch committees, local authorities and Parliament? That is very important. Transparency is almost invariably the best form of inspection.
Finally, with regard to the CQC, we all know—as the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said—that it has been under heavy pressure. My question is: will the practice of non-notified inspections, as well as notified inspections, continue? I note that the Secretary of State referred to this just a couple of weeks ago in respect of the investigation of complaints about the treatment of elderly people when he called on the CQC to do an immediate inspection.
I have one final point. I do not expect the noble Earl to reply if he does not want to. The most effective form of inspection is by protecting whistleblowers. All of us are aware that whistleblowers are a very effective form of informal inspection. It was whistleblowers who came up with the terrible Winterbourne story. Are there any means of protecting whistleblowers, especially among NHS staff, from being forced into retirement or sacked? Among all possible forms of inspection, NHS staff are most likely to be able to alert the system too bad or poor standards. Have we given consideration to the possibility of protecting whistleblowers among NHS staff? I am sure that our colleague from the trade unions would be sympathetic to that idea.
Earl Howe
My Lords, noble Lords asked number of questions. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, focused in particular on the capacity of the CQC to fulfil the remit that we gave it. He questioned its ability to register 9,000 providers in 12 months. He will not be surprised to hear that we asked the same question of the CQC. We were assured that it is well placed to do that. It has registered 21,000 providers since April 2010. As I mentioned earlier, it is streamlining its processes to achieve the registration of primary care providers. However, the registration of primary dental care providers and independent ambulance providers in April 2011 highlighted the need for the CQC to make improvements to the registration process. In the light of that, we believed that it was preferable to delay registration by a year, during which time the CQC would be able to modernise and streamline its processes and tools so that the process runs more smoothly and is less burdensome both for providers and the CQC itself.
One of the main purposes of deferring the registration of providers of primary medical services was to provide the CQC with the space to improve its systems. We considered walk-in centres in this context. We perceived that there was a serious risk of capturing a significant number of providers under the definition of an NHS walk-in centre. We have concluded that rather than risk overburdening the CQC with a large number of applications in 2012, we will postpone the registration of these providers for 12 months. We believe that this will provide the CQC with the necessary breathing space. The CQC is already contacting those providers who it believes will need to register in April 2012 in order to start the registration process. The CQC will also work with other providers of NHS primary medical services and their representative organisations to identify and develop proposals to streamline the application process that will apply to those who are required to register in April 2013.
The noble Lord also asked me about the CQC’s resources. Each year the CQC agrees its business plan and financial allocation with the Department of Health. The CQC’s financial position is then kept under constant review during the financial year. The Department of Health has now agreed a business case submitted by the Care Quality Commission requesting approval to recruit additional compliance inspectors and compliance managers in order to undertake more frequent inspections. This approval has been given as part of the ongoing 2012-13 finance and business planning round and the CQC’s indicative revenue budget for next year includes sufficient funding to allow the CQC to recruit the additional 229 full-time equivalent compliance inspectors and the additional 19 compliance managers that it requested.
As I indicated earlier, we considered whether there were different risks in the provision of out-of-hours care to justify registering providers of those services ahead of providers of other NHS primary medical services. The case of Dr Ubani has been mentioned, which is very pertinent in this regard. Many respondents expressed the view that there were strong reasons for us to register these providers next year. While there is little concrete evidence to demonstrate that there are greater risks in the provision of these services, we believe that there are material differences in the type of service they provide which justify their earlier registration. As I indicated earlier, some of the differences revolve around the fact that often out-of-hours services practitioners treat unfamiliar patients and see a higher proportion of vulnerable patients with urgent care needs, sometimes with more complex needs. That persuaded us that there was a more urgent case for registering those providers before the others.
The noble Lord made the very good point that in primary care nowadays an increasing range of services are provided. That is why the previous Government approached the question of regulation in the way that they did. Instead of defining scope in terms of organisational settings; for example, hospital and care homes, there is a list of regulated activities for which registration is required. This means that regulation is based on risk of harm to those receiving the care or treatment rather than inflexible organisational structures.
This system of registration is flexible so that it can adapt to new and innovative service models. Basing the scope of registration on activities rather than settings means that regulation provides the same level of assurance wherever people choose to access care or treatment. In other words, legislation describes what providers must do, not how they must do it.
My noble friend Lady Jolly asked me a number of questions, in particular, about itinerant, travelling workers and how they are treated. The fact that a primary care provider accepts patients temporarily will not itself trigger registration from 2012. Those patients are likely to be temporary residents if they seek to access GP services in a particular area. I will write to my noble friend to clarify that, because I am sure that there are detailed issues within that question and I do not want to mislead her.
My noble friend Lady Williams also picked up that point and asked me about language requirements on out-of-hours providers. The language requirements are currently picked up under the system by which PCTs commission out-of-hours care. It is not open to the GMC, when registering a doctor who is registered abroad, to language-test that doctor, but employers clearly have a duty to ensure that any doctor employed in an out-of-hours service is capable of communicating with patients. The employer should ensure that patient needs in an area are being appropriately met by those who are charged with looking after them out of hours.
My noble friend also asked whether the list of registered providers will be available to local HealthWatch and to Parliament. I am advised that the list is available on the CQC website. Some bodies require notification, and HealthWatch England will be part of the CQC, if Parliament approves our plans, so there will be an automatic route of communication between the CQC itself and HealthWatch England.
My noble friend also asked me about whistleblowers. NHS workers are currently protected by whistleblowing legislation. The CQC is a named body under the Public Interest Disclosure Act, which protects whistleblowers. We are very keen that there should be no deterrent to whistleblowers. It was obviously concerning to see a case reported last week where a whistleblower was put under pressure by colleagues. We are looking at the implications of that case very closely. I cannot say more to my noble friend at the moment on that.
House of Lords
Accidents: Costs
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jordan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they are taking to reduce the cost to United Kingdom society of home and leisure accidents.
Lord Jordan
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as president of RoSPA.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, the Government are taking steps to improve the health of the population through reforms to the health and social care systems, and cross-government policies that support health and safety. These will contribute to reducing the costs to society of accidents, including those caused in the home and through leisure activities.
Lord Jordan
I thank the noble Earl for his reply. Will he acknowledge that in contrast to other priorities in public health, accident prevention is the only topic that still does not have a lead body? Does he accept that that is a massive gap, considering that accident prevention and home and leisure accidents cost the National Health Service £5 billion a year? Will he give an assurance that the Government will treat this as a matter of urgency by directing Public Health England to a programme of national strategic accident prevention as a mandatory feature in all local public health plans?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord’s work as president of RoSPA and, indeed, to the work of RoSPA itself. He may recall that the public health White Paper that we issued some months ago—Healthy Lives, Healthy People—as well as the update that we issued, specifically lists accident prevention as one of the key areas of responsibility. That to my mind is par excellence an area where local authorities will be able to make a difference with their new public health responsibilities under the Health and Social Care Bill. They will be able to work with organisations like RoSPA and professional groups such as health visitors to improve safety in their areas. We look forward to working with them on those programmes, should they choose to prioritise them.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
My Lords, while declaring an interest as deputy president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, I warmly applaud my noble friend’s commitment to the way in which we have restored at long last accident prevention as one of those key objectives. Will he please do a little more by setting the agenda on the right way forward to stop the sort of problem just referred to by the noble Lord?
Earl Howe
There is no question but that accidents in the home and in leisure contexts are a serious issue. It so happens that the UK has a very good record compared with some other European countries, but we can never be complacent on this. Some very tragic accidents occur, particularly to children, that we must bear down upon. Again I pay tribute to the work of RoSPA to prevent accidents with looped blind cords, which can often be a hazard to children. NICE has published accident guidelines relevant to home and leisure situations and also guides focusing on home safety and road design. It is that realm of public health that we hope NICE will focus on more and more as the years go by.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Gas Safety inquiry into carbon monoxide poisoning, whose report is being published today. Do the Government recognise that carbon monoxide poisoning currently costs the country about £178 million in total; that the protection of putting up a carbon monoxide alarm in each home in Britain for a year would cost less per home than a cup of coffee at a motorway service station; and that lives would be saved if carbon monoxide alarms were readily available? If the Government considered removing VAT from them, it would give a very strong message that everybody must protect themselves.
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Baroness has highlighted a very serious and important problem. She will know that in the European Union context the Commission has focused very strongly on products that may prove unsafe if sold wrongly or if manufactured or fitted wrongly. The kinds of safety incidents that she refers to could well fall into that category and work is ongoing in that area. However, I take on board the figures that she has so graphically supplied and will feed them back to my department.
Lord German
My Lords, the 1968-71 experiment with moving the clocks around produced some evidence about accidents. In the current debate, since we all enjoyed an extra hour in bed yesterday, I wonder whether there is any concrete evidence about the reduction in accidents that moving the clocks around supplied, given that in 1968-71 we were also introducing the drink-driving laws that somehow compounded the evidence that was provided for us.
Earl Howe
My noble friend raises a point that we have often debated in this Chamber. He is, of course, right that single/double summer time would put clocks one hour ahead of Greenwich Mean Time in winter and two hours ahead in summer. Any change to the current system of British Summer Time would have wide-ranging implications, and those implications would have to be carefully considered in all parts of the UK, probably, in terms of the costs and benefits associated with them.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I welcome the fact that the revised blueprint of Healthy Lives, Healthy People now includes accidental injury prevention. Can the Minister confirm that that would therefore be a new responsibility added to those that public health authorities will be taking up? Has that been costed and will extra funding be available for local authorities and the new public health authorities to deliver on it given that, if they are successful, they will be saving a great deal of money?
Earl Howe
As the noble Baroness knows, much will depend on the priorities that individual local authorities set. This is subject to further engagement because it is early days, but accidental injury prevention is listed as one of the areas that local authorities could focus on. To my mind, they should be warmly encouraged to focus on accident prevention as there are so many levers at their disposal to make a difference in this area.
Scotland: Referendum
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McAvoy
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions the Prime Minister has had with the First Minister of Scotland regarding a referendum on Scottish independence since the Scottish Parliamentary elections.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, the Prime Minister has had discussions with the First Minister of Scotland on a range of issues.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his Answer—I think. Does he agree with me that one thing is now certain; there will be a referendum in Scotland on the issue of separation at some point in the future? The Government seem lost for a definitive policy on this issue. Does he agree that it is essential that such a referendum on separation be conducted in a fair and impartial manner, with everyone entitled to put their point of view without being attacked for holding a point of view? Finally, does he also agree that it was totally reprehensible for a First Minister of Scotland to use public resources to attempt to undermine an eminent professor who had expressed doubts about the principle of separation?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I understand that the First Minister of Scotland had to apologise to the Scottish Parliament last week for making that error. More fully, I totally agree with the noble Lord that if there were to be a referendum it should be fair and impartial. To that I would add another word—clarity. There is no purpose in having a referendum in Scotland unless the question is very clearly understood by the people of Scotland so that the result can equally be interpreted with clarity.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, could my noble friend confirm that privately the First Minister has been threatening government Ministers that if we constitute a legally conducted referendum campaign in Scotland, he will make it his business to boycott that referendum and to prevent the police and other services from seeing that it is carried out? Is the First Minister not getting a bit too big for his boots?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I cannot confirm to my noble friend Lord Forsyth that the First Minister of Scotland has been threatening UK government Minsters. If it were true, however, that he would seek to frustrate a referendum in Scotland that had been legally and rightly established by the Westminster Parliament, it would be the most extraordinary event. Surely the first person who should whoop for joy if there were to be a referendum on the issue of separation in Scotland should be the First Minister.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
Can the Government confirm whether they have conducted any research into the year-on-year implications for jobs in Scotland of investment decisions that might be affected by the prospect of a referendum and the prospect of independence? The First Minister talks of an independence referendum perhaps in 2015, with no certain date or timescale. Will the Government consider making representations to ensure that the uncertainty that that creates is minimised by bringing forward the date to as soon as possible?
Lord Strathclyde
The noble Lord brings a lot of experience to this whole subject. I am glad to say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland himself has laid six—there could be many more—questions to the First Minister for Scotland on the whole issue of what independence means, so that we can have the clarity that I alluded to in the first Answer.
Lord Howarth of Newport
If a referendum on Scottish independence produced a yes vote, would it not then follow that the size of the House of Commons would be reduced and that the House of Commons would be weakened? What bearing does the noble Lord the Leader of the House think that that would have upon the relationship between these two Houses of Parliament, especially if there were to be an elected second Chamber?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I admire the way the noble Lord gets the question of an elected second Chamber into virtually every question he poses, but even for me that is far too hypothetical for me to join him.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
Does my noble friend accept that it is in the interests neither of Scotland nor of the United Kingdom for this issue to drift on unresolved throughout the rest of this Parliament? Is it not now time for the Government to take a decision not only on the future calling of a referendum—their proper role in this union—but on the proper information for the electors about what the consequences would be?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend on the question of information. As far as timing is concerned, it is true that doubts about Scotland’s future within the United Kingdom create uncertainty not just for the people of Scotland but for those who wish to invest, to trade, to do business and to live in Scotland. All these things need to be taken into account before a decision is taken on a referendum.
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
My Lords, in the spirit of clarity, will the Leader of the House indicate whether the Government have a view on whether the Scottish Parliament can competently call a referendum on constitutional change in Scotland, and if so, what that view is?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the fundamental principle that we believe applies is that matters concerning the union of the kingdom are a reserved matter.
Lord Nickson
My Lords, in the tragic event that there was a referendum and the people of Scotland voted for a separate state, what is the Government’s view on what currency they should adopt? Is it a possibility that it might have to be the euro instead of sterling?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, certainly one of the questions that will be raised—and is continually raised—with the First Minister of Scotland, is what currency would exist within the British Isles if Scotland were no longer part of the United Kingdom. At this stage is it is very difficult to answer.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, is the First Minister of Scotland seeking to emulate Ian Smith or Robert Mugabe?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am not going to follow my noble friend down that route. However, these are important matters. Ultimately the people of Scotland will need to decide whether to remain part of the United Kingdom or to break up one of the most enduring partnerships and one that has suited the people of Scotland economically and culturally more than anything else I can think of.
Elections: Registration
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McDonagh
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the implications for the accuracy of the electoral register of the provisions of the White Paper on individual electoral registration.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, our intention in bringing in individual electoral registration is that the implications will be entirely beneficial. The Government are funding research to understand the current level of accuracy of the electoral register that will help us to understand better the way in which to move to individual electoral registration and what impact it will have. The Government remain absolutely committed to ensuring that the maximum number of people remain on the electoral register during the transition to individual registration and that the accuracy of the register is improved.
Baroness McDonagh
I thank the Minister for that Answer. I am slightly concerned when I read all the academics and psephologists on the subject, who believe that we are going to fall from best in class, from 92 per cent accuracy to the low 60s. Would the Minister be even slightly concerned if that were the outcome? Would our society be becoming bigger or smaller?
Lord McNally
I would be extremely concerned if that was the outcome. Let us remember that the party opposite, when it was in government, started to raise the issue of individual registration—and even passed legislation—because, for the first time certainly in my lifetime, the integrity of the voting system was starting to be called into question. That is the origin of the exercise that we are undertaking, on which I hope we will have all-party support.
Lord Rennard
My Lords, does the Minister accept that it really is necessary to carry out a thorough, door-to-door, face-to-face canvass in order to ensure both the accuracy and the completeness of the electoral register? Does he accept that failure to do so not only threatens the integrity of the democratic process but could also cause problems for people trying to obtain credit? Credit agencies check that people are on the electoral register to ensure that they can have credit, and failure to maintain the register in this way could mean that people are denied credit and businesses are unable to supply goods and services. That would be damaging to the economy and to social mobility.
Lord McNally
That is an interesting point. If I may return to the central point of the question, yes, doorstep canvassing plays a vital role in ensuring that registers are complete and accurate. That is why in both 2014 and 2015 door-to-door canvassers will be used by electoral registration officers to ask people to register to vote.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, last Wednesday the Minister denied that there had been a collapse in electoral registration in Northern Ireland when this system was introduced. Can I change the word from “collapse” to “fall”? Was there a fall, and by what percentage?
Lord McNally
It is of no use for the noble Lord to say “Ah!” as if he has found out something wonderful and unknown. I admitted that there had been a fall—yes I did—and what I went on to say is that both we and the Northern Irish had learnt lessons from that exercise and the mistakes made. I went on to say—and I hope my noble friend behind me has an opportunity to say this—that we all used to make the “Vote early, vote often” jokes about Northern Ireland, but people are now going across to Northern Ireland to study their success in getting people on the voting register. That is to their credit and is something that we are trying to learn from.
Lord Trimble
My Lords, does the Minister agree that bogus registrations are probably the largest avenue for fraudulent voting, that this has been a major problem in England for decades and that it is long past the time that it was cleared up and we got a more honest register—which I am happy to say we now have in Northern Ireland?
Lord McNally
I am pleased to have that confirmation from my noble friend. Yes, I make the point again that that is exactly why the Labour Government raised this issue because, perhaps a little complacently, we got used to the idea that this kind of thing did not happen in England. We found out the hard way that that was not true. What we are trying to do—I emphasise this again—is to bring forward a process which is thorough and which will deal with some of the concerns that have been raised, and then move forward to a register that will have full public confidence.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top
Will the Minister agree that, if the further developments that the Government are considering—including voluntary registration rather than compulsory registration—are brought forward and passed, then all the exchanges about improving the register and getting a more accurate register will be for nothing, because we will get a much smaller register and a much less representative democracy?
Lord McNally
This is where I hope that we can call on the experts in all parties to stop those misleading statements. I made clear last Wednesday that we have always had voluntary registration in this country, and that we are not—whichever party is in power, I suspect—going to bring in compulsory registration. But we will bring in a system that will encourage people to complete their civic duties by registering to vote. Rather than throwing barriers in the way, I suggest that all parties, NGOs and others get down to making this system as foolproof as we can, and then get people to register to vote. We can prove by this exercise that some of those fears are groundless. My right honourable friend Nick Clegg and my honourable friend Mark Harper are open to suggestions and are engaged in discussions, and we will do the best that we can.
Lord Kakkar
My Lords, what impact might the opportunity to vote for an elected second Chamber have on voluntary voter registration?
Lord McNally
I think that it would have them flocking to register in their millions. The opportunity and the excitement that that would generate would be almost boundless.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Answer about voluntary registration, but I do not entirely understand it. As I understand it, it is compulsory to register at present—if only it also were to vote—and if one does not register to vote, I think that one can be prosecuted. My main question concerns local authorities: I wholeheartedly agree with the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, with which the noble Lord agreed. Can he assure me that local authorities will have the requisite amount of resources in order to ensure that they can undertake door-to-door registration?
Lord McNally
Yes, I think that I can give that assurance. On voter registration, the compulsion is for the householder to register the household and not for the individual voter.
Lord McNally
I suggest that noble Lords talk to some of the many experts on electoral registration. There is, always has been and always will be a difference. Voting is voluntary; the registration by households is compulsory. I suggest that noble Lords look it up.
Population: United Kingdom
Lord Sheldon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what has been the increase in the population of the United Kingdom since 1945; and how many square miles of countryside have been used for (a) housing, and (b) industrial development, since that date.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, since 1985, the population of England has increased by an estimated 5.2 million people. In the same period, around 170 square miles of countryside has been used for residential development and around 30 square miles for industrial development.
Lord Sheldon
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, since 1945, the population has increased by about a third and the weekly wage has increased from £3.90 to about £400. In recent times, in each year, nearly four square miles of undeveloped land has been built on for housing and industrial development. Should we not use more of our brownfield land for housing and industrial use?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will be aware that each Government have attempted to use brownfield sites and brownfield land before anywhere else. A great deal of brownfield land has already been developed. There is consideration as to whether that is better used for housing within central town areas or whether there is a better boost to growth if it is used for industry or commerce. By and large, brownfield land has for the past number of years been used primarily before anything else.
Lord Tope
My Lords, can the Minister say whether the figure she gave us just now includes land for which development consent has been given but never implemented? Does she agree that if priority is given to the implementation of such consent to the use of brownfield sites, as she has just said, and to the use of other land which none of us would think has any environmental value, there really is no need for the countryside to feel further threatened?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I cannot say whether what I have said includes such land. With regard to the development of land, we have always protected green belt and looked to see that greenfield land is not used before brownfield land is developed. I hope that that answers my noble friend’s question.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, as Huckleberry Finn might have put it, land is finite? Should not some council of wise men and women now determine exactly how much land should be set aside for non-cultivation, how much should be dedicated to biofuels and how much for the production of food? If such a body were to adjudicate, what would be the Solomonic principles on which it would allow the situation to be determined?
Baroness Hanham
I hope the noble Lord is not expecting a reply to that question in those terms. To some extent, land is divided up just as this country is. There is agricultural land; countryside land, which is not used for housing; and land in cities. It is interesting that at the moment 13 per cent of land—1.6 million hectares—is green belt; 25 per cent of England is in a national park or an area of outstanding national beauty; and the area of England—around 13 million square hectares, just over 50,000 square miles—is divided up into greenfield land, green belt, city development and other uses. Where Solomon comes into this or whether there should be an organisation or group to spread out the land and say what it is used for is not on the radar at the moment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, the introduction of a new planning system has not been without controversy. In particular there are concerns that, where local development plans are not up to date, the presumption in favour of sustainable development could lead to largely unfettered development. What assurance can the Minister give us about transitional provisions to cover and protect those situations where local plans are not fully up to date?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, there has been quite a lot of misinformation in the media about the presumption in favour of sustainable development. That presumption originated in 1947. It was then turned into the plan-led approach in 1991, and the presumption has been there all along.
With regard to the presumption now coming through from the Localism Bill, where plans are not up to date, as the noble Lord knows—we have had plenty of discussions about this—the expectation is that local plans must be brought up to date as quickly as possible in order to make sure that development is carried out within the right parameters. Where those local plans are not up to date, the policies set out in the national planning policy framework will provide a robust framework for making decisions and safeguarding the things that matter to people, such as the green belt and areas of physical flooding.
We have discussed the transition over many weeks, and all I can say at the moment is that the need for some transition is well understood.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2011
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sassoon
That the draft order laid before the House on 5 September be approved.
Relevant documents: 28th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 17 October.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, I am afraid that this may take a little longer than expected, the order having been considered previously in Grand Committee. Unfortunately, at the time of the Grand Committee consideration, noble Lords did not have available to them the results of the consultation on the order and consequently were not then able to give the order the scrutiny it deserved.
I would be grateful if the Minister could answer a couple of points raised in the consultation that the Government have not addressed. First, given the peculiar importance of credit unions in Northern Ireland, are the Government intending to address the issue raised in the consultation of whether an office of the FSA or a successor organisation should be established in Northern Ireland? This is clearly a sensitive issue in the Province, and it ill behoves the Government simply to ignore it, as they do in this document.
Secondly, I am unclear about the Government’s position on question 2(a) of the consultation on whether the Northern Ireland Assembly would retain legislative control of credit unions in Northern Ireland. As the Government acknowledge, considerable concern was expressed about the loss of Northern Ireland influence over an aspect of financial life that is very important in the Province but less so in the rest of the UK. Could the Minister please clarify the Government’s position? Again, in the consultation document the question was simply ignored. As a corollary to this last point, what are the Government doing to ensure that no adverse effects are felt in Northern Ireland from the legislation on credit unions passed in this House on Thursday, 20 October? That legislation allowed businesses to assume up to 10 per cent of the share of the capital of a credit union and eliminated the role of the common bond as the basis of a credit union.
How will the Government ensure that credit unions in Northern Ireland do not, in some cases, become dominated by local business members, with the potentially unfortunate impact on investment decisions, particularly when the credit union considers investment in the local community? How do the Government intend to monitor the impact of the loss of the common bond in Northern Ireland credit unions, when it is evident that the common bond has played an important role in the unique character of the credit union movement in the Province?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, for the benefit of noble Lords who did not take part in the discussion in Grand Committee on 17 October, it is perhaps worth explaining that this statutory instrument transfers responsibility for regulation of Northern Ireland credit unions to the Financial Services Authority. It implements a policy decision of the previous Government announced in March 2010—which has the support of all three main parties—the outline of which is the subject of this statutory instrument. There will be further instruments dealing with the detail of the transfer and a number of the consequentials arising from that.
It is unfortunate that the consultation issued by the previous Government in March 2010, having said that the decision had been taken that regulation would transfer to the Financial Services Authority, slipped into a consultation about how this is best achieved and what other associated action should take place. Those matters will be the subject of further statutory instruments in due course and it is unfortunate that there was one somewhat confusing question that could have been taken as touching on the statutory instrument before us today. I regret that. Had I known that that question was there, we could have had the consultation responses out earlier, even though it was not intended that the previous Government’s consultation should have anything to do with the business before us today.
On the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, the question of the FSA and the allocation of its resources to offices is a matter for it. The responses on this point were linked to concerns about what the regulatory regime was going to entail and the FSA has worked hard to address those concerns by carrying out visits to Northern Ireland and answering questions from the credit unions.
As to the common bond and possible domination of local businesses, as we discussed in Grand Committee, the credit unions do not feel that this issue will be a threat. Of course, along with seeing how the credit unions sector generally across the United Kingdom develops—it is prospering and the Government wish to see it do so—it is one of the many factors that the Government will continue to have in view. The matter does not touch directly on this instrument, but it is relevant to the whole of the credit unions sector across the United Kingdom.
The other points will be the subject of ongoing work by the FSA following another consultation that the FSA and the Treasury had issued, which closed last week and which will be the subject of further statutory instruments in due course.
Lord Sassoon
This instrument deals with the basic decision, announced jointly by the noble Lord’s Government and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland, that regulation, which is the subject of this instrument, should pass from the DETI to the FSA. That is what this does. It does not relate to any matters other than that. The decision had already been taken in advance of the consultation the noble Lord is questioning.
Lord Myners
My Lords, the Minister used the word “discussion” to describe Grand Committee on 17 October. That is rather stretching the definition of that word. It was a tetchy performance by the Minister, who was clearly deeply embarrassed that a consultation which had been initiated in March 2010 and completed several months ago—indeed, before the summer break—was actually published only on the morning of Grand Committee, and no efforts were made at all to ensure that those noble Lords who take an interest in Treasury Affairs were aware of the existence of this document before we discussed the order.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I really do not accept the construction of the noble Lord, Lord Myners, over this. If the previous Government had not published a rather confused consultation in March 2010, which slipped in a question that they said in the introduction to that consultation was already decided policy, none of this confusion and this opportunity to create some great mountain out of a procedural molehill would have arisen. We had a vigorous debate. We looked at all the key matters in Grand Committee in the proper way—all the matters I expected to be raised were properly covered in the discussion. A sequence of statutory instruments is due to come forward in the coming month. We needed this one out of the way. There is another consultation, as I have already explained, which closed last week that will inform the other statutory instruments. They will come forward under the normal procedure that is appropriate to them. An enormous amount is being made of next to nothing. If I had been aware of the confusion that had been laid in the previous Government’s consultation on this, of course I would have ensured that the responses were out. I regret they were not. Nothing was held back.
Pensions Bill
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:18 - Division on amendment to the Motion - Ayes: 183 / Noes: 235 - Amendment 1A disagreed.
“6th January 1954 to 5th February 1954 : 6th May 2019
6th February 1954 to 5th March 1954 : 6th July 2019
6th March 1954 to 5th April 1954 : 6th September 2019
6th April 1954 to 5th May 1954 : 6th November 2019
6th May 1954 to 5th June 1954 : 6th January 2020
6th June 1954 to 5th July 1954 : 6th March 2020
6th July 1954 to 5th August 1954 : 6th May 2020
6th August 1954 to 5th September 1954 : 6th July 2020
6th September 1954 to 5th October 1954 : 6th September 2020””
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1. I shall speak also to Amendments 2, 1B, 1C and 1D.
However, before I discuss the amendments, I wish to place on the record my appreciation for one of the department’s officials, Evelyn Arnold, who is retiring after 36 years in the department. In fact today, by some coincidence, we are here on her final day. I am sure that with many an ex-DWP Minister present today noble Lords will share my thanks as we bid farewell to Evelyn and, I hope, to this Bill.
Today we have a further opportunity to discuss what has proved to be the most contentious aspect of this Bill. I hope on this occasion we may emerge with something like consensus. All sides of the House accept that projected average life expectancy has increased significantly since we agreed in 2007 to raise the pension age to 66 by 2026. The latest projections published only last week confirm that with no change to the 2007 timetable, men retiring at 66 in 2026 would receive their pension for an additional 18 months and women for an additional 19 months.
This demonstrates the very challenge we are facing, for we have been on quite a journey with this clause. That we have this opportunity further to debate the Government’s transitional arrangements is to no small extent due to the considered and thoughtful arguments made during our debates on Clause 1. I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for tabling the alternative timetable, which has continued to reappear both here and in another place. However, it is £11 billion—and this fact will remain irrespective of the number of times that the proposition is tabled, since £11 billion is simply too much, even in terms of the inflated figures that we quite often bandy around when debating the heady world of pensions.
I pay sincere tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, who recognised that this sum of money is too great a burden for the system to bear and sought to propose an alternative timetable at a fraction of the cost. Her suggestion provided a more reasonable financial cost while assisting those most affected by the original Bill timetable. Our amendment takes her amendment as the starting point and provides the same notice for the first women affected by a one-year rise, five years and four months from Royal Assent. Our amendment smooths the rise from 65 to 66, taking six months longer than we originally proposed, and provides a revised pension age for men and women born between 6 January 1954 and 5 October 1954. It benefits a similar number of people—about half a million, under the noble Baroness’s amendment, and around 485,000 under ours, although in the case of our amendment nearly half of those are men. That is because we equalised the pension ages first before starting the rise to 66. We have found that there was no alternative to equalising first that would not risk breaching the European equal treatment directive by delaying equalisation beyond the date that we set ourselves in 1995. That is why men will also benefit—but that is, of course, incidental to our primary goal, which is to mitigate the impact on those women who would otherwise face an increase of more than 18 months.
We have listened, we did reconsider, and we have done what is right for these women and the country—and it has not gone unnoticed. Michelle Mitchell, the director of Age UK, welcomed the Government’s amendment, saying that Age UK appreciated that,
“it is a significant financial commitment from the Government at a difficult time. This will give a much needed six-month respite to all the women who would have had to work an extra two years”.
Although Age UK would have liked the changes to go further, it has none the less acknowledged that the Government have listened to concerns. In its briefing sent to noble Lords for this debate, it said:
“We ask all Members of the House of Lords to support the government amendment to Clause 1 of the Pensions Bill”.
These are not my words but those of Age UK.
The issue has never been whether the original timetable is to be brought forward. The issue is about the precise timing and whether it is appropriate to rewrite the timetable, set more than 15 years ago, for levelling the pension ages at 65, to bring about 66 in 2020. We have always been clear on the matter. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in another place that,
“we are committed to the state pension age being equalised in 2018 and rising to 66 in 2020”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/6/11; col. 51.]
These amendments do not alter our timetable for pension age equalisation and maintain our original intention to implement the rise to 66 in 2020, but we have reduced the impact of our original plans by up to six months for those facing the biggest increase. This is what we call a compromise.
This transitional arrangement has a significant price tag attached. Net spending on pensions and benefits will increase by £1.1 billion compared to our original proposals over the two years 2019-20 and 2020-21. Under our amended proposals, we will therefore deliver £30.6 billion of savings. This is not small change that falls down the back of the sofa, but vital savings for the long-term fiscal sustainability of our economy. We must not forget the bigger picture. Savings are not just important but necessary. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility has some very helpful forecasts. They show that by 2060—50 years’ time—age-related public expenditure is set to increase by more than 2.5 percentage points of GDP, with the largest proportion of spend on older people being on health and state pensions. This 2.5 per cent is the equivalent in today’s economy of £40 billion.
The point I am making is that it is tough to save money and this country faces a significant near-term challenge to do so. It was suggested by some Members in another place that the public sector net debt of £1.4 trillion in 2015-16 forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility is so monumental that £10 billion or so here or there will not make much difference. I would like to think that in this House we take a more realistic view. With figures like this, even £1 billion is an important sum of money to spend, and this is only one-tenth of the cost of the proposals advanced by noble Lords opposite.
The fact is that the fiscal impact of their amendment falls on six years not 10 and within that period—2016-17 to 2021-22—nearly £2 billion would need to be found in 2018-19 and nearly £3 billion in each of the years 2019-20 and 2020-2021. In the context of the Office for Budget Responsibility figures, ours is the fiscally responsible approach.
I accept that some will continue to argue that our amendment does not go far enough. However, I would urge noble Lords to reflect upon the process that has got us to this point. Noble Lords scrutinised the Bill many months ago and the Government listened to concerns. The elected House has had its turn, as is the process, and has responded with these amendments, which balance the concerns of those women most affected with longer-term fiscal responsibility. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord McKenzie of Luton
As an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1, leave out from “House” to the end and insert, “do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 1 and do propose Amendment 1B as an amendment in lieu and Amendments 1C and 1D as consequential amendments”.
““6th April 1955 to 5th May 1955 : 6th May 2020
6th May 1955 to 5th June 1955 : 6th July 2020
6th June 1955 to 5th July 1955 : 6th September 2020
6th July 1955 to 5th August 1955 : 6th November 2020
6th August 1955 to 5th September 1955 : 6th January 2021
6th September 1955 to 5th October 1955 : 6th March 2021
6th October 1955 to 5th November 1955 : 6th May 2021
6th November 1955 to 5th December 1955 : 6th July 2021
6th December 1955 to 5th January 1956 : 6th September 2021
6th January 1956 to 5th February 1956 : 6th November 2021
6th February 1956 to 5th March 1956 : 6th January 2022
6th March 1956 to 5th April 1956 : 6th March 2022””
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I join the Minister and start by sending best wishes to Evelyn Arnold. We worked together, on and off, on pensions for at least a couple of years through some very interesting and challenging times. I thoroughly respect the expertise that she brought to that process and I wish her well in retirement.
The amendment gives us an opportunity, as the Minister identified, to revisit the changes to the state pension age, which we debated when considering the Bill. We can do this in the light of the Government’s amendments, which made some modest changes to what they originally proposed. Modest they may be, but it would be churlish not to give them at least a modest welcome and in doing so to pay tribute to all those who campaigned to press for changes to the original measures.
The position is as follows. Prior to the Bill, the state pension age for women was due to rise from 60 to 65 over the decade to 2020, so that it equalised with the state pension age for men. This was provided for by legislation in 1995 under the previous Government. The Pensions Act 2007 increased the state pension age for both men and women to 66 between 2024-26, to 67 between 2034-36, and to 68 between 2044-2046. There was political consensus around these measures. The Bill changed all this by equalising the state pension age earlier, in November 2018, and by completing the increase to age 66 for men and women by March 2020. As we discussed previously, these changes will have caused some 500,000 women to have their state pension age increased by more than one year, with approximately 300,000 experiencing an increase of 18 months or over.
Lord Boswell of Aynho
My Lords, I should like to speak briefly in support of the amendments offered to us by the House of Commons and against any further amendment thereto. In doing so, I speak as one of the instigators of the initial expressions of concern in this House, which were taken up so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and others, and have led to the kind of compromise that the Minister has offered us today. It is a compromise; it is not perfect and certainly not what everyone wanted. However, the alternative would be unconscionable and unachievable.
The Minister has had to labour in devising this scheme with the aid of tremendous care and iteration. He has had to operate under two major constraints. The first, which he has set out more clearly than anyone else could have, is that of cost. I shall turn back to that in a moment. The second is the equal treatment directive. Although the measure of generosity or beneficence that he has been able to offer is welcomed by members of the male gender, the directive has attenuated some of the things that he would have done—if he had not been constrained by it—for persons of the female gender, who initiated the element of concern. He has had to live with that.
I say that as the author of an amendment that the Minister briskly dismissed in Grand Committee by pointing out that it would, somewhat beyond my intention, have been likely to incur an Exchequer cost of some £6 billion, which would have been out of court to the expenditure that he has been able to undertake on it. However, the Minister has done the right thing. In particular, I emphasise the importance of having a sound and viable medium-term strategy. It is quite easy for us, even those who are more expert in the public finances than I currently am, to look at issues in the deficit reduction programme without realising or acknowledging that it is equally important that we should have a credible medium-term financial stance; and that we should show that we are prepared to keep a rein on rising expenditure. The Minister has been able to soften that slightly but he has not been able to take away the constraints.
The Minister also had a third area to think about: how we should deal with this. I am very glad that the Government have not come back with a compromise that was a kind of lash-up—another set of discretionary concessions for a limited number. That would have been better than nothing, I am sure. However, as I advocated in Committee, he has come back with what I call an architectural solution: delaying the full impact of these changes, rather than just a series of slightly unfortunate and perhaps awkward-in-precedent changes.
I have one final point for the Minister. In praising him for his measure of controlled beneficence, I also remind him that it will be equally important for long-term assurance—given the longevity factors that are not really in dispute across this Chamber; we understand how people’s longevity is rocketing—that it may be necessary to return to some of the long-term milestones and a further increase in the pension ages. When that happens, future Ministers will not be constrained by the equal treatment directive because we will have got to parity before we start. However, I would not like anyone here to feel that that issue will have to go away unattended indefinitely.
Baroness Greengross
My Lords, I thank the Minister, particularly for his amendment. However, I want to emphasise that the real winners here are the half million or so men and women who are going to get their pensions earlier than they would have done without this amendment. I was not the only Member of your Lordships’ House who felt that this was very unjust, but I congratulate the noble Lord because he recognised this with great sensitivity. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, that this is a compromise and that there were various constraints. It is not what we all wanted; it has not gone as far as we would have liked, but there were constraints that made that very difficult.
I tried in the amendment that I put forward to do something about what those of us who tried to change things we saw as a tremendous injustice to 300,000 older women—those who found they had to wait an extra 18 months or even more to get their pensions and 33,000 who had to wait an extra two years. Now, because of this amendment, 245,000 of those women, and a similar number of men, will see their pension age reduced between one and six months. It was not all that some of us, including Age UK, would have liked, but I am pleased to support the amendment as a victory for common sense and I thank the Minister for his sensitive approach.
With regard to going further, at this stage I just hope that no further changes will occur without due notice to everybody concerned and appropriate time for people to prepare for a huge change in their circumstances. That is very difficult to cope with at that stage in one’s life—particularly for women, who find it hard to get into the job market at all at that age or even to remain in the job market. I very much support what the Government have done, and thank the Minister again.
Lord German
My Lords, I also add my congratulations to the Minister and the Government for recognising what was the most important part of this Bill—certainly the most controversial part. When it left this House it left it unamended but, if one had taken the temperature of your Lordships’ House, it would have been quite clear that the Government had to do something to ameliorate the problem which was so well put in very many amendments. The Government have listened, and taken on board that message. They went away and came up with a compromise for which we have to be grateful. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, who put down the amendment that paved a way, in a sense, for the sort of direction that the Government have adopted; it might have cost another £1 billion, but, as they say in musical terms, it was close enough for jazz.
The key issue here is that we have to recognise that, though the Government have taken this on board, it will mean a substantial improvement for women who might otherwise have been expected to work for an additional two years. As we have heard, these changes will cost £1.1 billion and affect 250,000 men and just under 250,000 women. I do not regard that as a sticking-plaster solution. It has not been put in place simply to hold the breach in the dam. Another part of the Age UK statement says that it is a big step forward. It states:
“We can’t emphasise enough the great achievement”—
the great achievement—
“that this change represents as it will cost the government £1 billion in lost cuts to expenditure”.
In fact, it will be just over £1 billion.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells
My Lords, I, too, express my appreciation to the Minister for the work that he has done in regard to this very complex matter. At the same time, I belong to the generation that has benefited extraordinarily from the provisions that have been made by the state and I have no worries about my pension. I am very conscious that this is an issue if not of gender justice then certainly of fairness. I recognise how difficult it is when that has to be balanced against finance, but many decisions that we make in government often demonstrate that money is spent on things that do not have quite the same moral imperative as this issue.
Noble Lords will be aware of the public pressure in respect of this matter—some will have seen the advertisements in Westminster Tube station. Perhaps we should remember that the Prime Minister himself has said that he is uncomfortable with these proposals. I recognise that there can be no universal panacea but I genuinely believe that, this being an issue of fairness, we must consider whether the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, can be supported.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for the efforts that he has clearly been making and I am grateful for the changes that have been brought forward in the other place. As the right reverend Prelate said, the Prime Minister was made somewhat uncomfortable by all these protests and has perhaps looked rather deeper into the effects on the generation with which we are concerned.
I, too, am still very concerned about the age group which is most severely affected. The people in that group entered employment as far as they were able with their caring responsibilities. We should not forget the cost to the public purse of bringing up children—in an orphanage, say—if their parents do not look after them. We all know that it is mainly mothers who carry that responsibility, and that has definitely had an effect on the amount of time that they have been able to devote to whatever employment has been within their reach. Therefore, we still have a duty towards this group of women.
I accept that £11 billion is a lot of money, but there have been complications over equality and I would still like to see more done for this group. I would regard it as fair, just and proportionate if this group were given a full year. Although I should have liked to go along wholeheartedly with what the Government have achieved, I am sad to say that, with my background knowledge from many years of fighting for equality of opportunity and much greater equal treatment for women, I do not think that what the Government are proposing has gone far enough.
Baroness Drake
My Lords, I recognise that amendments have been made by the Government but I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord McKenzie. This is not an argument against raising the state pension age. It is not even an argument against accelerating the increase in the state pension age in the face of rising life expectancy to achieve the long-term sustainability that was articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. I frequently heard the quote from the noble Lord, Lord Turner, but if one gives it in its totality, he went on to say that he would also have been more radical on state pension.
As for my own situation, in 2004 I travelled the country attending public events and platforms telling people at a time when it was most unpopular to do so that the state pension age would have to rise not once but consistently. I have no difficulty in articulating the case for the need to respond to rising longevity. However, this is an argument about the manner and timing of this particular increase, which fails to take account of the need to give people sufficient time to adjust their lives and their planning for the increase. It means that a particular group of older women will disproportionately bear the burden of achieving these savings. That will happen for five simple reasons.
First, they will have lower state pensions for legacy reasons on the treatment of carers. Secondly, they will have lower private pension savings because of their economic and social position and the past incidence of gender discrimination. Thirdly, they are more likely to be undertaking caring responsibilities and less likely to be in the workforce. Fourthly, they will have lower incomes. Fifthly, they are less able to mitigate the loss of the income in the limited time available. The debate is about this particular increase, its manner and its disproportionate impact. It is not a challenge to the intellectual analysis of what you need to do to respond to rising longevity over the long term.
Those five reasons provide the essence of why the policy on this increase upsets people. It is seen as unfair. Consistently surveys show that women believe that coalition policies are seen as particularly harmful or harsh to women. We hear organisations such as the Women’s Institute articulating these concerns. At the weekend the Daily Mail highlighted the results of a Harris Poll survey showing that government support among women is slipping away. These proposals are an example of why that is so. They are very real in their impact on ordinary women. There are others, such as the change to the tax credit system, child benefit and childcare to name but a few. Yes, tough decisions have to be made. I do not disagree with that at all. But that mantra cannot be used to justify policies that consistently and disproportionately impact on women, particularly those who are carers and on low or moderate incomes. Until that is recognised there will be many more surveys revealing views of women similar to those reported by the Daily Mail at the weekend.
To get back to the point that I made in opening, the amendment of my noble friend Lord McKenzie—I know him well and we discuss these things frequently—is not a challenge to the need to respond to increasing longevity or the fact that accelerating the increase in the state pension age is part of that. In fact, the amendment does accelerate the increase in the state pension age compared with the existing proposals, and no doubt we will come on to look at ages 67 and 68. The amendment concerns the unfairness of the manner of this increase on a particular group of women for the reasons that I have laid out.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Like the noble Lord, Lord Freud, and my noble friend Lord McKenzie, I, too, pay a very warm and genuine tribute to Evelyn Arnold. When, back in 1997, I was trying to put women’s pensions on the political agenda, I remember being told by one Minister in the then Government—we were preparing a Green Paper on pensions and I wanted a chapter on women’s pensions—that they did not think there was anything to write about, so they did not want the chapter, but Evelyn was always a wise, staunch and fair support in ensuring that whenever we considered pensions, we ensured that the gender filter was put up in ways that were appropriate to the pension issues we faced. All of us who have been at the receiving end of her guidance are warmly appreciative of it.
We all appreciate the moves the Government have made so far. We all absolutely understand the dilemma that the Minister believes he faces: that he cannot go any further because in his view the equality directive, requiring equal treatment between men and women, takes precedence over the need to be fair to this group of women in particular. He is seeing the one against the other and believes that protecting women, as my noble friend Lord McKenzie argued in his eloquent opening speech, would mean that the rise in men’s pension age would be delayed and therefore that the cost is unaffordable. Also, goes his legal advice, we should treat men and women equally on pension age, even though through most of their working lives they have had very unequal treatment and experiences.
One of the things that struck me going into government after being in local government was that whereas local government lawyers sought to enable you to deliver your policy objectives, central government lawyers were charming, but conservative and often unhelpful, and the more unhelpful they were, the more charming they were. Discussing the equal treatment directive over the weekend with a solicitor friend who specialises in the equality directive, his immediate response was that this is “gold-plated conservativism”. The Minister said that if we tried to follow the principle in the original amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Greengross—to separate the timetable for women from that for men, which would deliver an objective we could all share and produce most of the savings that the Government want—it would risk breaching the European directive. He did not say that it would do so, but that there would be a risk. My solicitor friend told me that, on the contrary, it is for member states, not the EU or any other body, to determine the timetable for equalisation. The advice I was given was that there is no good reason why we should not pursue this detachment of women’s equalisation from men’s in the way that my noble friend’s amendment would allow as a fallback if we cannot defer men’s pension age along with that of women.
I think the Minister still has time to be brave. I think he has gone some way, and we understand the pressures he is under and appreciate what he has done so far, but what is the risk? If the advice I have received does not hold up, then women will be no worse off than they are now, but the Government, this House and women out there will know that the Government have made their best endeavours to deliver a fairer deal for women. If it does hold up, and I think there is a reasonable case that it could, some of the poorest women will have been treated fairly and decently. We know that at the moment women are carrying the burden, as my noble friend so rightly said, of benefit cuts, job cuts and public service cuts and many will now face extra conditionality—which appals me, actually—under universal credit. We have to come back to that because too many women will not have the resilience or the capacity to cope with the new burdens that the Government are putting on them at the time that they face the cuts agenda that the Government are also introducing. That is unfair. It is about political choices. I need only remind the House of the up to £8 billion that goes on the additional cost of higher rate tax relief for pensions to realise that there are still plenty of choices if the Government choose to make them or seek them.
I support my noble friend’s amendment warmly. I hope that, at the very least, the Government will consider the original purport of the compromise amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. I understand where the Minister is coming from and am grateful for even that which he has done, but we should go further, and could go further, at reasonable cost, by deferring the equalisation issues until after we have protected women who are at the receiving end of most of this Government’s most savage cuts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for speaking with the expertise and knowledge that we have grown accustomed to in this Chamber. I am particularly grateful for the mathematical expertise of my noble friend Lord German.
As I have already mentioned, the Government have acknowledged that the original timetable was too harsh on some women and have amended this. We have listened. We have amended. This is the very point of the legislative process. The elected Chamber brought forward and agreed Amendments 1 and 2 after significant and lengthy debate. Due consideration has been paid to the issue and I believe that we have reached an agreeable and responsible conclusion.
Indeed, I confess that I am slightly perplexed. We find ourselves considering a timetable that has already been proposed and defeated in a vote by both Houses. We appear to be back at square one. This should not be the case. The Government have reconsidered their original proposal and brought forward a reasonable amendment. Yet, the noble Lord opposite has still reinserted his familiar friend. I feel that we have offered a hand here and the noble Lord, like Beowulf, treats me like Grendel and tries to rip my arm off.
We have heard many of the issues today, but we have been here before and the facts have not changed. We are still talking about an £11 billion reduction in savings that the Opposition are proposing. In terms of fiscal sustainability, I hope that noble Lords can agree that this is simply not feasible.
Several issues have been raised and I want to touch on some of them. One that is of great concern was raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and by the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe and Lady Drake, in respect of the burden on women who are carers. Only around 3 per cent of women in the 55 to 59 age group are currently entitled to carers’ allowance.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
There are 6 million carers and only about 500,000 of those qualify for carers’ allowance because of the very high hurdles: you have to care for at least 30 hours per week for one person in order to receive the carers’ allowance for somebody who is on middle or higher rate DLA. Those are very tough hurdles. Very many other women—hundreds of thousands—are, I know, actively caring in ways that do not permit them to be full time in the labour market or build a pension, but they do not meet those very high hurdles.
Lord Freud
My Lords, we do not have the figures on more informal care; we do not know how many are in this age group. That is not broken down—I certainly do not have the figures to hand. I am providing the figures for the women most affected with full-time caring responsibilities.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
Could the Minister answer the point that I was trying to make concerning the earlier period in women’s lives, when they were caring? That also will have had a huge effect on their capacity to find employment; certainly these days it is not an easy task.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I am plucking the figures slightly from my memory, but I am fairly confident that the number of women in this cohort who have already retired is 4 per cent. I know that there are arguments about how many are part time or full time and adjusting their lives, but that gives you a context for that particular issue. Of course, our concerns for the women that the noble Baroness has just described have driven us to make this amendment. That is our concern as a Government, to take away what we regarded as too harsh a provision and to offer up this amendment.
I would like to spend a little time on the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about the charm of our lawyers, which she has obviously experienced rather more than I have. We have spent a lot of time with the lawyers on this issue and we have not just accepted the first or even the second proposition from them. As noble Lords will acknowledge and realise, we have spent a lot of time—many months—on this particular amendment and we are confident that there are significant levels of risk in doing it the way proposed by the original amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, which was to try to concentrate on the group of women alone. Trying to tough it out would expose us to the risk of the European Commission bringing infraction proceedings, which clearly would be unwise. If we were found in breach, we would at a minimum have to rectify the pension position for those already affected and leave the pension position for many people in limbo for several years as proceedings made their way through court. Clearly we could also be fined; the fine could be substantial and it is very difficult to put any kind of estimate on it.
My noble friend Lord German asked about future changes to the pension system. We are still considering responses to our consultation paper, which were in general very favourable to making a major reform along the lines of the single tier. We are aiming to bring forward our proposals in due course. A number of noble Lords raised the issue of the future. I am grateful for the questions asked by my noble friend Lord Boswell and the noble Baronesses, Lady Greengross and Lady Drake, about what is to happen in future. There was broad agreement in this House that increasing life expectancy needs to be reflected in the state pension age. I think this House acknowledges that the state pension age needs to rise so that we have a sustainable state pension system which fulfils its primary purpose—to provide a decent threshold income in retirement. Following our recent consultation, A State Pension for the 21st Century, we are currently considering how best to achieve this. Therefore, I urge noble Lords to agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1 and 2.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on my amendment. I will comment first on the Minister’s response.
I agree that there is broad agreement on the need to have changes to the state pension age that reflect changes to longevity, and that they must be sustainable. However, part of that judgment surely has to be the notice periods that people are given—that must be part of the equation. But otherwise, even taking account of that, we have a consensus on that issue.
The noble Lord responded to the noble Lord, Lord German, in respect of future changes to the pension system, and we still await that. The noble Lord, Lord German, tends to hide behind the prospects that come from that in defence of everything that the Government do. The noble Lord said that he was perplexed because this proposition has been defeated twice; he is absolutely right, it was defeated, and quite narrowly last time, but there is more joy in heaven and earth over a sinner who repents. Here is the Minister’s opportunity to do that.
My noble friend Lady Hollis made a telling point about the equality directive, if one listens to what the Minister said. She also made a point, for example, about higher rate tax relief. The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, I think, said that we wanted a medium-term strategy as well as a short-term deficit reduction strategy. I absolutely agree with that. Our proposition is that these issues of whether it is £30 billion or £20 billion should be very much part of that consideration of the medium-term strategy, together with issues such as the costs of tax relief, rather than to isolate and look at a juxtaposition of two propositions, to see if one has greater savings than the other, and therefore to condemn the one with the lesser savings.
I very much agree with my noble friend Lady Drake; we are not against raising the state pension age, nor against accelerating the time when that happens, but there are issues around the manner and timing of any change. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said that there was more to be done for the group of women we are considering here, particularly in view of their caring responsibilities, and I very much agree with that. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells said that this was an issue of fairness and a moral imperative, and that is absolutely the issue here. The noble Lord, Lord German, has argued that this is an issue of affordability—and of course, affordability is part of it—but does affordability always have to trump fairness? I would contend not, by this amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord German, referred to intergenerational issues. If we look at the impact assessment and the difference of the intergenerational factors between our proposition and the Government’s, there is very little difference between the two. The noble Lord referred to the noble Lord, Lord Turner, going “further and faster”; yes, but one of the propositions of the noble Lord, Lord Turner, was that proper notice should be given to people.
The noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, acknowledged that the Government had moved—the term “compromise” was sprinkled around the debate. It does not seem an incredibly big compromise to remove just the period between 18 months and two years for those affected, and shift those people into the “up to 18 months” category. It is some movement, and I am sure that it will be welcomed by the beneficiaries, but it does not address the fundamental problem.
I do not think that we will not have a meeting of minds on this issue—the Minister has made his position clear—and I would like to test the opinion of the House on this matter.
Lord Freud
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 3 to 17.
Lord Freud: My Lords, with Amendment 3 it will be convenient to consider Amendments 4 to 17.
Today we enter the final stages of an ambitious programme of legislation to transform the saving habits of working people in this country. Before we begin the debate, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Hollis, who throughout this detailed process have brought such value, wisdom and breadth of experience of proceedings to get us this far. Governments have benefited from a significant degree of consensus during the passage of this legislation. Our consensus has sometimes been stretched, but I hope that during this debate we will retain that consensual approach and a common goal to reshape retirement provisions fit for the next decades.
Many of my contributions to our pension debates have started with the words “Automatic enrolment”, and today is no exception. However, I stress one core feature. Automatic enrolment into a workplace pension scheme is an enduring duty: employers must put workers who satisfy age and earnings tests into a pension savings scheme and keep them in a scheme unless the individual chooses to leave. Employers may, of course, choose to close or change a scheme but, if they do, or the scheme ceases to qualify, there is a clear duty in the Bill to maintain scheme membership for all the jobholders affected by providing a replacement qualifying scheme if necessary. Employers may not induce someone to leave a scheme so that it can be closed unless they put them into another one. This is the core enduring duty.
Amendments 3 to 8 and Amendment 10 are technical amendments to make those continuity of membership provisions work as intended and make some minor technical corrections. They ensure that the automatic re-enrolment duty applies straightaway in situations where an employer, or any other third party, causes an individual to lose their membership. It also aligns this obligation to all active members irrespective of age. As a consequence we need to realign the key compliance provision in the Act that prescribes inducement with the automatic re-enrolment duty.
We also take the opportunity, with Amendments 5 and 6, to remove a redundant reference to the old style postponement provisions in the Pensions Act 2008 and amend a cross-reference in the uprating clauses which had inadvertently linked uprating to the jobholder age test rather than the automatic re-enrolment trigger. I remain grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, ably assisted by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, whose eagle eyes identified this mistake in Committee.
Noble Lords will recall that self-certification for defined contribution schemes was subjected to detailed consideration in this House. I am pleased that we were eventually able to reach agreement. Amendment 14 extends self-certification to employers using defined contribution schemes that have their main administration in another European Economic Area member state. EEA schemes are subject to the same European directives as UK schemes so members’ benefits should be similarly protected. We believe that putting EEA schemes on a comparable footing with UK schemes complies with our European Union treaty obligations.
Amendment 13 is minor, purely technical and consequential. It amends the title of Section 28 of the Pensions Act 2008 to reflect changes to the certification requirements introduced by Amendment 14, which extends the facility to EEA schemes.
Amendment 12 is a technical amendment which provides for a new test scheme standard for defined benefit schemes. This has been wrongly categorised as hybrid in the original clause. The new test standard does not alter the quality requirements for schemes but provides for them through the legislation relating to defined benefit schemes.
Amendments 15 and 16 are technical amendments to clarify the duty for employers with an existing defined benefit scheme to protect individuals. They align the rules on back payment of contributions when an employer moves a jobholder from a defined benefit scheme to a money purchase or personal pension scheme. Employers who have an open defined benefit or hybrid scheme may defer the automatic enrolment date for up to four years provided that the scheme remains open and the jobholder is still entitled to join it. Where this changes, the employer must enrol the jobholder into an alternative scheme and pay up to four years of back contributions. As drafted, the Act does not allow the employer to use a workplace personal pension as an alternative. These amendments fix that omission and ensure that the jobholder is not charged for the back payments.
Amendment 11 extends the reserve power in the Pensions Act 2008 to regulate to cap charges for deferred members in qualifying schemes. The current power to cap charges, should the need arise, applies only to active members who are paying contributions into the scheme; it does not apply to deferred members who have a dormant pension pot administered by the pension provider. It would not be fair to deferred members to be charged inappropriately high charges simply because they have moved jobs. Evidence suggests that the vast majority of schemes currently have low fund charges. However, savers may not understand the full impact that charges can have on their retirement pot. The risk that high charges could erode pension savings and bring pension saving itself into disrepute could increase as we make saving the default decision. The amendment provides a safety net for both active and deferred members in qualifying pension schemes. If we see charges creeping up after automatic enrolment, we will be able to intervene to set a cap to ensure that people’s savings are not eaten up by unreasonable charges. If such an intervention becomes necessary we will of course look at the impact across the pensions industry.
It is critical to the success of the workplace pension reforms that possible barriers to employer compliance are addressed before automatic enrolment starts. There is a potential overlap between the cross-border regulations, which deal with the provision of services by a pension scheme based in the UK with respect to an employee who is subject to the social and labour laws of another EEA state, and the automatic enrolment duty. This overlap could compromise the employer’s ability to comply with the duty. It can be complex and costly for schemes to accommodate pension rights acquired by individuals working in another EEA state and there is no obligation for schemes to do so. Amendment 17 provides for regulations that would exclude individuals who fall under the cross-border regulations from automatic enrolment. Without such a power we may find, when it is too late to address, that some employers will be unable to comply with the employer duties. Draft regulations would of course be subject to formal consultation and we would provide detail on the application of the exemption.
Additionally, the Pensions Regulator already provides guidance for employers and schemes covering the circumstances in which employees may be subject to the social and labour laws of other EEA member states and how this may make the employer a “European employer”. Should the Government make regulations, in practice the employer would need to take a view as to whether or not he is a “European employer” in relation to the employment of an individual and accordingly as to whether he should enrol that individual. I beg to move.
Baroness Drake
My Lords, in the consensual approach that we are invited to take by the Minister, I rise to support government Amendment 11. I am absolutely delighted and welcome the opportunity to return the compliment to the Minister in acknowledging that the Government are extending the powers in Section 16 of the Pensions Act 2008 to allow the Secretary of State to set a cap on charges to deferred members. That is significant progress, to my mind. I see that the Minister, Steve Webb, is here today, and I take the opportunity to say, “Well done”. I am taking this opportunity, too, to press him further.
As we know, with the advent of the new employer duty in October 2012, we will see millions of new savers being auto-enrolled into pension schemes. These workers will change their jobs on average 11 times over their lifetime and, in some occupations, that will be even higher. This means that, when workers leaves their job and their employer’s pension scheme, they are likely to leave a pot of pension saving that is still being administered by the pension provider but is not under the employer’s scheme. The pension pots of these deferred members, which are often modest in size, can be complex, costly and difficult to transfer and will be vulnerable to higher charges and poor governance over investment decisions.
I urge the Government, when they take the power to cap charges to deferred members, which Amendment 11 will allow them to do, not to wait to see what happens, because this is already an area that needs to be addressed. The capping or controlling of charges on deferred members by the Secretary of State should be undertaken through the microscope of the saver. If a provider cannot look after a deferred member’s pot of savings at low charges, it is for the Government to impose protection and, ideally, to facilitate the transfer of modest pension pots to NEST, where they will be looked after at a 0.3 per cent annual management charge, with very high standards of governance. Using the stakeholder cap on charges—the 1.5 to 1 per cent formula—is far too high a charge level for moderate to low income earners and should not be seen as an acceptable level for deferred members. That level of charges eats up far too much of the pension savings of low to moderate income earners. When millions of workers are automatically enrolled, the majority are unlikely actively to engage with their pension arrangements. Therefore, it is important that the Government have a very clear view of what a good pension scheme should look like and important that the Secretary of State uses the powers given under the Pensions Act 2008 to ensure that quality standards are set and met.
As to charges on pension savings, there are few barriers to entry to the market of private pension provision, and the Government need to make clear their expectations to monitor the situation to see whether those expectations are met and be prepared to respond quickly to address adverse developments. When a worker leaving a job leaves a pot of pension saving to be administered by the contract provider and is no longer in that employer’s scheme, who will exercise a duty of care in managing the worker’s investment? Who has the duty of care to ensure that the worker is not subject to high or excessive charges? This is territory within the framework of pensions reform that is much in need of further attention.
Another important area is the ability of workers who are deferred members to aggregate their different pension pots through a simple transfer process and that any charges for doing so are low or negligible. The administrative process of transfer must be made as simple as possible without significant charges being levied, and the ban on transfers to the National Employment Savings Trust should be lifted. I cannot see any gain for workers with moderate pots from that ban on transfers; I struggle to find any suggestion that it does—it can support only the industry, not the employee. I am not contradicted in that view by Paul Johnson, who was appointed by the Government to undertake the review of auto-enrolment policy. As for employers dealing with the issue of charges, transfers and the restrictions on NEST, it is not putting a burden on them. On the contrary, it will reduce the complexity they face when they are trying to do the best by their workers.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I support my noble friend, particularly on the issue of orphan assets and the situation of deferred pensioners. As the noble Baroness explained, most men will have up to eight job changes and women will have something like 11 job changes in their lifetime, particularly when they are younger. For example, women in modest jobs, such as hairdressing or in the service industry, may at some points be self-employed and at other times be employed by different employers. They could very well end up with a pot in NEST, or its equivalent, of some £20,000 to £25,000, and several small pots of £2,000 or £2,500 from previous employments. Those little pots are too small to be annuitised, but there is no way to transfer them into the larger pot of NEST, and they cannot be trivially commuted because the NEST pot is over the £18,000 ceiling. Could the noble Lord share with the House his thinking about what women, particularly, on very modest earnings with very modest savings but with a possible multiplicity of small pots so that they can neither annuitise nor aggregate not trivially commute, are expected to do? Can the Minister assure us that he is making arrangements so that, at least at the point of retirement, they will be able to bring those miscellaneous small pots with orphan assets into the NEST pot to ensure that they get the best possible outcome in retirement?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of this group of amendments, the helpful background he has given us and his kind words. As the Minister said, the amendments focus on the auto-enrolment provisions, and we put on record our support for the Government’s commitment to take these forward. My noble friend Lady Drake asked the question that I was going to ask, about timing. Could the Minister confirm that it is on track? I do not know whether the Minister can update us on issues around self-certification arrangements, and whether any progress has been made, but maybe that is a matter for correspondence outside the debate.
We remain unhappy with some of the changes to the scheme introduced by the Bill, particularly the hike in the earnings threshold, but now, frankly, is the time to make progress. Turning to the specific amendments, there are just a few points. Amendment 3 deals with continuity of scheme membership and achieves this by requiring automatic re-enrolment to take effect from the day after the day on which the jobholder ceases to be an active member of a qualifying scheme. However, the alternative of allowing a period of time for re-enrolment is preserved whereby the Secretary of State can allow for that period. Given the “day after” requirement, when is the alternative approach likely to be invoked? A similar point arises in connection with Amendment 7.
We support the extended protections dealt with by Amendments 4 and 8. My noble friend Lady Drake has given her welcome to Amendment 11, which has my welcome as well. She talked authoritatively about how important this issue is and about the changes happening in the marketplace. That is therefore a particularly important amendment.
We have no problems with Amendment 12, which deals with a test scheme for certain types of defined benefit schemes, or with Amendments 13 and 14, which deal with certification of schemes where the main administration is within the EEA.
A clarification on protections of back payments for jobholders enrolled into workplace personal pension schemes obviously has our support, but perhaps the Minister could provide us with a little more detail about the scope of Amendment 17, which provides a regulation-making power to exempt employers from auto-enrolment duties where a person is a European employer. What assurances do we have that employers would not be able to organise in such a way as to bring themselves within those “European employer” provisions and therefore be outwith auto-enrolment? An assurance on that point would be helpful but, subject to anything arising from these points, we are content and will support these amendments.
Lord Freud
First, I thank noble Lords for their stamina in listening to this debate on a very technical set of amendments indeed. They are about making sure that the legislation works, as the devil is in the detail. I repeat my thanks for all the help and support that I have had across the House on some of that detail. The important principle underpinning these refinements to automatic enrolment is that we ensure that individuals are preparing and saving for their retirement. Automatic enrolment will mean that 5 million to 8 million people will start newly saving, or saving more. This is a positive move, on which I know there is consensus across the House.
Turning to the specific questions, I will start with timing, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. She asked when the new duty for employers will come in. I am happy to confirm that automatic enrolment will begin, as planned, next year. On self-certification, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, we recently finished a formal consultation on draft regulations, which are on track to be in place for next year.
On the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, of the deferred member charge cap, we are extending a reserve power which we have to set a charge cap for pension schemes used for automatic enrolment. This reserve power is intended to be a safety net and to allow the Government to step in and protect all members of automatic enrolment schemes from inappropriate high charges. I am sure noble Lords will agree that it is not right that members are charged higher fees just because they move jobs. We remain vigilant about charges in the pensions industry. We see the market as broadly competitive at the moment, with the majority of workplace pension schemes having annual management charges of less than 1 per cent. We expect NEST and competitive forces to keep the downward pressure on charges but this power will enable us to intervene if necessary and make sure that members are not charged excessive fees. The stakeholder group Which? has strongly supported this amendment. I thank the noble Baroness for her support on this important issue and am confident that it will gain support across the House.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Hollis, raised the issue of small pension pots, which perhaps goes slightly wider than this set of amendments and on which we spent a lot of time in Committee. On average, individuals will change employers 11 times during their working lives. DWP modelling suggests that after 2017 this will lead to in excess of 200,000 small pension pots of less than £2,000 being created each year. We want to ensure that people can get control of their pensions, build up a single substantive pot and be able to purchase a good annuity. In the interim government response to the call for evidence on regulatory differences that we have published, we have committed to setting out a decision on short-service refunds and addressing small pension pots. We know that this will be difficult, which is why need to work with employers, the pensions industry and consumer organisations on tackling this. For this reason, we intend to publish the full set of proposals in the autumn and to consult widely on possible options. These will include considering whether an individual’s pension pot could follow them from job to job as they move employers. The action for this would be behind the scenes and would require little action from the individual. Perhaps it is too early to say whether this will be possible, but this is an important issue, as the noble Baronesses pointed out, and one that we need to get right.
I turn to some of the more technical issues on which the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, sought assurances. Continuity in automatic enrolment is covered by Amendments 3 and 7 to Clause 4. They create the default position that, in continuity of scheme membership cases—where an individual ceases to be a member of a qualifying scheme through no fault of their own—an employer must automatically re-enrol the jobholder from the day after the day on which they ceased to be a member of a qualifying scheme. The clause, as amended, still allows for a period to be prescribed during which the enrolment must occur. We do not intend to prescribe a period. This is purely a precaution in case it becomes clear that circumstances exist in which it is not possible for an employer to comply within the one-day timescale.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, was also looking for an assurance on cross-border provision around Amendment 17. The amendment provides for a power to make regulations. It does not change our policy on automatic enrolment. If the power is exercised, the regulations will exclude a jobholder from automatic enrolment only if they are an individual in relation to whom their employer is a European employer, as set out in regulations under the 2004 Act. An employer is a European employer only if he has worker who, by virtue of his contract of employment, is sufficiently located in another EEA state for the social and labour laws relevant to the occupational pensions of that state to apply. The risk of a jobholder being in this position is relatively small. The definition does not cover workers who are posted to another EEA state for a limited period to work in that state for their UK-based employer.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I think the Minister said that auto-enrolment was due to start on time next year? Could he confirm that the proposed and published timetable for staging will remain as it is?
Lord Freud
My Lords, yes, I can confirm that we currently plan to move along the timetable as set out.
Lord Freud
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 18 to 28.
Lord Freud
My Lords, in discussing Amendment 18, it is convenient also to discuss Amendments 19 to 28. These amendments are about the revaluation and indexation of pensions—that is, revaluing deferred pensions at the point at which they are put into payment and indexing pensions once they are in payment. The first five amendments relate to the change to using the consumer prices index as a measure of inflation and the others are about the indexation of cash balance schemes. The changes to Clause 15 are a positive response to the consultation on the change to using the CPI as the measure of inflation. The consultation ended in March and we published the Government’s response on 16 June. There were more than 150 responses, many of which were technical and detailed.
The areas that attracted the most comments were the CPI underpin and revaluation. There were also concerns about the CPI underpin provision already there for indexation. Respondents suggested that this was too restrictive and unhelpful for corporate restructuring. Removing the CPI underpin for the revaluation of deferred pensions was not originally covered because the different ways indexation and revaluation work means that the likelihood of the CPI acting as underpin for revaluation is small. However, we have listened to the consultation responses, which indicated that even a small risk has consequences for administration and investment costs. The amendment adds a new method of calculating a revaluating addition to Schedule 3 to the Pension Schemes Act 1993. Some schemes will be able to continue calculating revaluation additions using the retail prices index. They will not be obliged to undertake additional calculations using the CPI as well.
We also made easier the application of the CPI underpin exception for pensions in payment. The test now targets whether RPI-based increases have actually been paid rather than whether the rules require RPI-based increases. The amendments also make sure that the application of the CPI underpin exception survives transfers. We do not want the possibility of a CPI underpin to become a barrier to scheme restructuring. The amendment ensures that the provision to address the underpin problem survives a transfer if the result is that the member has received RPI-based increases since the start of 2011 and will continue to do so.
I turn to Amendments 24 to 28 to Clause 17, which removes the requirements for cash balance scheme annuities to have a limited price index. Amendment 24 does not represent any change in policy; it simply makes a technical change to clarify that schemes that are or were contracted out on a defined benefit basis are still subject to indexation requirements. Amendments 25 to 28 remove the potential for confusion. They ensure that schemes that pay a pension commencement lump sum, or allow a survivor’s benefit of a set percentage of the member’s benefit, can be included in the definition of cash balance schemes and can benefit from this easement. They also ensure that the existing indexation requirements continue to apply to career average schemes or schemes that guarantee a member a pension calculated as a percentage of the lump sum. It was never the intention to exclude these types of scheme from the indexation requirement. I beg to move.
Baroness Drake
My Lords, I can see the purpose of Amendments 18 to 23, particularly the need to address the consequences of the Government’s decision to use the CPI for the statutory revaluation of pension benefits, yet not proceeding to introduce a statutory override to pension schemes whose rules explicitly provide for the revaluation additions to be calculated by reference to the RPI. I recognise that where the statutory method uses the CPI, there is an inconsistency for schemes that apply the RPI in the very infrequent event that the CPI exceeds the RPI in a particular year. In such a situation, schemes paying the RPI would, without these amendments, be faced with a statutory underpin of CPI. In effect, the rules of schemes that apply RPI would be interpreted to mean that revaluation is calculated by reference to the CPI or the RPI, whichever is the greater.
This amendment would remove that underpin requirement and allow schemes to continue to revalue by reference to the RPI, which would seem sensible and reasonable. While the Government are to be congratulated on not imposing a statutory override on pension scheme rules to apply the CPI rather than the RPI, where the rules so explicitly provide, the need for these amendments occur in part because of the open-ended decision by the Government to substitute the CPI for the RPI in the uprating of most benefits. It is with some regret that the Government did not put a time limit on that switch from RPI to CPI. There is scope for a review because I am sure that over the long term, when the economy returns to strong growth and earnings outstrip prices, and the price of key items is excluded from the indexation, the Government will need to revisit this matter.
That is particularly so for pensions, although I doubt that the Government will revisit this now. The change to the CPI from the RPI for evaluation effects a switch of assets and benefits from scheme members to scheme sponsors and does not directly impact the public deficit. None the less, it is clear that these amendments are a necessary flow-through from the Government’s decision, and I can see no reason to oppose them.
Amendments 24 to 28 are technical in nature and address matters relating to the indexing of the guaranteed minimum pension. Again, I see no reason to disagree with them.
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, during our discussions on the Bill, one of the issues that raised a lot of controversy was the report that the Government intended to tell occupational pension schemes that in future they must apply the CPI rather than the retail prices index. That certainly led to a lot of opposition from people in occupational schemes. It also led to a lot of opposition from people in public sector schemes, because I gather that the Government are applying the CPI to public sector schemes instead of the retail prices index, which of course produces—currently, anyway—much larger increases than the CPI. I should therefore be grateful for confirmation from the Government that if an occupational scheme desires to continue with the RPI it will not be forced to apply the CPI, and that if it wishes to apply the retail prices index it will be able to do so, even though that is likely to produce—and will continue to be likely to produce—larger increases than the CPI.
Lord Freud
My Lords, this group of amendments cover Part 3 of the Bill. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for her remark that the amendments are technical in nature and that she has no problem with them.
Perhaps I may pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, on private occupational pension schemes. I can confirm that these underpin arrangements are about the ability of such schemes to maintain their own arrangements. There is no legislative pressure on them in that way.
(2) After section 181A of that Act insert—
Money purchase benefits: supplementary (1) This section applies for the purposes of the definition of “money purchase benefits” in section 181(1).(2) A benefit other than a pension in payment falls within this section if its rate or amount is calculated solely by reference to assets which (because of the nature of the calculation) must necessarily suffice for the purposes of its provision to or in respect of the member.(3) A benefit which is a pension in payment falls within this section if—(a) its provision to or in respect of the member is secured by an annuity contract or insurance policy made or taken out with an insurer, and (b) at all times before coming into payment the pension was a benefit falling within this section by virtue of subsection (2).(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) it is immaterial if the calculation of the rate or amount of the benefit includes deductions for administrative expenses or commission.(5) In this section references to a pension do not include income withdrawal or dependants’ income withdrawal (within the meaning of paragraphs 7 and 21 of Schedule 28 to the Finance Act 2004).”(3) In section 99 of the Pensions Act 2008 (interpretation) in the definition of “money purchase benefits” for “which are not average salary benefits” substitute “which fall within section 99A”.
(4) After that section insert—
Money purchase benefits: supplementary(1) This section applies for the purposes of the definition of “money purchase benefits” in section 99.(2) A benefit other than a pension in payment falls within this section if its rate or amount is calculated solely by reference to assets which (because of the nature of the calculation) must necessarily suffice for the purposes of its provision to or in respect of the member.(3) A benefit which is a pension in payment falls within this section if—(a) its provision to or in respect of the member is secured by an annuity contract or insurance policy made or taken out with an insurer, and (b) at all times before coming into payment the pension was a benefit falling within this section by virtue of subsection (2).(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) it is immaterial if the calculation of the rate or amount of the benefit includes deductions for administrative expenses or commission.(5) In this section references to a pension do not include income withdrawal or dependants’ income withdrawal (within the meaning of paragraphs 7 and 21 of Schedule 28 to the Finance Act 2004).”(5) In paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 10A to the Building Societies Act 1986 (disclosures about directors etc), in the definition of “money purchase benefits”, for “which are not average salary benefits” substitute “which fall within paragraph 1A”.
(6) In that Schedule, after paragraph 1 insert—
“1A (1) This paragraph applies for the purposes of the definition of “money purchase benefits” in paragraph 1(2).(2) A benefit other than a pension in payment falls within this paragraph if its rate or amount is calculated solely by reference to assets which (because of the nature of the calculation) must necessarily suffice for the purposes of its provision to or in respect of the director.(3) A benefit which is a pension in payment falls within this paragraph if—(a) its provision to or in respect of the director is secured by an annuity contract or insurance policy made or taken out with an insurer, and (b) at all times before coming into payment the pension was a benefit falling within this paragraph by virtue of sub-paragraph (2).(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) it is immaterial if the calculation of the rate or amount of the benefit includes deductions for administrative expenses or commission.(5) In this paragraph references to a pension do not include income withdrawal or dependants’ income withdrawal (within the meaning of paragraphs 7 and 21 of Schedule 28 to the Finance Act 2004).”(7) The amendments made by subsections (1) and (2) are to be regarded as having come into force on 1 January 1997.
(8) The amendments made by subsections (3) and (4) are to be regarded as having come into force at the same time as section 99 of the Pensions Act 2008.”
Lord Freud
My Lords, on 27 July 2011, the Supreme Court handed down judgment in Bridge Trustees v Houldsworth and another. This was the first occupational pension scheme case considered at the Supreme Court and dealt with the meaning of “money purchase benefit” in pensions law. This definition is a fundamental concept underpinning the design of the regulatory framework for pensions, and it is vital that trustees, employers and members are all clear about the meaning of the term.
Despite accepting that Parliament and Ministers had legislated over a number of years on the assumption that a money purchase benefit could not develop a funding deficit or surplus, the Supreme Court decided that certain benefits that could develop funding deficits or surpluses could still fall within the definition of money purchase benefit. This means that the judgment will result in some schemes being regarded as money purchase benefits under the current legislation, even if it is possible for funding deficits to arise in respect of those benefits. For example, under the judgment, even when benefits are subject to a guarantee in the build-up phase, they should be considered to be money purchase benefits, or where schemes use money purchase rights to provide a pension from the scheme itself, rather than to purchase annuities from an insurer, the pensions should be considered to be money purchase.
The judgment will place some benefits outside the scope of a wide range of legislation that was put in place to safeguard members’ benefits. Money purchase benefits are not covered by scheme funding or employer debt requirements; nor do they have access to the Pension Protection Fund or the financial assistance scheme. If the judgment stands, the members will not be protected for certain sorts of benefits in the event of the scheme not being able to pay out; yet these workers thought that their rights were protected. For example, if you get a pension from the scheme rather than from an annuity provider, you expect to continue to get that pension, irrespective of what happens to your former employer. This position has been put in doubt by the judgment and it is important to act quickly to provide clarity and certainty for those workers.
Following the judgment, the Government announced the intention to legislate as soon as possible to provide clarity for trustees, employers and members. I appreciate that noble Lords may consider it unusual for the Government to bring forward such amendments at this stage in the Bill, but we consider it necessary that we legislate to protect members immediately. The pensions industry expected this amendment, and it wants certainty so as to be able to operate and advise schemes. Indeed, the Society of Pension Consultants urged us to make an amendment to this Bill. It said:
“We can understand the government's decision to legislate in the way it intends. However, we would ask that the government passes the necessary legislation as soon as practicable, perhaps as an addition to the Pensions Bill”.
These amendments clarify the definition of “money purchase benefit”. They also take associated regulation-making powers. I take this opportunity to assure noble Lords that these powers will be subject to public consultation and the affirmative procedure—both stakeholders and Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the regulations.
Law is based on words, and having a common understanding of what the law means is essential not just for law-makers but for society as a whole. If trustees, employers and members are unclear about what sort of benefits their scheme is providing, that simply produces uncertainty and confusion.
Section 181 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 defines money purchase for the purpose of that Act. This is the core definition of money purchase benefit on which subsequent law builds. Amendment 29 amends Section 181 to restore the definition of money purchase benefit to the meaning that it was widely believed to bear before the Bridge litigation. The revised definition makes it clear that only a benefit that is calculated solely by reference to the relevant assets—or, where the benefit is a pension in payment, that is backed by a matching annuity contract or insurance policy—is a money purchase benefit.
If there is any additional form of “promise” in relation to a benefit, it cannot be a money purchase benefit. For example, if there is a guaranteed investment return in the build-up phase, that is not a money purchase benefit; or if a scheme has promised to pay a set rate of annuity that is not backed by a matching asset such as an insurance policy, that is not a money purchase benefit. It is simple; if there is a promise, there needs to be something to back it up.
A money purchase benefit is one derived solely from the relevant assets. In other words, the member gets the value of the contributions, plus the real investment return, less any administrative expenses. The previous definition stated that average salary benefits were not a money purchase benefit. This reference has been removed because, following these amendments, it is not necessary explicitly to exclude one type of non-money purchase benefit from the definition.
The proposed new clause also amends similar definitions of money purchase benefit at Section 99 of the Pensions Act 2008 and in Schedule 10A to the Building Societies Act 1986. Amendment 30 enables the Secretary of State to make transitional arrangements for specified types of schemes.
Baroness Drake
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 32. The purpose of Amendment 29A is to give absolute clarity to the legal meaning of a money purchase benefit in so far as it relates to pensions in payment. As the Minister said, the Government’s Amendment 29 is addressing the consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bridge and restoring the legal meaning of money purchase benefits to that narrower meaning it was understood by most observers to have before the litigation. In doing this, it is restoring what was understood to be the extent of protection to scheme members and beneficiaries when their pension benefits could face funding deficits and preserving their potential access to the Pension Protection Fund. It is the Government’s intention that a pension in payment is a money purchase benefit if its provision is secured by an annuity contract or insurance policy. I do not disagree with that intention.
My concern is that the legislation should make it absolutely clear that any annuity purchase for a pension in payment must explicitly be in the name of that member and ring-fenced for them. I am not confident that the wording of subsection 3(a) of the new Section 181B inserted by the Government’s Amendment 29, which is before us, does that. My amendment simply adds the words,
“in the name of the member”,
to make crystal clear that the annuity must be ring-fenced for that member. The Government’s view, with which I have no disagreement, is that normally pensions in payment within a scheme are not money purchase benefits as the amount of the liability of that pension is unlikely to be matched exactly by assets held by the scheme. That being the case, there will always be scope for a deficit or a surplus in the funding of those pensions in payment. The exception, which the Government’s amendment allows for and which they propose to include within the definition of money purchase benefit is pensions in payment secured by annuity. Again, I have no disagreement with that proposal.
I repeat that my concern is that, in purchasing those annuities and insurance policies, schemes might not necessarily have ring-fenced such policies for the members concerned. They may have been secured as assets of the scheme as a whole and not for the named pensioner in receipt of a pension, which would not be unusual. Should that be the case, it would mean that those with a pension in payment would not have an automatic right to those assets in the event that there was an employer default on an underfunded scheme. Members could lose out if the scheme was wound up or underfunded.
I know that the Government’s intention is that the definition of money purchase is such that members should have the benefits of these annuities ring-fenced to them, but I am concerned that the Government’s amendment still leaves room for ambiguity because it does not, to use layman’s words, nail the point that the annuity must be held in the name of the member. My amendment simply seeks to provide that nail and so adds the phrase,
“in the name of the member”.
Current legislation has allowed the Supreme Court decision to arise notwithstanding the intention of policymakers, so if we are to avoid Lady Bracknell’s descriptive distinction between two comparable events, I believe it is appropriate to tighten the wording of the definition of money purchase benefits to reduce the likelihood of a similar problem in the future.
My amendment does not question the intention of the Government’s Amendment 29. I agree with them. All I am trying to do by the deployment of a few words is to make absolutely clear that a pension in payment is a money purchase benefit only if it is secured by an annuity or insurance policy in the name of that member.
Amendment 32 confers upon the Government the power to change the definition of money purchase benefit in the future, and one can see the common sense reason for this. Having been faced with a Supreme Court decision which ran contrary to what most observers thought was the definition, it is better to reserve powers to address a simple or comparable problem should it arise in the future—and other complexities may arise. The definition of a money purchase benefit is important because money purchase benefits are not subject to the regulation designed to mitigate deficits in a pension fund and to extend particular protections to pension scheme members.
What I am concerned about is the breadth of the power conferred on the Government or the Secretary of State by Amendment 32. I am particularly concerned that it could be used retrospectively to remove access to Pension Protection Fund protection from scheme members and beneficiaries by broadening the definition of money purchase benefit. I have similar concerns in respect of people having access to the financial assistance scheme.
The Pension Protection Fund exists to offer a level of protection to members of occupational pension schemes, unless they are excluded for certain reasons, the main ones being the existence of a crown guarantee; the trustees having compromised a fund debt; and that it is a money purchase scheme.
I am sure that the Government have no intention to use the power conferred by their Amendment 32 to remove Pension Protection Fund protection from schemes or members as currently defined. None the less, it would appear that the powers extended to the Government in Amendment 32 would allow such a possibility in the future. It is not clear to me what other existing statutory provisions, if any, would overlay the Government’s ability to use these powers. Put simply: what would limit a Government’s freedom to use the power conferred by Amendment 32 in a way that meant pension scheme members and beneficiaries would lose out?
I ask the Minister, if this amendment is made to the Bill, what, if any, limits would there be on the Government’s power retrospectively to remove protections from members and beneficiaries of funded pension schemes facing deficit and/or default. In respect of the other amendments in this group, they are largely technical in nature and I see no reason to disagree or query them. I beg to move.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for her precision analysis in this area, which—I say this as a compliment—has had the team seriously thinking about the issues involved. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, for applying such scrutiny to the powers contained within the Bill. I trust that noble Lords are as content with the Government’s amendments, even though they have some broad powers within them, as the committee was after its consideration.
Let me turn now to Amendment 29A. The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, highlights a key question. How do we ensure that those people whose benefits are classified as money purchase benefits in payment, because their scheme has bought an annuity to match the liability, actually benefit from that annuity? The Government share the noble Baroness’s aim in laying this amendment, but the issue is how one ensures the right outcome. I have concerns that the way this amendment is designed could have desirable consequences and place an unnecessary regulatory burden on schemes.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I think that perhaps the noble Lord meant “undesirable” consequences.
Lord Freud
My Lords, when I look down at my notes, which perhaps I should do more frequently, I do notice that the word is “undesirable” and not “desirable”. I am most grateful that we have the record absolutely correct on this.
Baroness Drake
I thank the noble Lord for his detailed reply. I appreciate that trustees may not purchase individual annuities for individual members and can take out insurance policies for a number of members, but it is important to catch that issue of the policy or the annuity identifying the members covered so that it is clearly ring-fenced. One cannot leave an ambiguity at the purchase of the policy or annuity stage and then hope that somehow there will be clarity around ring-fencing if and when a legal challenge comes. I am very concerned that there are no ambiguities left, because either we will see another Bridge case or we will leave unprotected a group of members that the Government intend to protect. I note the Minister’s reference to making regulation and urge him to ensure that those regulations, when applied to this amendment in this clause, extend the protection with as much clarity as is possible to do under regulation.
With regard to the new powers, I appreciate that evolution can occur in the area of money purchase benefits. It is important to have on the record the Government’s recognition that the insolvency directive will limit the way in which the Government can exercise those powers in Amendment 32 and that the protection of people in funded occupational schemes is not diminished by this amendment. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 29A.
Lord Freud
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 30 to 35.
Energy: Feed-in Tariffs
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat as a Statement an Urgent Question made in the other place by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Climate Change.
“Since the feed-in tariffs scheme started it has been successful in encouraging people up and down the country to get involved in local, clean, green energy generation. Solar PV has led the way and over 100,000 homes now generate their own electricity. But let us be clear: the current returns now available on solar PV investments, funded by consumers through their energy bills, are unsustainable. Falling PV costs mean returns are double those originally envisaged under the scheme. This does not provide value for money for the consumer.
If we do not act now, the entire £877 million FITs budget for the current spending review period will be fully committed within the next few months. That would limit the number of people able to benefit from feed-in tariffs in general. We are therefore urgently consulting on new tariffs for solar PV installations. Because of the urgency, we propose that these new tariffs apply to all new installations that become eligible for FITs on or after a reference date, which we propose should be 12 December. We are also seeking views on other proposals, including one to strengthen the link between feed-in tariffs and energy efficiency. It cannot be right, and it is a fault of the system we inherited, that we currently subsidise renewable energy generation for inefficient buildings.
We are determined to secure successful feed-in tariffs through sustainable growth rather than through boom and bust. That is why we are consulting today on new tariffs for solar PV: to save the FITs budget in the interests of all eligible technologies and to bring much greater coherence to this Government’s ambitious policy to green Britain’s homes”.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in your Lordships’ House today. It is not the first time that we have discussed feed-in tariffs in your Lordships’ House. I have to say to the Minister that I was surprised to receive an e-mail this morning announcing that a Written Statement was due to be issued. Given the public interest, I was surprised that the Government wanted to issue a Written Statement rather than an Oral Statement. I appreciate this, and I am grateful to the Minister for repeating it. With thousands of jobs and businesses at risk, he will understand the concern that this could have been slipped out as a Written Statement without the opportunity to seek answers to some very important questions in your Lordships’ House.
The Minister will recall that we discussed this issue in your Lordships’ House just before the Summer Recess. Given that the order we debated then made significant changes to the feed-in tariff system following a previous consultation, can the Minister tell us why, so very soon after one consultation and legislative change, the Government have now initiated another?
When I asked the department about this previously I was informed that the consultation was required because of a loophole in the law. I found this quite surprising, because I was concerned about whether the issues addressed in this consultation that seek to plug that loophole were evident or should have been evident at the time of the last consultation. When did the Government become aware of this loophole, and would it have been reasonable for them to have been aware of it sooner, prior to this consultation—indeed at the time of the previous consultation?
Does the Minister really understand—I am sure he does—how difficult it is for investors to have any confidence in the Government if the goalposts on feed-in tariffs keep moving, making it more and more difficult for them? Are they supposed to guess what the next so-called loophole will be that the Government will try to plug? This is the second significant change in a matter of months. I have to say to the Minister that it seems to be a bit of a shambles. I am sure he is aware that investors need certainty, and this merry-go-round of consultations and changes provides exactly the opposite for investors and for the industry. What message will the Minister give to current and potential investors, and will he offer an apology to them for the chopping and changing that we have witnessed over the past two months?
As I said in our previous debate on this issue, to say that only the Government wanted to see any changes in the feed-in tariffs and that everybody else wanted to leave the feed-in tariffs as they were creates a false dividing line. Investors and others are aware that installation costs have fallen by around 30 per cent, and it was recognised that feed-in tariffs would change in line with that. Many preferred a tapered change.
What is not understood is why the Government have reduced the tariffs by more than 50 per cent, which is a significantly larger amount than the reduction in costs. With a new rate of 21p per kilowatt hour, less than half the previous rate, has any assessment been made of the impact on jobs and businesses? Last year the solar industry employed 3,000 people in 450 businesses. Today it employs 25,000 people in 3,000 businesses. Has any impact assessment been undertaken of the impact on jobs and investment in business?
In the previous consultation just a few months ago, over 80 per cent of those who responded opposed the Government’s plans. What level of support do the Government expect for the plans they have issued in this current consultation? What notice will be taken of the consultation this time? Although the consultation does not finish until 23 December, the cut-off date for eligibility under the current scheme ends before that on 12 December, in just six weeks’ time. Will the Minister take any note of the responses to the consultation, or is this a pronouncement of government policy rather than a consultation on possible or intended changes to government policy?
I listened with interest to the Statement in the other place earlier today, and I thought I heard the Minister, Greg Barker, say, if I understood him correctly, that there could be individual exceptions to the cut-off date. Does the Minister know what these are, or what the process will be for those individual exceptions? Can any advice be given to those who have already commissioned domestic solar power systems and paid a deposit but who will not have been able to manage the installation, certification and official registration by 12 December?
Has any assessment been made of the impact on community projects, and are the Government worried that the changes being made will mean that those on lower incomes are now far less likely to benefit, while those on higher incomes are more likely to be able to do so? It might be helpful if I quote to your Lordships’ House a gentleman called Nigel Farren from Energise Barnet, who says: “Churches, synagogues, mosques, schools, sports clubs and other community organisations across the country are getting together to establish energy saving initiatives so they can lower energy bills, reduce carbon emissions, and eradicate fuel poverty among their members. Unless community-owned projects and community-buying group initiatives are ring-fenced from the feed-in tariff cuts, the trust of these organisations and thousands of volunteers will be lost, setting back the whole green agenda in keeping secure their help in delivering the Green Deal”.
Finally, the Secretary of State Chris Huhne said to the Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change earlier this year,
“The next time someone asks where the growth is coming from, you can tell them. Green energy”.
It is a sad irony that on the very day the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg announces funding for 35,000 new jobs, a successful industry that has created 20,000 jobs in the last year seems to have had the rug pulled from right underneath it.
At the beginning of the Minister’s comments he said that this was a successful scheme. It is, and we want it to remain so—we take great pride in the capacity that it has built up and those who benefit from the current scheme. We know that there have to be some changes, but these are very serious issues that I have raised today, and I hope the Minister will be able to answer my questions.
Lord Marland
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her questions—quite a lot of them—which I will deal with. I will, I hope, cover the canvas of this particular issue.
The motive for the Government here is putting consumers first. That is absolutely fundamental in these difficult times. I was delighted that Consumer Focus should say that the Government are,
“taking a sensible approach to protect energy bill-payers with the proposed changes to Feed-in Tariffs. Incentives to overcome the high set-up cost of solar panels and help make our energy supply greener are necessary. But the cost for this is passed onto bills of energy customers and we need to strike a balance”.
I do not think you can say it more clearly than that. That is at the very heart of the difficult decision that we have had to take in changing these rules.
Why was this initiated? It was initiated simply because if we carried on at the current rate at which people are taking up this thing, we would have run out of money by March. Therefore there would have been no money available to pay for other excellent initiatives that have the benefit of feed-in tariffs such as anaerobic digesters and other projects that we have out there.
We read in the St Albans & Harpenden Review that a solar panel company is advertising panels at £3,995, which is down enormously from the original cost—not by 30 per cent but by nearly 60 per cent. There is also a guaranteed IRR of 14 per cent, backed by the Government through an incentive scheme that frankly has become overheated and bloated and is in danger of ripping off consumers and those who invest in it. So of course the goalposts have been moved for the investors who the noble Baroness wants to have a clear path. Of course, they brought it upon themselves to a large extent by advertising schemes that show that government-backed schemes have outstanding benefit beyond the normal rate of investment return. It is reasonable in the current world that we have an investment return of 4.5 per cent or 5 per cent, which is what the new tariff would offer.
The impact on jobs is regrettable, given that an industry has developed. I am sure the employers will look very closely at that and will hopefully look to the export market, where, as we all know, the sun shines more often than it does in this country. I have just been on a visit to China, and I offer to support any solar panel manufacturer in their export endeavours. As we all know, one of the unfortunate things about this country is that the sun does not always shine when we need energy most, and we have the shortest days of the year.
The Government are left with a choice. Does the tariff represent value for money for the customer? Does it represent value for the taxpayer? Does it have a real impact on the supply of electricity to homes, which is currently 0.1 per cent and could go up to 0.3 per cent? Do we have the climatic environment that is necessary or beneficial for this type of product? The answer is that we believe it could be used better elsewhere.
The noble Baroness asked further questions on cut-off dates, the response to the consultation and community things. Of course, the whole point of consultation is that we are consulting. This is not an edict but a consultation period. We want to listen to views before we go ahead with our proposals and we will look at exceptions, which is the point. On community projects, it is important that we maintain community buy-in. That is why we have agreed to keep 80 per cent of this tariff for aggregated schemes, which will still provide a return on investment of around 4 per cent. Because the purchasing power of these solar panels can drive greater economies of scale, they should be able to benefit more from IRR. Therefore, it is wholly in tune with this Government’s policy, which is to be the greenest Government ever and to deliver a benefit for consumers. That is at the heart of these proposals.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, it is clear that one of the challenges, as mentioned by the Minister and the noble Baroness, is the sustainability of this industry. One area in which I would give sympathy to the Minister is that if we have an industry that steams ahead until next April but then there is no money and everything stops, we will be in the situation that Spain and Germany have been in in the past whereby we have built up an industry that then completely disappears. We need to make sure that that does not happen and that we have a sustainable industry. We want a sustainable environment that works over a number of years and builds up, which is why I am sympathetic to trying to achieve that in these measures.
Having said that, one of the most unfortunate things is that we are moving to the second review on FIT rates in a short period. Where we have a global investment market in energy—in the United Kingdom we have a requirement, estimated by Ofgem, which is often quoted, of £200 billion of investment over the next 10 years—how can we make sure that the investing community remains confident in government schemes and that investment in our energy systems, energy plants and energy distribution systems can be sustained? One change to FIT rates is unfortunate, two might be careless, but another one would mean that we could destroy confidence in investment in this industry. It is not perhaps so much of a problem for manufacturing industries, but the installation industry in this country is far less mobile.
Although I applaud the Government’s efforts to make sure that this business and this industry stay sustainable over a number of years, how will the Minister ensure that that confidence, not just of households but of other larger investors, remains in the UK energy market?
Lord Marland
As always, my noble friend Lord Teverson is well informed about these matters and I am grateful for his broadly supportive comments. I totally agree and accept that the confidence of the investor is paramount. However, put yourself in the position of the Government. We inherited a scheme of feed-in tariffs that did not consider the fact that the more solar panels that are bought, the cheaper they become, as illustrated by this argument; and that a pot of money is available to support this scheme, which becomes a scheme for which the IRR is way beyond most people’s dreams and beyond what is reasonable for consumers. At some point, a decision has to be made to say stop or pause or to take action. That is broadly the step that we have taken on this.
I wholly agree that getting future investment and the infrastructure of this country right is fundamental, but we have to get that right against the backcloth of heavy lifters in the game changes for the electricity supply. As I have already indicated, I do not believe that the 0.1 per cent, or the £3.2 billion that we will have saved the consumer, is the right change of game plan for electricity in this country.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
Perhaps I may remind the House that this is an Oral Statement and that interventions should be limited to brief comments and questions.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. My concern is that this is merely about the Government’s priorities, which are being set by a modelling of the energy system that is proving to be utterly incapable of modelling what happens in the real world. This is now the second set of changes whereby a successful industry is essentially being cut off at the knees because of an unexpected success rate, when this is something that we should be championing and backing. The Government must accept that if their modelling is incorrect, they must go back to first principles and work out which technologies are going to deliver the step change that they describe. No matter how much money is thrown at some technologies, they may not succeed—I am thinking of CCS and the current generation of nuclear.
The Government saying, “This is just too successful, we cannot afford it”, is not a good answer. We must go back to first principles and ensure that our successes continue to be successes. If they are having trouble now with feed-in tariffs, they will have even more trouble when they look at energy market reforms and try to fix prices for the long term on the big generators. That should be settled by the market. I am very concerned that the modelling is incorrect and that trying to fix prices is just the beginning. We should probably look at market-based solutions.
Lord Marland
The noble Baroness is completely right. The modelling was incorrect. We inherited it and we have sought to get it right. As I asked earlier when I talked about government priorities, do we think that this is a game changer in electricity supply and that it is in the best interests of the consumer? The answer from Consumer Focus is no. As regards the game change in the electricity supply of 0.1 per cent, even if every house had them the figure would get to only 0.3 per cent. Therefore, this goes down the list of priorities. I am afraid that it is not a government priority, given the massive problem that we will have for electricity in the 2020s.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top
My Lords, first, I declare my interest: I chair a very small community interest company, a social enterprise, that was set up in order to get cheaper, more sustainable fuel into poor and deprived communities. It has had a good success rate in doing that and the next phase was to seek to introduce solar PV. I am interested that the Minister thinks that it is not very successful. I could take him to some elderly residents in my previous constituency who have solar and which works remarkably well for them. They were looking forward to solar PV to deal with electricity. The reality is that the Government are taking a huge risk with the market. I want to be sure that they are watching that they do not kill off the market altogether with these actions.
The other issue is that nationally—not just in the north-east and Yorkshire from where the company to which I referred operates—the work on due diligence, tenant consultation and so forth has meant that very little work has been done in terms of installing solar PV on social housing. I want to be sure that in the changes the Government will not penalise tenants in social housing. I confess that I have not read all of this very thick document, although I have tried to do so, but I am not convinced that the Government have really thought their way through getting to social housing. Will the Minister tell us what his thinking is? Would he also meet people and a delegation from those organisations concerned to tackle fuel poverty and to use solar PV as one of the means of enabling social housing tenants to avoid paying the high end of energy costs, as they often seem to do at the moment?
Lord Marland
Obviously, the whole point of the consultation is that we have representation from the noble Baroness and those communities that she represents. I would be delighted to meet them and pursue this issue in greater detail.
The scheme has been successful—too successful—and that is why we are taking these steps. As I referenced earlier, there is a continuation for aggregated schemes. From the communities’ point of view, surely the most important thing that we can do to support them is to have a retrofit programme. If we start from that end, solar PV makes sense. That is why the Green Deal is so important and is a banner product for this new Government.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I apologise that I was not here for the start of my noble friend’s Statement, but I had already read it. I welcome what he said about the importance of protecting consumers. I am not sure the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, recognised the fact that the cost of this is actually borne by the consumers of electricity; it is not paid for by the Government. The Government put an envelope around the maximum sum. In fact, the figures show that it will increase by nearly three-and-a-half times over three years. Nobody could accuse anybody of being stingy on that one. The fact is that any of these subsidies for special help to different forms of electricity generation goes straight through the companies on to electricity bills. I do not know whether the noble Baroness studies her own electricity bill; mine shows the amount that is being paid towards government subsidies—at the moment. What is it going to be in 2020? Ask Ofgem and it will tell you.
Why is it that not until paragraph 19 is there is a reference to the,
“placing a financial obligation onto energy companies, which is then passed onto the consumer through energy bills”?
If this consultation document had paid as much attention to that factor as my noble friend did in his Statement, I think it would be a great deal easier to understand.
Lord Marland
As always, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding for his intervention. It sets up the fundamental question: what is going to be the cost of FITs on the consumer’s energy bill by 2020? It is going to be £26. Bringing in these steps will reduce it to £3, which some people might not want to spend, but it is a considerable reduction. My noble friend is quite right about putting the consumer first, and I apologise that those in my department are masters of disguising that fundamental point.
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, given that the coalition agreement includes a strong commitment to encouraging community ownership of renewable energy projects, what advice can the Minister give to the community energy co-operatives around the country? I am aware of three in my area that have live share offers at this moment. It is now unclear whether their proposed projects remain viable. Should they continue to solicit funds? Does the Minister recognise, as I do, that further reductions of the feed-in tariffs for installations at more than one site—which, I understand, were put in in order to get rid of the “rent a roof” schemes—actually threaten community projects that cover more than one site, such as local hospitals in Warwickshire or local schools in my area in Wey Valley?
Lord Marland
I am very grateful to my noble friend. The fact is that if we did not act now, there would be nothing in the pot for those schemes to which she is referring because it would be empty by March for the next spending review period. We have taken this action to allow community schemes, among others, to carry on. This is not retroactive. If you are in the scheme already, you are still benefiting from it. It is new regulation that we are bring in. I hope that gives her a degree of comfort. I am, of course, happy to explore it during the consultation process and, as always, I am delighted to hear my noble friend’s views.
Lord Reay
My Lords, I welcome the Statement, which I hope will be one of a series aiming to reduce the subsidies available for renewable energy, as the Government seek to limit their cost to the consumer and to the economy.
The Written Statement issued today in the name of Mr Gregory Barker stated:
“Over 100,000 homes now generate their own electricity”.
Will the Minister say whether he meant all their own electricity or just some of it, perhaps including those who generate only a very small part of their own electricity? Will he give any figures to indicate how much electricity is being generated or has been generated to date by solar PV, and how much do the Government hope or expect will be generated in the future?
Lord Marland
I will have to write to my noble friend on the latter question. The answer to the first question is as in the Statement—that over 100,000 homes now generate their own electricity.
Localism Bill
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:15 - Division on Amendment 3 - Ayes: 152 / Noes: 196 - Amendment 3 disagreed.
20:55 - Division on Amendment 16 - Ayes: 59 / Noes: 140 - Amendment 16 disagreed.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Localism Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Clause 10 : Fire and rescue authorities: charging
Amendment 1
Baroness Eaton
Baroness Eaton
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 2. I have tabled these probing amendments in order to request clarity from my noble friend the Minister. This is an amendment to allow fire and rescue services to charge for calls regarding persistent false fire calls. False fire calls from faulty alarms in non-domestic premises are a significant burden for fire and rescue authorities. Around a third of all fire brigade attendances are to false or faulty alarms. In London alone, there are 30,000 attendances each year as a result of calls from automated fire alarms. Of those, only 3 per cent of the calls were to actual fires and in just 1 per cent to fires was a hose needed to put them out. Clause 10 is intended to allow fire authorities to charge those building owners who persistently generate such calls, thereby giving them an additional power to reduce the number of calls and the associated disruption, cost and increased risk to the public.
However, there is an established consensus from the sector that the current wording of the Bill, which addresses only malfunctioning and “misinstalled” alarms, covers less than one-fifth of the total issue. For example, of the 6,002 recorded calls from these alarms in Lancashire in 2009 and 2010, only 16 per cent were recorded as having been set off by faulty alarm systems.
I understand that organisations from across the sector, including those representing the businesses that install and monitor these alarms, have appealed to the department to look again at this drafting, but without success. For clarity, when I say “the sector”, I am referring to the Local Government Association, of which I am a former chairman, the Chief Fire Officers Association, the London Fire Brigade, the Fire Industry Association, the British Security Industry Association, and fire services across the country. All these bodies and authorities have, I understand, appealed that the current wording does not address the issue and have warned the department that the legislation as it stands could mean much confusion and many arguments over the definitions currently in the Bill, and that clarity will probably only be reached following decisions from the courts.
I do not pretend to be an expert on this issue but I am sure that few of us would say the same about the bodies I have just cited. I would welcome clarity from the Minister on this subject. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton. I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Before this legislation, I had never come across or heard the word “misinstalled”—it is a curious turn of phrase—but clearly if an alarm is misinstalled the idea of it being maintained at relatively regular intervals is of course the responsibility of the business holder in that company. That has to be undertaken. That is why this is a reasonable amendment.
The only question I have on that concerns the evidential burden. If the business owners had taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the alarm system was properly maintained, would any action be taken against the company which had failed to do so or would it be a matter for the business? There is a slight legal quagmire here, and although I am in no haste to make extra work for lawyers, I broadly support the amendment. It is entirely reasonable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, for tabling this amendment and I hope that she will not be too offended when I say that I am not going to accept it.
The fire and rescue services often raise the issue of the number of mobilisations to faulty fire alarms, perfectly reasonably, at non-domestic properties. We agree that this is a significant issue and we have addressed it in the Bill by proposing that, following local consultation, fire and rescue authorities will be able to recover their costs in cases of persistent false alarms in non-domestic premises where fire alarms have malfunctioned or have been misinstalled—I believe that is the word.
It is certainly true that some fire representatives support the amendment—indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, laid out who they were—and want to widen the scope of the clause to cover a wider range of incidents. However, on the other side of the coin, there are others who do not agree with the amendment and are concerned that it is confusing and will lead to additional burdens.
It is vital that we keep charging provisions as straightforward as possible and do not create uncertainty for businesses or fire and rescue authorities which seek to recover their costs. If we were to widen the scope of the clause in this way, it would mean that the fire and rescue authority would have to provide evidence that a business had not properly maintained a piece of equipment. Going down this route could only open up a significant potential for challenge that would benefit neither businesses nor the fire and rescue sector. The Bill already allows for authorities to charge under a wide range of scenarios that can lead to malfunctions and the amendment would not add anything to that.
On that basis, I am not persuaded the amendment helps. It would not achieve its intended purpose in significantly widening the number of scenarios under which an authority could charge. Instead, it could unhelpfully complicate the Bill’s provisions as drafted and leave those extra provisions open to legal challenge. I hope with that explanation the noble Baroness will be willing to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Eaton
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. The last thing I intended with my amendment was to complicate matters and to create an opportunity for more challenges. I am pleased to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Pannick
“(2) In deciding whether a decision-maker had, or appeared to have had, a closed mind to any extent when making the decision—
(a) the relevant time at which that issue is to be assessed is when the decision of the relevant authority was formally taken;(b) an earlier statement or conduct by the decision-maker that amounts to predisposition is irrelevant; and(c) an earlier statement or conduct by the decision-maker that amounts to predetermination shall be taken into account and given such weight as is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.”
Lord Pannick
My Lords, Clause 25 is directed at the concern that local councillors must be able to express views on controversial local issues such as, for example, whether to give planning permission for a bail hostel without being accused of bias when the issue comes up for a vote at the council meeting. There are two main objections to the drafting of Clause 25 which the amendment seeks to rectify. The courts have adopted a sensible approach in this context and a local councillor can express strong views on an issue prior to the council meeting as long as he maintains an open mind in the sense that he is willing to listen to the competing arguments and the advice of officials at the council meeting before casting his vote. The courts have explained that the common law allows strong predisposition and the holding of strong prior opinions; it prohibits only predetermination, the closing of the mind and the unwillingness to listen to the debate before casting a vote. It is extremely unclear whether this distinction between predisposition and unlawful predetermination is being maintained by Clause 25 or whether it is, in some respects, being amended. It is so unclear that it will inevitably lead to protracted and expensive litigation, a process that will undermine rather than advance the Government’s objective. That is the first objection.
The second objection to Clause 25 which the amendment seeks to rectify is that it appears—I say “appears” because the clause is very difficult to interpret—to provide that as long as the local councillor says or does nothing at the council meeting to indicate a closed mind it is legally irrelevant what he or she may have said or done before the meeting to demonstrate a closed mind—that is, predetermination. For example, if at the council meeting the councillor says nothing during the debate but votes against the bail hostel, under Clause 25 there could be no legal complaint of predetermination. That would be so even though, on the way into the council meeting, he announces to the television news cameras outside that he is not interested in what is going to be said at the debate. That would be a substantial change in the law and one very much to be regretted.
The two concerns that I have outlined are exacerbated because Clause 25 will apply not only to controversial political decisions in local government but to all functions, including, for example, employment and contracting decisions. In those other areas, in particular, it is of great importance that local councillors have an open mind; that they hear the arguments at the council meeting and listen to the advice of officials before they make up their mind.
I have received a letter from Mr Clive Lewis QC, who is the chairman of the Constitutional and Administrative Law Bar Association, a copy of which I sent to the Minister, expressing concerns very similar to those I have set out. I have also been informed by the Association of Council Secretaries and Solicitors that it, too, is very concerned that Clause 25 as currently drafted will lead to uncertainty and run the risk that serious cases of alleged bias could not be challenged in the courts.
I am very grateful to the Minister’s officials for taking time to seek to explain to me the reasoning behind Clause 25 at a meeting last month. However, my concerns remain. This amendment would set out—I hope clearly—the principles stated by the courts so that local councillors and their advisers would be in no doubt that the prior expression of strong opinions is not prohibited by law. Even at this late stage of consideration of the Bill I hope the Minister will think again on this subject. I beg to move.
Lord Hart of Chilton
My Lords, my name is associated with this amendment and I support it for the following reasons. I believe it is common ground that councillors should not be prevented from or penalised for speaking their minds on the hustings. I do not accept the anecdotal evidence that if councillors speak out on an issue then they are banned from voting at a committee. If they are being given that advice then it is bad advice and it should be clarified. You do not need a statutory provision to do that.
A predisposition has always been permitted but not a predetermination. I think it is also common ground that decision-makers must approach their task with an open mind. They must listen and consider all the arguments and then reach a conclusion. It is self-evident, for example, that a Secretary of State who as a local MP has crusaded passionately against wind farms saying there are no arguments in their favour cannot decide an appeal against the refusal of a wind farm planning application. He must—and I am sure he would—recuse himself.
In the present case, in a much less exalted position but important nonetheless, a councillor who declares himself opposed to an application and states he is determined to vote it down ought not to pursue such a course up to and including the planning meeting. However, the Bill appears to provide a loophole for this by affording an opportunity for a councillor to state wholesale opposition right up to the door of the planning meeting and then to remain silent at the meeting itself nevertheless casting his vote. In such a case the provisions of the clause mean that clear evidence of bias, which that is, is impermissible evidence. That cannot be right. At worst this clause could, I fear, become a bigot’s charter, which cannot be in the public interest.
The amendment offers a solution. It confirms the present position of predisposition but provides a potential sanction for predetermination if the circumstances permit. I emphasise that this does not prevent the crusader councillor from crusading. He can attend usbthe council meeting to represent his views but he must not, if his mind is made up before the meeting, participate in the voting on the decision itself. That must be left to those who come with an open mind to listen to all the arguments before finally coming to a decision. That is the law and it is in the public interest that it be upheld.
The current wording of the Bill does not do so. It could well be used as shield or a licence for bias and is bad policy because the clause applies not just to planning but to all functions of authorities, some even more sensitive, where greater restraint on strong expressions of view is called for. Cases of bias are extremely difficult to get on their feet. This clause makes it almost impossible because those who are biased will now remain silent during the committee’s deliberations.
Baroness Eaton
My Lords, first, I must declare my role as an elected councillor. Councillors have long walked a difficult line; trying to engage in an open and rigorous debate with their communities ahead of key local decisions, without falling foul of the complex common law principles of predetermination. The Government’s proposals in the Localism Bill offer welcome clarity by removing any presumption that a councillor has made a decision with a closed mind simply because they had previously explicitly offered a view, or inferred a view through their actions, about a decision they would subsequently make.
It is essential that councillors have the freedom to express their thoughts and views on an issue to the communities they represent. This is an important part of the dialogue between local people and their local democratically elected representatives, helping councillors to gauge levels of support for or against a view and to encourage communities to come forward with further evidence to inform decisions that matter to them. This is surely a key part of the big society we are striving to create.
This amendment would reintroduce confusion over where predisposition ends and predetermination begins when prior indications of a view have been made. Therefore it would continue to make it difficult for councillors to have those absolutely full and frank debates with local people on the merits of any decision.
There are a number of safeguards in place to uphold good decision-making in local government, from overview and scrutiny functions through to opportunities judicially to review irrational decisions. At the same time, this Bill is strengthening the requirements around registering and declaring interests to deter biased decision-making, and the local electorate will ultimately retain the power at the ballot box not to re-elect any councillor. I therefore cannot support this amendment.
Lord Sewel
My Lords, during my period in your Lordships’ House, which now goes back far too many years, I hope I have been the personification of reasonableness, rationalism and light. Unfortunately, on the debit side, I have to confess that I was a local government leader before I came here.
Missing from this debate so far is the fact that local government in the United Kingdom is significantly influenced by party groups and party group meetings. Something may be discussed in committee. Before the council meeting the various party groups meet and reach a collective decision. That decision is then whipped at the council meeting. That is the reality of day-to-day local government in the United Kingdom. I would like to know from both the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, when he sums up, and the Minister the extent to which both the clause as it is now and the amendment strike at that practice.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the noble Lord, in my eyes at any rate, puts himself further on the debit side by describing his previous career as being on the debit side. Many of us regard our time in local government as a very great plus.
Lord Sewel
Perhaps the noble Baroness will recognise a joke and an irony when she sees them.
Baroness Hamwee
Unfortunately when irony appears in Hansard it appears to be totally serious.
I realise I am being bold tangling with the expertise that has been brought to bear both by the two noble Lords who have spoken and have their names to the amendment and the authorities they have cited. I do not see in the clause the problem they describe—the possible extension from predetermination to predisposition. The word “etc” in the clause heading I can see might be a little confusing and possibly in Clause 25(1)(a):
“an allegation of bias or predetermination, or otherwise”.
But I regard the “otherwise” as meaning “or not”, not as a different attitude.
I start by not being able to follow the noble Lords down that route. Are the important words not the ones that we debated at a previous stage, in Clause 25(2), “just because”? That subsection is not exclusive. It does not describe the only circumstances that might amount to predetermination but approaches from the other side. It says that if a decision-maker demonstrates or has done these two things—or has done the first thing and the matter is relevant to the decision—that does not of itself mean that he has predetermined; nor does it mean that he has not. That approach is much more effective than the one provided in the amendment, which seems to spell out all the circumstances that would amount to predetermination. I am sure that noble Lords have great imaginations, but I doubt whether any of us could imagine all the circumstances that need to be covered. I am afraid that I cannot support the amendment.
Lord Snape
My Lords, I am reluctant to intervene in the debate but do so having listened to the arguments for the amendment put forward so ably by my noble friend Lord Hart. Like my noble friend Lord Sewel the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I had the honour—I will not do irony, either—to serve on a local authority before being elected to the other place. Not being a lawyer, I would like the Minister to tell me what predetermination actually means. Like my noble friend Lord Sewel, I confess that the Labour group on the local authority of which I was a member, eventually becoming leader, met before council meetings and decided the group view on various issues. Is that predetermination, or not? If it is, is it caught by the provisions of the Bill?
I take the view that both Houses of Parliament interfere far too much in local authority matters. I well understand the view that where planning matters are concerned the letter of the law should be laid down and followed. The previous Labour Government created a standards authority for local government, which quickly became bogged down. If you traded insults in a council chamber, a complaint was made to that body and all sorts of trivia were discussed at that level. I do not wish to tie the hands of local authority members more than successive governments have done over the years, but I am concerned about both the clause and my noble friend’s amendment.
My noble friend is not just a lawyer—he advises lawyers, as well. He is doubly damned in my eyes, I have to tell him. But he did not define predetermination in speaking to the amendment. Like my noble friend Lord Sewel, I think that the Minister really ought to do so. I end as I began: tying the hands of local authority members is something that both Houses of Parliament have done over the years, in my view quite unnecessarily.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, always moves his amendments superbly, and I am fascinated by them, although I heard it elsewhere than in the Chamber this evening, and I apologise for that. But I think that he does not look at this matter from the point of view of people being elected. Ever so many people are elected simply because they have always had some pet subject that was very much of local interest, and that is what got them elected. Any of those people, under this amendment, will find themselves being accused or blamed for the fact that they fought in that way. I am thinking of the Member of the House of Commons, who was elected on the single issue about the hospital in Worcestershire, and elected not once but twice on that issue. Would we have all condemned him if he had shown a particular interest in the hospital in Worcestershire? It is unrealistic to believe that people could be completely opposed to something that they had fought for for years.
The other side of that is that anyone sitting on any planning committee should do so with an open mind. If they do not have one, they have no right to sit on that committee and they should declare it as such. That should deal with the matter, rather than this amendment.
Lord Greaves
I declare an interest, since it is Third Reading, or redeclare an interest as a member of Pendle Borough Council, which has a local planning authority on whose planning committee I sit.
I smiled when the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, got into a little bit of trouble for trying to use his native Bradfordian flat irony in your Lordships' House, which is something that I also get into trouble about for the same reasons. I sometimes think that we should run a campaign so that we have a means of telling Hansard to insert a smiley at appropriate places, but I suspect that that is a campaign that I will not win in my lifetime.
I regret the fact that I did not get involved more in this issue in Clause 25, as it now is, earlier in the passage of the Bill. It is not completely satisfactory as it stands, but I think that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, would make things worse. I shall explain why in a minute. I do so not from his position as an eminent lawyer who knows about things like predetermination, predisposition and perhaps predestination as well, I do not know—or perhaps not. I come from the point of view of how these things are now looked at in local government. What people have not really been talking about is that within local government there is a general belief at the moment that there are two types of issue. There are those that people say are in some way quasi-judicial, or involve things like appointments and disciplinary hearings, as well as planning and licensing, whereby the approach of councillors has to be less predisposed than on other matters. When I got back on the council eight years ago, I spent the whole election campaign speaking about the number of empty, boarded-up houses in my ward. I thought that the position had deteriorated appallingly in the six years I had not been a councillor. The electors actually agreed with me, for once. I have spent a lot of the eight years since then working hard on the council to do something about that problem. I am totally biased on this matter; I think that it is an appalling problem, and I campaign on the council and outside the council to try to solve it and make no bones whatever about that. But if a planning application came up in relation to one of those houses, I would step back and regard it and treat it as a planning application. That is quite well known within local government, although perhaps not as well known in some councils as it should be—but it is the case. Therefore, there is a problem here in that both the Bill and the amendment are broad-brush and do not make that distinction between different types of issue, which are certainly well understood within local government.
I have problems with the words predisposition and predetermination. It may be that in the courts of this land they are well understood, but I do not believe that most councillors would understand those words if you put them to them. The word that is more used in local authority government in relation to that kind of problem is fettering. Councillors are told that they must not fetter their discretion when it comes to things like licensing and planning applications. That is the word that is used—but fettering includes both predisposition and predetermination. The attempt to pull back from the straitjacket that councillors are in at the moment is well done.
I do not think that the position is well understood, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said on Report and said again today, but one problem is that different councils apply different rules. In some cases, when planning applications are submitted—that is probably what we are talking about most here—councillors are banned absolutely from speaking to anybody, including residents, applicants, objectors or the local press. Some councils are absolutely draconian in doing this: one is not allowed to talk to anybody unless one is in the presence of a planning officer. That is totally unrealistic on many councils that do not have lots of spare planning officers to wander around with councillors who are talking to people on their patch.
All this did not originally come from the courts. I particularly noticed it because I was not a councillor for six years and during that time, between 14 and eight years ago, the whole regime changed. It came from decisions of the Local Government Ombudsman, where there were complaints that councillors had made up their mind on planning applications before the applications were dealt with. It also came from references to the standards authorities, particularly the Standards Board for England. That is where this whole regime within local government has come from.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, made the point that councillors are different because they are elected. Therefore, the regime that has to apply to councillors as opposed to other public officials and people serving on tribunals and so on is different because they are elected. Very often they have fought election campaigns and taken part in local campaigning. We have examples from around the country. A market town provides one classic example. A particular political party had campaigned vigorously against the redevelopment of a town centre that involved a big supermarket as the core of that redevelopment. All its councillors—the party had swept the board—were banned from taking part in the part in the decisions once they were elected because it was said they had fettered their discretion because they were part of a party which had won elections on that basis. Clearly there is a huge conflict here between local democracy and fair decision-making. Electors cannot be expected to understand that.
Regarding the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I would say that there is a lot of talk of bail hostels. As long as a bail hostel is small and is confined to an existing house, I do not think it needs planning permission. It is not a good example in that sense, but I understand the point made by the noble Lord. We have all had to deal with a very difficult application where a lot of residents have been strongly opposed to it, yet it has actually been right. That is when councillors have to gird their loins and do what is right. They do not always do it, but that is democracy.
The amendment of the noble Lord is an admirable attempt to clarify the position. Subsection (2)(c) of the amendment states that,
“an earlier statement or conduct by the decision-maker that amounts to predetermination shall be taken into account and given such weight as is appropriate in the circumstances of the case”,
I do not believe that even local authority lawyers will understand that sufficiently to give clear advice to their councillors, and councillors certainly will not understand it because they will not understand what amounts to predetermination. The words,
“given such weight as is appropriate in the circumstances of the case”,
are a recipe for a lot of lawyers to earn a lot of money when matters come to court to determine what they mean in the circumstances of a particular case. I do not believe it is a useful check on what one does in a particular circumstance that happens locally. Therefore, I do not think the amendment of the noble Lord provides clarity. In a practical sense, at a local level, it will make matters a lot worse, with no clarity.
The problem is that council lawyers are well known for being top of the league of people who err on the side of caution on pretty well everything. If the House were to pass this, it would result in no change to the present position, in which it is the councillors who are totally fettered from doing the job that people elect them to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Hart of Chilton, said that if councillors are given the advice that they cannot say or do anything or take part in any discussions before it goes to a planning committee, it is bad advice. All I can say is that if it is bad advice, it is universal bad advice. Given the choice of two not wholly satisfactory wordings, I very much prefer that of the Government.
Lord True
My Lords, if I might intervene, slightly more briefly, because I agree with so much that has been said by the noble Lord. I did not have the opportunity to take part in the debates on these clauses, although I have taken part in a lot of the proceedings on the Bill. I strongly agree with the objections that have been raised to the amendment. Perhaps it is not surprising, declaring again my interests as a local councillor and leader of a local authority, that it tends to be that some of us with experience of local government find ourselves ranged against the exacting purity of those who practise at the Bar.
Some may feel this is a function of the imperfection of local councillors. Imperfect, of course, we are. The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and others, that councillors are biased. They are elected to be biased. My electors would be extremely surprised if I were not, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, seeking to implement the policies on which I was elected. That reality has to be understood and respected.
The current situation is having a chilling effect on a lot that goes on in local government, a point referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Sewel and Lord Greaves, and others. Councillors are nervous about expressing opinions on a whole range of matters where there is no question of predetermination or predisposition and so forth. It is having a bad effect on local democracy because local councillors are representative—they are not very highly-paid volunteers to try and put the public’s will into effect. They try their best.
I fear there is a growing inhibition on being able to speak out and speak frankly on questions. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, there is a clearly understood distinction between issues of planning and other issues. The trouble with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, began to say this in reading out the first part of it and my concern was reinforced by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hart of Chilton—is that subsection (2)(c), in stating that an earlier statement or conduct shall be,
“given such weight as is appropriate in the circumstances of the case”,
refers to a decision as defined in the clause, which is any decision of the council. We are not just talking about planning applications; we are talking about committee meetings, sub-committee meetings, functions of the authority’s executive and council meetings. The noble Lord, Lord Hart, conjured up in my mind the spectre of lawyers standing outside the council meeting saying, “You cannot go in and cast your vote because you said this on that a few weeks ago”. It may sound humorous but that kind of thing could well happen. People are trawling the opinions of local councillors, seeing who is biased and seeing whether they can get people struck off. It is rather like one of those American films where they try to strike off members of the jury to make sure that the right result is achieved in a murder trial.
I am worried about the link between subsection (2)(c) of the amendment and its application to every possible decision that might be taken by a councillor. We do need severe protection of the law on planning, but in other areas please let councillors be biased; please let them respond to the wishes of their electors; please let them be like MPs and Members of your Lordships’ House—people who are entitled to strong opinions. Let us not proceed with the chilling effect of this process of litigation and quasi-litigation that has actually occurred or may be threatened. I support the Government’s attempt to set things right and to improve things. It may not be perfect, but I certainly prefer it to the amendment. I hope that your Lordships will not support the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have added our names to this amendment, for reasons which I will try to explain. As I understand the Government's position, this provision is meant not to change the current position—they may confirm or deny this—but to clarify it, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said. The problem in seeking to clarify it, for some of us at least, is that they have unbalanced it and made it difficult. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, advanced the point that, as drafted, the “just because” was the get-out but I contend that if you have to ignore anything that the decision-maker has previously done with a view to a matter, directly or indirectly, there is not much else that that decision-maker could have done which could then be the subject of a challenge on predetermination.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I was not intending to describe it as a get-out but to say that “just because” could also be read as “only because”. Although those are not words that one would normally find in legislation, they are very helpful and descriptive in this context.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I take that point but, even if it is “only because”, what else might a decision-maker do that you have to take account of if you can ignore all of the things that are described in this provision? That seems to be the fundamental problem.
My noble friend Lord Snape asked: what is predetermination? As I understand it, predetermination is having a closed mind at the point when you make a decision. Is that not important, because if people are coming to local councils seeking decisions which they expect to be rationally made—whether on planning, licensing or anything else—are they not entitled to have a case that is properly made and not fettered by somebody ignoring all of that process at the point when the decision is made? That seems to be the key difference between predetermination and predisposition.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said that people will always have their pet subjects, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Predisposition means having a view that, other things being equal, this is what you support and this is what you do not, and it does not preclude you from having, for example, manifesto commitments. That is reflective of the current position. The problem with the clause, for some of us at least, is that it unbalances that decision. It may give clearer protections or guidance to councillors in respect of what they can and cannot do but it does not address the other side of that equation: the circumstances where somebody has a closed mind and would seek to exercise judgment on something when they should not. That seems very important to me.
Things are not helped by the demise of the Standards Board for England, which set out guidance on all of this, but I understand that there is also legal precedent and case law around all of this. My noble friend Lord Sewel raised the point about collective decisions. There is nothing wrong with a party group sitting around and having discussion on an issue. The key is that when you come to the point of making that decision—whether it is in the council chamber, the committee chamber or elsewhere—the mind is at least ajar. I think that was the terminology that was used.
The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, said that councillors have long walked this difficult line, and she is absolutely right. I agree and, in our view, the line does not need to be changed. Yet the terms of this clause are potentially changing it and that is the problem we are seeking to address by this provision. Our position is as follows: we support the proposition that those who have a closed mind on an issue should not participate in decision-making and could invalidate it if they did. We understand that this is also the Government's position, from debates on previous stages of the Bill where we have had amendments around this. It may be particularly relevant to planning and to other decisions as well.
We differentiate predetermination from predisposition and understand that the Government also do that. Having clarity on the scope and protections that this gives to councillors is to be encouraged but issues of a closed mind or otherwise are properly to be assessed when formal decisions are to be taken. We understand that this is also the Government’s position. The problem is that, in framing the scope and protections for local councillors, there must not be opportunities for those with closed minds to have their actions and utterances ignored in evaluating whether they had already predetermined the matter when making decisions. These are matters of probity.
If it is right that we agree on those propositions about the difference between predisposition and predetermination—determined at the point when the decision is made—we should be focused on how we achieve the legal construct that deals with that. That is the real matter before us and the matter in this amendment. In this regard, we consider that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, which is also in the name of my noble friend Lord Hart, achieves those objectives. However, we are very clear that the clause as it stands makes things worse and muddies the waters on principles and issues that I think we are not apart on.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have skilfully proposed this amendment, as it has given me the opportunity to research the issue for myself—with an open mind—and to provide further elucidation to the House. I hope that I can prevail upon the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, with his open mind.
I think that there is general agreement on the mischief that Clause 25 seeks to address: that councillors and candidates are receiving overly cautious advice from a variety of sources. All noble Lords accept the need to engage with the electorate, and I agree entirely with the comment by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about the courts. The courts do not have a problem at all; it is the advice being given that is the mischief.
I will give an example to show how far this culture has spread, not from local government but rather from advice issued by Friends of the Earth about the planning process. One would imagine that that organisation would be keen for the public to engage with councillors, not just to put their views to the councillor but to seek the councillor’s view. Yet the advice states that,
“councillors on the planning committee are not allowed to express their view until the decision is made”.
When advice from expert campaigning groups such as Friends of the Earth is risk-averse, it is clearly time to act. My noble friend Lord Greaves also told us about different councils having different rules and the problems that that causes.
In the light of the debate during previous stages, most noble Lords clearly have no difficulty with the difference between predisposition and predetermination but it may be helpful if I remind the House what predetermination is. Predetermination, which can be actual or apparent, is where a councillor’s mind is closed to the merits of any arguments which differ from their own about an issue on which they are making a decision, such as an application for planning permission. The councillor makes a decision on the issues without taking them all into account.
I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Hart, for the time he has taken to explain carefully the problem to me in private. He described a situation where a bigoted person states publically, and with the protection of Clause 25, that he is strongly against some development. He is then on the committee that determines the application but says nothing, then votes against the development. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said much the same. The noble Lord, Lord Hart, is right that nothing can be done, but the same would apply if the councillor was covertly bigoted—that is, if he said nothing at any point but still voted against and always intended to, no matter what argument was put forward. Perhaps he is racist and would never ever support an accommodation unit for asylum seekers. My own view, for what it is worth, is that in reality very few councillors operate with a closed mind.
Lord Pannick
I am very grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this fascinating debate and to the Minister for his detailed response. I shall respond briefly, attempting to avoid any indication of exacting purity that may offend the noble Lord, Lord True, or indeed any other form of reprehensible purity on this matter.
The Minister indicated that there is nothing wrong with the common law rules, and I respectfully agree with him. The problem, the Minister said, is the erroneous advice that is being given to local councillors up and down the land. The problem with that analysis is that, if the advice is the erroneous advice, we should deal with that advice. Let us not amend the common law in a way that changes the current position—and changes it by excluding from relevance the legal material that can demonstrate that there is unlawful predetermination.
Earl Attlee
May I explain the advantage of Clause 25 and the way that it is drafted? If I was a councillor and engaging, as a layman, with officials who were giving me advice, I would be able to produce the words in Clause 25 and say, “It says here that I can express a view”, and there would be very little that officials could do to counteract that.
Lord Pannick
I understand the point and am grateful to the Minister. However, the clause introduces clarity by amending the common law, which the Minister is concerned to maintain. The clause does not maintain the existing common law rules, which the Minister considers entirely adequate. The clause excludes from consideration anything that is said or done prior to the council meeting at which the issue is to be discussed, however extreme the previous statement may be. I entirely accept that what the councillor said prior to the council meeting may not be determinative of whether there is unlawful predetermination, but it must be relevant. That is the objection to Clause 25: it purports, in the Minister’s words, to restate the common law, which the Minister regards as entirely appropriate and unexceptionable. What it actually does is amend the existing common law in a way that will prevent real cases of predetermination being brought and succeeding.
Real concern was expressed in this debate that it is absolutely vital that local councillors should be able to express their views on matters powerfully and strongly if they wish. The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, and the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Greaves, made this point. I entirely agree with them that that is the common law position. The cases make it absolutely clear that local councillors deciding any matter are not impartial in the sense required of a judge; they have political allegiances, their politics involve policies and they are entitled to express their views—of course they are. The case of Lewis v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council in 2009, covered from page 83 of Volume 1 of the Weekly Law Reports, is the leading Court of Appeal judgment. It says that any local councillor who expresses his views powerfully and strongly on any view is not guilty of unlawful predetermination so long as he is prepared to keep an open mind when he goes to the council meeting.
The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and the noble Lord, Lord Snape, asked for reassurance in relation to the role of party groups and party whips in local government. That, too, has been considered by the courts. In the same case of Lewis v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, the Court of Appeal approved an earlier judgment in 1985 by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf—then Mr Justice Woolf—where he said:
“I would have thought that it was almost inevitable, now that party politics play so large a part in local government, that the majority group on a council would decide on the party line in respect of the proposal. If this was to be regarded as disqualifying the district council from dealing with the planning application, then if that disqualification is to be avoided, the members of the planning committee at any rate will have to adopt standards of conduct which I suspect will be almost impossible to achieve in practice”.
Lord Greaves
I apologise for intervening, but I wonder whether the noble Lord is aware that there is a very widespread view within local government, which in my view is widespread in its application, that on things that are thought to be quasi-judicial like licensing and planning applications there is no party whipping. There may be discussions, but no party whip is applied.
Lord Pannick
I understand that, of course; I am responding to the point made that if our amendment were to be carried, this would in some way affect the existence of that whipping that does take place in local government—those elements of party control that are effective. Let me just complete the citation from Mr Justice Woolf: he concluded that there is no objection to any of this so long as, when the councillors come to the council meetings, they have an open mind in the sense that they are prepared to listen to the competing arguments.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was rightly concerned that we should do nothing that should enable lawyers to make lots of money out of all this. That is a very laudable objective. My concern is that Clause 25 is so unclear that it will inevitably provoke litigation, and it will do so because the Minister says that it is not changing the common law but merely expressing it, whereas its terms manifestly do change the common law.
Lord True
On the question of litigation, will the noble Lord answer the point that my noble friend Lord Greaves and I made? If we are concerned about litigation, surely the construction of his proposed new subsection (2)(c),
“as is appropriate in the circumstances of the case”,
which may, as construed with the rest of the section, apply to any decision of any form made by a councillor, is pretty ripe for litigation. Therefore, I do not think his argument that the Government may cause more litigation stands up. Let him answer on this one.
Lord Pannick
My answer to the noble Lord is that paragraph (c) is simply designed to maintain—as the Government say they wish to maintain—the existing common law principle, which is that the judge will indeed look at all the circumstances of the case and decide whether there has been unlawful predetermination. I am not seeking to change the common law position; I am seeking to maintain it. The Minister has the same objective; he does not have the objective—as I understood him—of changing the substance of the common law. The objection to Clause 25 is that, on its wording, that is precisely what it will do, or there is a real risk it will do that. That is why it needs further consideration.
In the hope that the result in your Lordships’ House is neither predetermined—
Lord Sewel
Could the noble Lord explain how his amendment would affect, for example, the situation where, a councillor at a committee meeting having argued very strongly on one side but the party group having met and decided collectively on a different position, the councillor then says, when approached immediately before the council meeting, “I am changing my vote”, and, when asked why, says, “That was the decision of the group and I accept it” and then goes into the council meeting and votes in accordance with the decision of the group? How would the amendment address that issue?
Lord Pannick
The amendment would address that issue by dealing with the question in the same way as the common law deals with it at the moment. No judge is going to accept that there is unlawful predetermination simply because a local councillor has followed the whip that is imposed by his own party or his own group. This happens day after day in local government, and there are no cases that can be pointed to in which the courts have said that that is unlawful predetermination. It is not unlawful predetermination because the local councillor has listened to the matters addressed in the local council meeting.
We are dealing with a phantom problem that is created by erroneous advice being given, or is said to be given, to local councillors up and down the land. We are dealing with it in Clause 25 in a way which is going to make the problem far, far worse; and it is for that reason that I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Hanham
“(1A) In discharging its duty under subsection (1), a relevant authority must, in particular, adopt a code dealing with the conduct that is expected of members and co-opted members of the authority when they are acting in that capacity.
(1B) A relevant authority that is a parish council—
(a) may comply with subsection (1A) by adopting the code adopted under that subsection by its principal authority, where relevant on the basis that references in that code to its principal authority’s register are to its register, and(b) may for that purpose assume that its principal authority has complied with section 28(1) and (1A).”
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I should also like to speak to Amendments 5 to 9, 11 to 13, 68, 74 and 75. We had an extensive discussion on Report on the provisions dealing with local authority standards. It was obvious from the strength of feeling exhibited that noble Lords considered this matter to be important and worthy of careful consideration.
There was much common ground in that debate. Everyone in this Chamber agreed about the importance of maintaining the highest standards of conduct in local authorities. There was also broad agreement that the Standards Board regime has become a vehicle for vexatious, petty and politically motivated complaints, with more than half the allegations of misconduct being rejected when assessed.
At the same time, concerns were voiced that the provisions that we had set out to deal with local authority standards after the abolition of Standards Board regime were too localist and not up to the task of ensuring the high standards of conduct that we expect of local authority members. We undertook on Report to take those concerns away and see whether we could strengthen the provisions to address the concerns. Over the past few weeks, we have reflected carefully on that debate and had extensive and useful discussions with noble Lords on their concerns.
As a result of that, I am bringing back a package of amendments to modify the standards provisions in the Bill. All authorities will be required to have a code of conduct. Amendment 4 would put that in place, and local authorities must, as part of their duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct, have a code of conduct. This requirement applies to parish councils as well as to principal authorities. That code of conduct must be in accordance with the Nolan principles of public life. Amendment 5 states that a code of conduct adopted by a local authority should be consistent with the seven Nolan principles: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.
The code of conduct will, in addition, have to include the requirement for members to register and disclose interests. Amendment 5 provides that the code of conduct must include the requirement for members to register and disclose their pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests. Noble Lords will recall that under Clause 34 a member will be committing a crime if, without reasonable excuse, they fail to declare or register a pecuniary interest or if they knowingly or recklessly provide false or misleading information about that pecuniary interest.
Lord Bichard
My Lords, in speaking to this group of amendments, I draw attention to my own Amendment 10. I rise mainly to pay tribute to and thank the Minister for the constructive and very helpful way in which she has entered into discussions following the amendment that I tabled on Report, together with the noble Lords, Lord Tope, Lord Newton and Lord Filkin. Unfortunately, the noble Lords, Lord Filkin and Lord Newton, for very good reasons, cannot be here tonight, but they both specifically asked me whether they could be included in the thanks for the constructive approach that has been taken.
I shall not waste the time of the House by running over the ground that the Minister has already covered. I think we now have a package that is much better as a result of all our efforts, and this is now a very important part of the infrastructure of local government. As the noble Baroness knows, simply for the sake of clarity and comprehensiveness, I would have liked to have had a specific reference in the Bill to the power to suspend from a committee. However, I am grateful to her for having referred specifically to the powers that already exist, and I think that that, too, will help to clarify the situation. Therefore, all in all, I am very grateful for the help that she has provided. I know that sometimes she has had to act in the face of considerable opposition. I shall go no further than that, but I think that we have reached a place with which I feel content and, again, to save the time of the House, that means that I shall not be moving my Amendment 10.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I follow my noble friend with a small “f”—the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. As he said, we moved a number of amendments at an earlier stage of the Bill and I, too, pay tribute to the Minister for listening so carefully and for taking so seriously the points that we made. The apologies of my noble friend Lord Newton have already been given, but I specifically undertook not only to give his apologies—a hospital appointment prevents his being here—but to pass on his warm thanks to the Minister. Those thanks are perhaps not so much for the extent to which she has moved but for the extent to which she has been able to move those close to her during the proceedings here.
I think that we have moved a very long way from the position that we were in in Committee, when the person replying on the Front Bench said that standards were a matter for local discretion. I am probably one of the greatest localists in your Lordships’ House, but I thought at the time, and feel very strongly now, that if there is one thing that should not be left to local discretion, it is standards in public life. We have got to the point that we have now reached because in the past there has been rather too much discretion over standards in public life.
I am very pleased that we are going to have a mandatory code—or, rather, that it is going to be mandatory to have a code—but I am a little sad that its minimum provisions are not to be the same throughout the country. I think that in reality they will be the same throughout the country, because my expectation is that the great majority of local authorities will simply keep the code that they all already have. My concern relates to what I hope will be a tiny minority of councils that decide not to keep the code that they now have, and it relates more particularly to why they make that decision and in what way they might change it. That leads me to ask the Minister whether there will be any form of monitoring, whether by her department or by the Local Government Association, so that we know what changes are happening throughout the country. There may well be some that are a cause for concern. What we do about them may be another matter, but we should at least know about them.
The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, has already told us that he will not be moving his amendment, but my other concern is that councils now have, and will retain, the power as a sanction, if necessary, either to remove councillors from certain committees or sub-committees or simply not to appoint them. Will that also apply to outside bodies, as all councils appoint councillors as their representatives on outside bodies? Will they now also be able to remove a councillor from an outside body to which the council has appointed him or her?
Many councils, including my own, also have local committees or area committees that are constituted and stated in the council’s constitution to comprise all the councillors elected for that area. Presumably there is a power now to remove them from that area committee. Is that the case, and how does that fit with the constitution of the council, which says that all councillors representing that area have a right to be on that committee?
My other concern is about the form of monitoring—I do not mean imposition, but monitoring—there will be to let us know what is happening under the new regime. I certainly am grateful to the Minister for moving us so far on this, but quite a number of us are still concerned about this issue and feel that we are not there yet—well, we are there but this is not perfection and we may well have to return to the issue in the years to come after a number of high profile cases.
My last point is to welcome the lengths to which Ministers have now moved in the appointment of an independent person and in trying to ensure as far as possible that that person is genuinely independent and open. That independent person now plays an even more important role, in effect being the right of appeal—the only appeal that a councillor has—against what he may well feel is the unfair victimisation by a council with a heavy one-party majority, whatever the party, of someone who is a thorn in the flesh but is not necessarily doing anything improper. Again, it is important that the independent person, as far as it is ever possible, is upheld to be genuinely independent.
I join others in very much paying tribute to the Minister. I know from other sources how hard she has had to work at times to persuade more reluctant colleagues of the necessity to move in this direction. I congratulate her on her persuasive powers and the success that she has achieved. As my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, said, we do not have all that we want but we have a lot more than we thought we would get at an earlier stage in the Bill, and I am grateful for that.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I want to raise a specific issue, but first to declare an interest as a councillor and one-time member of a standards committee. I welcome the amendments because they move us towards a system that is proportionate, will protect the right to free speech, give confidence to the general public, be fair to an individual councillor and should prevent party-political prejudice leading to unjustifiable and unreasonable decisions. The introduction of the independent person—or at least one independent person—seems to me to be a major help in enabling us to abolish the Standards Board for England so that matters can be dealt with locally and we can remove the need for a national referral system.
My one remaining doubt is on how the decisions on allegations will be made. That relates to subsection (3). The Minister said that all local authorities would have to have a form of process for investigating and determining matters relating to breaches of the code of conduct but it is for them to decide what those processes should be. I hope that guidance will be given requiring a local authority to have a formal committee structure to achieve this. Otherwise, it is not clear how that will be delivered. If there is to be a formal committee structure, in my view it should be chaired by an independent person but not necessarily the same one who is the independent person referred to in other subsections. In addition to having an independent chair, there will be independent members, as now, along with sitting councillors. Then the whole council will be able to decide on any suspension from committees that might be recommended.
I believe that because it is extremely important to avoid any perception or possibility of party-political bias in reaching a decision. Standards committees with independent members seems to be a means of preventing what may appear to the general public to be party-political decisions being made. Therefore, pursuing independence at a local level through the independent person and independent members of standards committees is extremely important.
Lord True
My Lords, I am rather more sympathetic to the Government’s attempt to find a formulation than some of the demurrers and I congratulate my noble friend on finding an admirable way through. That is another example of the way in which she has conducted the Bill. If I may help my noble friend Lord Tope, surely the answer to the question of committees or bodies to which councils mandate members is that in the first instance questions of misconduct must come from those bodies themselves, to which the people are mandated. It seems inconceivable that any council would wish to be represented by somebody who had attracted censure. It would certainly be within the power of any council to withdraw a nomination and I would hope that every authority would do that.
My noble friend Lord Shipley raised a point on subsection (3). I rather like that subsection although I agree with my noble friends Lord Shipley and Lord Tope, and the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, that there has to be some sense that there is independence. Often these matters can be dealt with by arbitration and a sensible person who will put two people together. It is clearly sensible, as my noble friend Lord Shipley says, that we may need to get two committees. However, there may be things that can be dealt with more effectively without getting to that process, but giving everybody along the way the sense that they can go to an independent body. I would not want my noble friend to be much more prescriptive, but I agree with the sense of what my noble friend Lord Shipley said. We have found an admirable way through and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and others who have contributed to it.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of a council—hence my straying into jargon that we apply in council debates—a member of the standards committee, which meets later this week, and vice president of the Local Government Association. I join other of your Lordships in extending warm congratulations to the Minister who is clearly responsible for, and indeed embodies, an outbreak of sweet reasonableness over this issue that we hope to be pursued by some of her ministerial colleagues when we come to other legislation after this evening’s proceedings.
Like other noble Lords, I believe that there are issues that one might have wished to have taken a little further. A mandatory code would have perhaps been preferable. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, indicated, in all probability we will end up with something like that. I hope that the Local Government Association, with others, will draft something that will be useful and will be adopted by many local authorities. It is very important that this independent role should be reflected. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that mandatory committees, perhaps with that independent element, would have been preferable. Nevertheless, we have gone a long way forward since the original Bill and our earlier discussions on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. For that we are clearly indebted to the Minister.
I am not quite so sure about the sanctions that are available and whether they are sufficient to meet some of the more serious cases. A huge range of cases has applied at national and local level. I note that people from all political groups have transgressed, sometimes quite significantly. A prominent Conservative ex-leader of a council was found to have leaked a confidential document related to a land sale and was suspended for 28 days by his council. A Labour deputy group leader was also found to have breached confidentiality in relation to a compulsory purchase order. These are not insignificant issues, and they are not personal issues either. He was suspended for three months by his local authority. A Lib Dem councillor was suspended for six months for bullying and disrespectful behaviour at a training session. One of the worst cases was an independent borough councillor who had undermined and humiliated the council’s press officer systematically in front of other councillors until she began to cry and had to leave the room. That is intolerable behaviour in any circumstances and is certainly not consonant with holding a public office. A suspension for three months took place in that case.
However, I wonder whether suspension from a committee or even removal from outside bodies is necessarily sufficient for the more serious types of case. We clearly cannot pursue this further tonight, but it may be that over time, and bearing in mind that we need to see how this works in practice, we might have to revisit that element. Another place has quite draconian powers of discipline. I am not quite sure that they are quite as draconian in this place, although there are matters currently under consideration of a very grave nature and one hopes that one would not see anything like that again in your Lordships' House. It may be therefore—given that the national framework has been dismantled and that there may still, unfortunately, be a few cases where really serious misconduct occurs—that one must wonder whether the sanctions currently available and reflected in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, are adequate. We have clearly moved on and I am grateful and pleased that we have achieved this. I congratulate the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and thank them for the work they have done on this matter.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank everybody for the very kind compliments. It is unusual to hear them, so I am basking a little bit. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, who fought very hard with the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, to make sure that we took this matter on board. He has been very persistent and was gracious in saying that he will not move his amendment.
We think that these procedures will have a real impact on the conduct of local councillors. While not spelling out how councils should put a scheme in place, it is clear that they have to. They must have some means of dealing with complaints. It seems almost inescapable that if you are going to do that, you are probably going to have to have some sort of committee structure to deal with them. That would be fine if local authorities decide for themselves, but to be fair and independent, they will need to have a balance.
I do not think that anybody has misunderstood. However, I want to make it clear that whatever the system and whether local authorities have independent members in that committee structure, they will still be required to have a further independent member who will act outside the committee system and will have to be referred to.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked about the monitoring of the process. From the Government’s point of view, there will not be any further monitoring. It is possible that the Local Government Association will want to know what is going on, but unless things are very different from what we anticipate, it will be up to local authorities themselves to see their systems through and to make sure that this structure works.
I have been asked questions about representation on outside bodies. I think the answer must be that where the council is appointing somebody to another body, if there is a complaint about the councillor, the council is still responsible for them so it would be able to take action against them.
The other aspect that must be clear is that this has to be a transparent process. Each step must be open to comment and it must be dealt with openly. If there is a complaint that results in a warning or a letter, that must be clear so that local people who have elected these councillors know exactly what has happened or can find out. Some of the sanction will therefore be imposed by the electorate. They will know that somebody has transgressed or offended before they chose to re-elect him. The day-to-day monitoring will be carried out under the transparency of the decision-making process. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned the decision on allegations. I hope that I have covered that. If not, I will talk to him subsequently.
I think this system will work. It leaves a big localist element, but it has structure and elements that were not there before. I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this debate.
Baroness Hanham
“(1) A relevant authority must secure that a code adopted by it under section 27(1A) (a “code of conduct”) is, when viewed as a whole, consistent with the following principles—
(a) selflessness;(b) integrity;(c) objectivity;(d) accountability;(e) openness;(f) honesty;(g) leadership.(1A) A relevant authority must secure that its code of conduct includes the provision the authority considers appropriate in respect of the registration in its register, and disclosure, of—
(a) pecuniary interests, and(b) interests other than pecuniary interests.(1B) Sections 29 to 34 do not limit what may be included in a relevant authority’s code of conduct, but nothing in a relevant authority’s code of conduct prejudices the operation of those sections.
(1C) A failure to comply with a relevant authority’s code of conduct is not be dealt with otherwise than in accordance with arrangements made under subsection (3); in particular, a decision is not invalidated just because something that occurred in the process of making the decision involved a failure to comply with the code.”
“(3) A relevant authority other than a parish council must have in place—
(a) arrangements under which allegations can be investigated, and(b) arrangements under which decisions on allegations can be made.(3A) Arrangements put in place under subsection (3)(b) by a relevant authority must include provision for the appointment by the authority of at least one independent person—
(a) whose views are to be sought, and taken into account, by the authority before it makes its decision on an allegation that it has decided to investigate, and(b) whose views may be sought—(i) by the authority in relation to an allegation in circumstances not within paragraph (a),(ii) by a member, or co-opted member, of the authority if that person’s behaviour is the subject of an allegation, and(iii) by a member, or co-opted member, of a parish council if that person’s behaviour is the subject of an allegation and the authority is the parish council’s principal authority.(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A)—
(a) a person is not independent if the person is—(i) a member, co-opted member or officer of the authority,(ii) a member, co-opted member or officer of a parish council of which the authority is the principal authority, or(iii) a relative, or close friend, of a person within sub-paragraph (i) or (ii);(b) a person may not be appointed under the provision required by subsection (3A) if at any time during the 5 years ending with the appointment the person was—(i) a member, co-opted member or officer of the authority, or(ii) a member, co-opted member or officer of a parish council of which the authority is the principal authority;(c) a person may not be appointed under the provision required by subsection (3A) unless—(i) the vacancy for an independent person has been advertised in such manner as the authority considers is likely to bring it to the attention of the public,(ii) the person has submitted an application to fill the vacancy to the authority, and(iii) the person’s appointment has been approved by a majority of the members of the authority;(d) a person appointed under the provision required by subsection (3A) does not cease to be independent as a result of being paid any amounts by way of allowances or expenses in connection with performing the duties of the appointment.(3C) In subsections (3) and (3A) “allegation”, in relation to a relevant authority, means a written allegation—
(a) that a member or co-opted member of the authority has failed to comply with the authority’s code of conduct, or(b) that a member or co-opted member of a parish council for which the authority is the principal authority has failed to comply with the parish council’s code of conduct.(3D) For the purposes of subsection (3B) a person (“R”) is a relative of another person if R is—
(a) the other person’s spouse or civil partner, (b) living with the other person as husband and wife or as if they were civil partners,(c) a grandparent of the other person,(d) a lineal descendant of a grandparent of the other person,(e) a parent, sibling or child of a person within paragraph (a) or (b),(f) the spouse or civil partner of a person within paragraph (c), (d) or (e), or(g) living with a person within paragraph (c), (d) or (e) as husband and wife or as if they were civil partners.”
Baroness Hanham
Lord Beecham
“(b) members of a designated neighbourhood forum under section 61F of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, this amendment deals with another issue of standards, but of a rather different nature. It relates to the position of members of the neighbourhood forums which the Bill establishes and which, of course, will have the responsibility of initiating, potentially, local plans which will be, it is hoped, a significant part of the planning process. Originally, as your Lordships may recall, the Bill proposed that such forums could be constituted by a mere three individuals. That has been expanded sevenfold and now 21 individuals can constitute themselves into a neighbourhood forum and may be involved in the process thereafter that gives rise to a local plan.
There is effectively no restriction on those who might constitute this forum, and it may well be that in some cases they would have interests. They might be interests as residents or landowners in the area, or they might be as employees of a concern wanting, for example, to open some facility such as a shop. They might be employees or participants in such a business. As matters currently stand, there would no obligation for any of those interests to be disclosed. I would have thought that in the interests of transparency, they ought to be. This would not be a complicated process. Those who apply to be designated as a neighbourhood forum would, in making the application, simply indicate their relevant interests in exactly the same way as councillors, certainly when elected, have to declare their interests. The Bill has dealt very fully with that, so it is not an inordinately complicated process.
Lord True
My Lords, I am sorry to say that I have a lot of sympathy with the spirit behind this amendment, but having wearied the House with my views on neighbourhood forums and not having been able to persuade my Front Bench fully about this question, I think that noble Lords opposite will know that my view is that we should start from the assumption that the neighbourhood forum includes everybody in the neighbourhood area. In those circumstances, if the neighbourhood forum is very large, I do not think that the kind of amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has proposed would be practicable. I do not think that we could ask everybody who lives in a village or in a neighbourhood area to publish their interests simply because they wanted to participate in a neighbourhood forum.
If, however, it emerges—and I think we have to wait and see the guidance on the Bill—that my maximalist view of what a neighbourhood forum should be does not prove to be the case, and if the neighbourhood forums turn out to be rather small bodies of perhaps only 21 individuals wielding a great deal of influence in the name of the community, then I would find the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, quite persuasive. As we gain experience going forward of what these bodies are actually going to be—whether they are small or big—this will affect the judgment that I would make about this question. I would suggest, however, that this is something that we might leave until we see further guidance on the Bill. I am sure it would be a matter that might be addressed then. If 21 people are going to be very influential in an area, I would like to know where they were coming from, and I am sure local people would, too.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, Amendment 14 would require local authorities to maintain a register of the interests of members of designated neighbourhood forums. From the outset, I remind Members and my noble friend behind me that 21 is a minimum. You can have as many as you like on a forum—if he wants the whole bloomin’ neighbourhood, he can have the whole lot on it. There is nothing to stop that happening. I would take his view that if you are going to have most of the members of a ward or an area, which might amount to 1,500 or so, this proposal would probably be otiose.
A neighbourhood forum is designated by a local authority for the express purpose of preparing a neighbourhood plan or order for a designated neighbourhood area. The neighbourhood forum will not make decisions on planning applications or on whether a neighbourhood plan or order should come into force, nor will it take on wider duties and responsibilities. Neither is the neighbourhood forum intended to form an equivalent governance function to that of a parish council. The neighbourhood forum is simply a group designated by the local authority to prepare a neighbourhood plan or order.
We have worked hard to ensure that the Bill reflects this position by imposing minimum requirements that community groups must meet in order that they can be designated as a neighbourhood forum. This will enable existing groups to take a leading role in neighbourhood planning. To avoid forums acting inappropriately, the Bill gives local authorities the power to remove the designations of neighbourhood forums in certain circumstances. In addition, requiring their members to register and declare interests would be unnecessary. Since the forum is similar to a planning applicant submitting a planning application to the local authority, it is not making a decision in the public interest.
Furthermore, in practical terms, maintaining a register of the interests of neighbourhood forum members would be extremely difficult for the authority to achieve, given the wide range of individuals who could be members of a neighbourhood forum and the likelihood of frequent change in the forum’s overall membership throughout the process of preparing the plan or order. The Bill requires all neighbourhood forums to include, as I said, at least 21 members who live or work in or are elected members of the neighbourhood area and to have an open approach to their membership.
In addition, of course, there was the requirement that we put into the Bill—I think at Report stage—that there should be consultation before any plan is put to the local authority. I hope that Members will accept this view and not push this amendment today.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I am grateful for the conditional support of the noble Lord, Lord True, which I occasionally receive. I quite take his point, and I also listened carefully to the Minister. I think that the noble Lord, Lord True, is right, and this may be an issue to be revisited at a later stage. I am not entirely sure that we will in fact have large neighbourhood forums. I think the surveys that have taken place so far indicate that there is not—at the moment, at any rate—a huge appetite for the formation of these things. Therefore, we may be in the position where they tend to be rather small and in that case we will perhaps need to look again. In the circumstances, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham
My Lords, there have been significant changes wrought by this Bill. One of those that we debated in earlier days was the abolition of the duty to promote local democracy, which I thought was somewhat inconsistent with the general localist agenda. That elicited little or no support on the Benches opposite and did not seem to me to be worth while bringing back at this stage. However, in respect of another issue, which was the provision about petitions, it does seem to me that the case for some provision—as opposed to the elimination which Clause 46 of the Bill would have carried through—has been heightened by at least two recent developments.
The first is the changes in the Bill around the issue of democratic engagement. I very much welcome the withdrawal of the proposals for local referendums, which I thought were misconceived, overelaborate and calculated to produce a great deal of mischief and trouble. Nevertheless, they were a form—and in my view a very unsatisfactory form, and I think that has ultimately been accepted by the Government themselves—of promoting public engagement. This still leaves the issue of how one does promote particular forms of public engagement.
In another place a week ago, there was a diverting evening using the petition process which the Government have initiated to debate rather grander matters, I guess, than will normally be the case at the local level. Of course, the Government have proceeded with their electronic petitioning and the right of the other place to debate matters that receive a significant degree of support—a policy which may not have entirely produced the results anticipated last week and which some members of the Government may even have cause to regret. At any rate, the procedure is there.
For some time, in some councils, there has been an approach which has welcomed, and indeed encouraged, the bringing of petitions and discussion of them. Looking back, about three years ago the New Local Government Network, which is not a partisan organisation—it has councils in it that are controlled by all three major parties and indeed some independent members—advocated a proposal for a more defined process for bringing petitions. That proposal was, in almost the last gasp of the previous Government, embodied in legislation which, as the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, pointed out in his typically robust fashion was somewhat overelaborate, to put it mildly, and that certainly was the case. I think the legislation was announced in December 2009 and passed into law shortly after that, and it was certainly much too overprescriptive in the way it laid down how the process should be implemented.
Nevertheless, although a significant number of councils have a process to facilitate the bringing of petitions and their consideration, it is by no means universal. It seems to me important that there should be an obligation on local authorities to foster that kind of engagement with the communities they represent so that matters can be brought to the attention of the council and discussed in whatever form the council decides is appropriate, on the basis of the basic requirement that Amendment 49 would create, of having a scheme under which the petitions might be considered. This would also include another right that was brought into being by the previous Government, the right to call an officer of the council to account, in a properly structured way.
This is not an overbureaucratic process. As I say, many councils have their own procedures now. Mine certainly does; I dare say the councils of the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Tope, and perhaps even that of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will have similar procedures. However, it is not universal, whereas it seems to me that it should be, so that any number of people—the council may lay down a minimum if it chooses—would know that they have the right to have matters raised at the level of the local authority, not just with their individual councillors, although that is always an option, but in a more systematic way.
The amendment also provides for a simple enough procedure for the council to give an account of what happens to those petitions, so they do not just disappear into a black hole. That certainly is the case in my own authority and I suspect in many others, and all there really needs to be, perhaps even just once a year, is a brief summary of what matters have been raised and how they were dealt with, so people can know that their views and concerns have been taken care of. It is not a huge obligation and would contribute to a healthier relationship between a local authority and its members on the one hand and the community on the other. I hope that even at this late stage the Government will have second thoughts. I beg to move.
Lord True
My Lords, that is a nice try by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, but I am afraid I am going to be conditional in my support again. Petitions are important and he is quite right to say that my own authority considers them: tomorrow night we have a debate on a petition from the public; and there are two running petitions, both with over 2,000 signatures, which I am sure will lead to debates at future council meetings. I agree that it is good practice for local authorities. I do not think the Government are withdrawing from encouraging that but it would be a pity if they were.
I have not had time to study the details of his new clause so for that reason alone I would find it hard to support it. However, I am slightly worried about the concept of public petitions calling an officer to account. All those who have been in positions of authority in local government will know the amount of, frankly, sometimes libellous and hostile comment one gets about officers, and one of the duties of people who are elected is to take responsibility. I do not care for the encouragement of petitions to call officers to account. For that reason, as well as not having studied it, I would be doubtful about the form; the spirit is right but I do not think that it is something we could add to the Bill at this stage.
Lord Tope
My Lords, neither the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, nor the noble Lord, Lord True, were Members of your Lordships’ House when some of us spent many happy hours—hours and hours—dealing with what I think was the first part of what was then the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill. We argued for hours about petitions and petition schemes. I recall my noble friend Lord Greaves—who I think I have just managed to shut up for a few moments—actually bringing in some petitions to his council so that we could see that they are rather different from petitions that come to Parliament in their general layout and form.
We had a very listening Minister then who listened and indeed made many amendments to what was proposed, but we were still left with pages of prescription about how councils should collect, receive and deal with petitions. We heard that most councils did not have such a scheme. What actually emerged, and it was a legitimate criticism, was not that most councils did not have a scheme but that most councils had not thought to put it on their website, which of course they should, but that is rather different from saying that councils do not receive or deal with petitions.
I have much sympathy with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said in moving his amendment. The crucial difference between us is that I believe he was talking about good practice and I do not believe, especially in a Localism Bill, that it is for your Lordships’ House to be prescribing in legislation what should be disseminated as good practice. I still bear the scars of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill, and that, I am afraid, tempers very considerably the sympathy with which I listen to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I will just add a few brief things. My noble friend reminds me of one or two things which I had thankfully forgotten about. I was trying to remember how many amendments I actually put to this chapter of that Bill when it came. That is also something I had forgotten about, which is something that happens.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, quite rightly said that councils have to welcome and encourage petitions. But what is really important is the seriousness with which they treat them and deal with them when they come. You can set up as many bureaucratic, complex, legalistic schemes as you like, but if people do not treat the petitions seriously it is just going through the motions and wasting time and energy. If people treat petitions seriously you do not need a complex, bureaucratic, top-down—and, I have to say, pretty patronising—piece of legislation like Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. I note with some wry amusement that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is desperately trying to hang on to this classic piece of new Labour nonsense, which frankly has not improved the situation of petitions in any council in the country. Those who take them seriously, take them seriously; those who do not, do not.
This is eight pages of primary legislation telling councils in great detail how to deal with petitions. I, along with my noble friend, pay tribute to the Minister at the time, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who listened to a great deal of what we had said—it was 12 pages of nonsense before we started, and between us we managed to persuade the civil servants and the powers that be in the then Government at least to take some of it out. As I told the noble Baroness at the time, if the Government simply want to tell councils to have a scheme for dealing with petitions that deals with them seriously, they could do so in half a page of legislation, not eight pages. I have been through this and reminded myself of the huge amount of nonsense in it. I will not detain—or should I say entertain—your Lordships’ House with any more of this tonight, but it really does deserve to go.
The one point that I will raise relates to Section 16 of the 2009 Act, which is the requirement to call officers to account. I do not know how often, if ever, this has been used since this part of the Act was commenced. At the time, we had a long debate, and in our view it was totally inappropriate for officers of the council to be hauled up and held to account before the public in this way. The people who should be held to account are the elected councillors: those who run the council and who have been elected by the people to be responsible and accountable to the people. Clearly, they will need support from officers, and if officers are not performing their jobs properly, the elected councillors are the ones who should take a grip of the situation and sort it out. That is a fundamental principle, in our view, but we could not persuade the Government at the time that that was the case. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Shutt is, I assume, going to resist this amendment.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have spoken on this matter. Clause 46 of the Bill repeals the duty on principal local authorities in England and Wales to have a petitions scheme and the associated provisions. Amendment 15 would omit this clause, therefore reinstating the duty, and Amendment 49 would then amend the original legislation, which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to when he mentioned the eight pages. Incidentally, I have a note that there would be still four or five pages left of that, including the requirement to call officers to account. So a lot of it would still be there.
While the intention behind the amendments to ensure that councils treat the receipt of petitions sensibly and appropriately is laudable, I am not persuaded that reinstating this prescriptive and burdensome duty, albeit in a revised form, is either necessary or desirable. The revised duty proposed would remove Section 11 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, which provides for principal local authorities to have petition schemes, but it is clear that they would continue to need such schemes, given that Amendment 49 includes several references to petition schemes. Even with this change, the revised duty would mean a significant new burden on local authorities. The effect of subsection (6) of the proposed new section is that the statutory petitions schemes would have to go into far more detail than is currently required about how particular categories of petition will be treated.
In addition, the extension of the statutory duty to all categories of petition—including mayoral petitions and council tax petitions—which the amendment creates, will create further additional burdens, as a scheme would then need to provide for different processes for different types of petition. To reinstate the current overly prescriptive duty not with a clean sheet but with a confused mishmash of some retained elements, with some changes and some provisions dropped, is not at all helpful. We trust local authorities to make the best choices for their local areas and to respond to residents’ concerns in a locally appropriate way. However, how that looks should be a matter for local discretion, not central prescription.
We simply do not believe that we need to reinstate this duty in order to force local authorities to have a petitions scheme, any more than we believe that we need to tell local authorities how to respond to petitions from their own residents.
The noble Lord, Lord True, asked whether the Government still support the concept of petitions. Let me make it clear that they absolutely support and encourage the use of petitions but at a local and not at a national level. It seems to me that people want to put up a petition in a post office or whatever. They do not want to have to scratch about wondering what the proper way to organise a petition is for that council. They want to get on with the petition, get the names together and get on with it. That is how it is in democracy and how it is in local areas. In the circumstances, I trust that this amendment will not be pursued.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, can be forgiven for a sense of déjà vu since the issue has arisen, but he should have looked at the amendment rather than the Act. The amendment would substantially reduce what I entirely agree was a ridiculously overprescriptive regime for the presentation of petitions. It simply provides for councils to have a scheme to deal with petitions and is not about the detail of how petitions are to be presented, except that they would be acceptable in electronic or written forms. After that, it would be very much a matter of local discretion as to how they would be dealt with. There is no intention in the amendment to prescribe how petitioners should present their case. It is not at all a bureaucratic substitute and is significantly shorter than the three volumes that the noble Lord would have us believe the Act required.
The difficulty is that, by abolishing the provision without any alternative, the Government are sending a signal that petitions do not seem to be important. They are important and it is unfortunate that the Government are sending a signal to the contrary by neglecting this when Parliament is now adopting a procedure, for good or ill, which appears to place considerable value on petitions. However, it is clear that there is insufficient support for me to test the opinion of the House. I regret what has happened and I hope that at some point the issue will be revisited. In the mean time, at the very least I hope that Ministers will use their best endeavours to encourage councils, even if not on a statutory basis, to promote the use of petitions as an important element in local democracy. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Marlesford
“Litter deposited from motor vehicles
(1) Local authorities may make byelaws about litter deposited from motor vehicles.
(2) Such byelaws may include provisions about—
(a) the application of section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (offence of leaving litter) to litter deposited from motor vehicles;(b) the procedures for identifying the person in charge of a motor vehicle; and(c) the information which the registered keeper of a vehicle may be required to provide the local authority.”
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, in moving Amendment 16, I must declare two interests. The first, I hope, is shared by many on all Benches of your Lordships’ House, which is to campaign to do something to reduce the amount of litter that disfigures—indeed, I would say disgraces—our country. The second is to remind noble Lords that back in the 1990s I was for five years chair of the CPRE, which has supported this amendment.
I do not apologise for repeating this amendment 21 days after we last debated it. At that time, the Government’s reply to the debate was, I suppose I could say, sad. My amendment is simple and necessary. We have to do something about litter. I believe in the old political cliché of action and not words. I am not seeking to create a new offence; it has been an offence for 11 years to drop litter from vehicles under Section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
The problem is that it is very seldom that anything can be done about it because it applies only to the person dropping the litter and at the moment there is no way of knowing who dropped the litter. My amendment would simply make the keeper of the vehicle responsible, as is already the case for parking and for speeding. It is a simple amendment. To put it mildly, I am afraid that my noble friend Lord Shutt did not welcome it. He read out a brief that did not produce a single decent argument. Perhaps I may remind him of what he said on 10 October. He said that,
“extending the scope of the littering offence … raises issues of fairness and proportionality ... It may not always be a ready solution for the registered keeper to avoid prosecution by identifying who was the actual offender”.—[Official Report, 10/10/11; col. 1370.]
That is what he was asked to say, and he said it. That is his job, I suppose, in one sense. However, the only Whitehall bazooka that he forgot to fire was that the Government, I suppose, feel that they can never risk being taken to the European Court of Human Rights. No doubt his officials said to him, “Yes, Minister, it is always safer to do nothing”, and that is what happened.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I am very glad to support this amendment. It is not just my great regard for the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, in his commitment to the best heritage in our society and to preserving it that makes me want to support him but the issue itself. Litter is a menace in our society. It is disfiguring our towns and villages and the countryside. If we really care about our inheritance and preserving what is best, it is no good just having exhortations and principles, which are sometimes enunciated in legislation; it is essential to have some muscle in what is being done to combat it. A few egocentric, selfish people can ruin the environment, whether it be the built environment or the rural environment. It is time that this matter was taken in hand.
I sometimes get a little frustrated in my home community. I have the pleasure of being the president of the Friends of the Lake District—which, of course, represents the CPRE in the whole of Cumbria—but I sometimes reflect in my own neighbourhood of the community how people who take tremendous pains and care with their own gardens and their own estates seem to abandon responsibility when they move outside the garden gate. We have to promote a sense of community commitment on this, followed through with legislation consisting not only of words but the means to make it happen.
It is not an accident that nations that are healthy socially and economically have a great deal of civic pride. I sometimes think that it is a good way of measuring the state of psychology of a nation. If a nation is in good heart, there is a much better chance that all these matters will be taken seriously. On the other hand, it is a two-way argument, because if we let things slip people lose interest. They lose their sense of civic pride and their sense of belonging to a community and needing to make sure that our community is strong and prosperous. It all goes together psychologically. From this standpoint, I thoroughly commend the amendment that has been brought back at Third Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, was absolutely right to bring it back at this stage.
Lord Reay
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has just said and I strongly support the amendment.
Like my noble friend, I did not think very much of the Minister’s arguments for not accepting my noble friend’s amendment on Report. He argued that we could wait and see how it worked out in London when London boroughs get powers under the latest London Local Authorities Bill to issue the registered keepers of vehicles with civil penalties where enforcement officers witness littering from a vehicle. I thought that argument had some plausibility.
However, London is not the country. Litter thrown from vehicles is a particular scourge of the countryside. People driving through the countryside may feel themselves more likely to be unobserved and so more prone to commit the offence. They may well be right. Creating this new offence may work better in towns than it will in the country—we simply do not know—but I suggest that the logical thing to do would be to allow it to be tried out in different parts of the country. My noble friend’s amendment would enable this to happen by permitting local authorities who are particularly keen to do so to take action.
I hope the Government will accept the amendment. If they do not and do not say that they have now changed their minds and intend to introduce, at the earliest opportunity, a new national offence along the lines of my noble friend’s amendment, I hope my noble friend will press his amendment to a Division and I shall certainly support it.
Lord Deben
I am attracted to the amendment, which has been so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Marlesford. As a campaigning environmentalist I am sometimes concerned that the one issue that unites everyone is not fighting climate change—which, of course, is the biggest issue of all—but litter. If you really want to cause a major row, then raise the issue of litter. The Government have to be careful about appearing not to recognise how, particularly in the countryside, as the noble Lord, Lord Reay, has said, this is an issue of considerable concern.
I find it one of the more depressing things that, in the beautiful part of England where I live, at most weekends the first part of the job is to pick up the various items that have been pushed into the hedge and down the drive of the house in which I live. It is a sad fact but it is one that needs to be taken seriously, and I hope noble Lords will agree that this elegant use of the Bill—to give opportunity for particular local authorities to make a particular choice—would be a sensible step. I am sure the Minister may have some really remarkable argument to show a better way forward, which I look forward to hearing.
In Suffolk we have a very successful campaign, which I have to speak of very carefully because it is headlined by the phrase, “Don’t be a tosser”. It is designed to make people stop throwing things out of car windows. This is a real issue. The local authorities in Suffolk might well like to take the opportunity, were they able to, to help the Government by trialling such a proposal. I hope the Government will take seriously what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has suggested.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, I strongly support this amendment, and in doing so I must declare an interest as a farmer. We are plagued by litter from cars down in Somerset where I come from. It does not tend to be what I would call black-bag-type litter, although that is sometimes worse because the bags are thrown out of cars and explode and the litter goes all over the field in a real mess and is very difficult to pick up.
The worst sort of litter that we have is old fridges, old cookers, old beds and old mattresses. They get poured out into little nooks and crannies by the road and then seem to breed. I feel that there is a book in here somewhere, although perhaps not the type of stuff the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, writes. You get one cooker, and then two. Then they will have a daughter of a fridge and a mattress will arrive. It is a most extraordinary thing and no one seems to have the responsibility for picking it up. I know one or two local farmers who shovel the stuff back on to the road, so then it becomes the responsibility of the Highways Agency, which of course makes it responsible for littering the countryside.
It is obviously very difficult for the local council, because almost every night somewhere around my neighbourhood someone has dumped some particular object or other. Can the council do anything to prosecute the motorist? If you are worried that it might not be the motorist who has dumped it but someone in the car, do not tell me that a motorist is not responsible if his car is stopped and a fridge gets thrown out. A motorist is just as responsible as the person who might be in the back seat. I really endorse this amendment and think it is really very important that we support it.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I support the concept of this amendment, but we are in danger of making even more laws when we cannot enforce the ones we have. I find pretty incredible the idea of somebody such as a litter warden—I do not think the police would do it—chasing every car that goes down a country lane to see whether something falls out of the window and then trying to identify who threw it via the keeper. The same could apply in parks or on the roads. Who is going to enforce these laws? I wonder whether either of the noble Lords who have put their name to this amendment could actually tell the House how many convictions there have been for dropping litter, even without this amendment, since the law came into effect. I am afraid that it is probably a solution that is nice to have but will not make much difference. We have to do much more to educate people about not throwing litter or dumping things and helping them, as my noble friend Lord Judd said, to have more pride in the environment in which they live.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I, too, support the amendment, but I have only one question to ask my noble friend who is going to reply. When he replied on 10 October, at col. 1370, it was perfectly clear that he had been briefed about the London Local Authorities Bill currently before Parliament. I had made the point that it was awaiting some technical changes to be approved by the Government. The Ministry of Justice and no doubt the DCLG will also have been involved. Can my noble friend tell me anything more about that? How long are we going to have to wait before that Bill can be made to work? That is what we are waiting for, and at the moment it is in the hands of the Government. Can she tell me anything about that?
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I shall not detain the House for long. This is in my view a model amendment. It does not require local authorities to take action but creates a power for them to do so, which is absolutely right in the circumstances. It is for them to make a judgment about whether in particular circumstances it is likely that they can secure convictions in an urban area—to respond to my noble friend Lord Berkeley. It would be easier to do so than in a rural area, obviously, because there would be witnesses and people who would take note. Frankly, I suspect that the situation is worse in urban areas even than in the rural areas about which we have heard.
The noble Lord is to be congratulated on his amendment. This is not a party issue. However, if the noble Lord were minded to divide the House I would certainly go through the Lobby with him.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for moving this amendment. We have had some discussion about it and have had two serious debates in this House. I am afraid that there are serious problems with the amendment. One of them was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. The fact is that it is extremely difficult when most enforcement law is not carried out anyway and you are just adding to it. As the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, himself said, there are already powers regarding littering offences under Section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act. What happens is that they are not enforced; there are not enough enforcement officers, or they are not around at the right time to ensure that littering does not take place. There are already penalty charge notices that can be given by enforcement officers, particularly in the towns, but all over the country, to enable enforcement on litter dropping. So I do not believe that the amendment is necessary.
What we need is proper education and proper campaigns. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, his authority is not sitting around waiting for a by-law—it has got itself up and going and is running a campaign with a quite attractive title. I have to say that it strikes one as something that might have had the noble Lord behind it. So we do not really need this.
There is a further difficulty. Local authorities can make by-laws only for themselves. If one authority has a by-law and another does not, where is the fridge going to be dropped? It will be dropped within the one that does not have a by-law. Furthermore, local authorities cannot deal with motorways or main roads outside their control. Those are in the power of the Highways Agency, which has not been included in the amendment.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is going to be very upset with me, because we have had a discussion that will make him upset with me, but I want to go back to the position that we do have the London Local Authorities Bill, which has powers in it. I appreciate that it is largely urban, but London local authorities stretch out beyond the urban to the suburbs and even, may I say it, border on greenbelt and places that could be tempted to be rural. What we want to do is to see what happens as a result of that Bill. The Bill is a private Bill, as everyone knows, and is before Parliament now. It has completed its Lords stages and is at an advanced stage in the House of Commons. The expectation is that if there are no more challenges to it, it will proceed on its way. When that is implemented, we will be able to see what can be done. The Bill will allow a local authority to issue a civil penalty to registered keepers whereas the amendment of the noble Lord would make it a criminal offence. This would make it a civil offence with a penalty charge notice of £100, and that would be to the registered keeper.
There has been some discussion about whether the registered keeper is the person who ought to be responsible for this. Under the amendment of the noble Lord, the registered keeper would have to be asked who was in the car—very similar to a charge within a court of an offence asking for a statutory declaration. If we can move it into the civil area, I think that would be a worthwhile approach. The Bill will also enable local boroughs to issue civil penalties. We hope that is going to receive Royal Assent later this year. We want to see whether that can be a good route out.
In the mean time, I am going to use those terrible words about getting people to understand what they are doing. The Government are already supporting Keep Britain Tidy in developing the Love Where You Live campaign—that is nearly as good as the tosser. We are also supporting other campaigns in order to make people realise what they are doing. I do not underestimate in any way the problem of litter. I appreciate that it is an absolute eyesore. I think fridges may be outside the scope of litter, but I appreciate that is also part of a wider problem.
I cannot accept the amendment. I know the noble Lord will be upset with me about that, but there are still too many problems associated with it to make it one that we can put into legislation at this stage. I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it after my explanation.
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for her comments. I am most grateful for the support that I got from all sides of the House. I would like to answer the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, straight away. First, I am not creating a new offence as such. All I am trying to do is to make the 1990 Act, which has failed for the reasons we have discussed, work better. How many prosecutions there have been or how many there will be is completely unknowable. I suppose we could know how many there have been, but the point is that at the moment the thing cannot be enforced. In my book, unenforceable law is bad law. You should not have laws which put obligations and requirements which cannot be, and therefore are not, enforced. That is the way to bring the law into contempt.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The Act applies to more offences than throwing things out of motor cars, so have there been any convictions for other litter offences without this problem of motor cars?
Lord Marlesford
I am talking about the problem, not of motor cars but of motor vehicles—a little wider than motor cars but not as wide as the noble Lord seeks to draw me. I am not concerned with other things that the Act does. I am sure there are lots of bits of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which work extremely well. What I cannot accept is the suggestion of my noble friend that it is not necessary. It is necessary for us to do something about litter. This is one thing we could do. It is a simple thing. It is an enabling power. It is a power which gives local authorities the opportunity, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin explained, to do what is being done in London. Therefore, it is wholly appropriate to the Bill. All too often one has found that the Government talk one thing and either do nothing or do something quite different. I would like to feel that this House will give a signal that it basically believes that something should be done and that something can be done. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, this is a group of several amendments. They are government, minor, technical and consequential amendments to the Bill that are necessary to correct some minor errors, provide clarity of expression in places and ensure that clauses operate as intended. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of all of these amendments. It was rather hard-going trying to work through them all, as they came through fairly late in the day. However, we are happy to accept them on the basis that, as he said, they are minor, technical and consequential, and on the basis of an assurance I hope he will give us that they do not change policy, processes or, in particular, the protections for local authorities that were achieved by the sterling work of the Front Bench opposite—particularly by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who has been dealing with EU fines. I would just like to ask the noble Lord where things stand on the draft policy statement. I am not clear whether that has become a finalised policy statement and what its status is. Subject to that, I am happy to support these amendments.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I believe that work on the policy statement is still going on, but I am happy to confirm that these amendments are exactly as I have indicated.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
“(4) Any provision of a certificate under subsection (2) which has the effect of excluding the whole or part of any periodic payment mentioned in subsection (3)(a)(iii) (including any such payment which has fallen due from the United Kingdom since the earlier certificate was given) may be varied by a further certificate under subsection (2).”
Lord Shutt of Greetland
Lord Shutt of Greetland
Lord Shutt of Greetland
“(ii) any periodic payments not included in that total amount (including both payments that have fallen due since the date specified under section 54(7)(b) and future periodic payments)”
Lord Shutt of Greetland
“(i) have caused or contributed to the infraction of EU law concerned; or(ii) have caused or contributed, or will continue to cause or contribute, to the continuation of that infraction;”
Lord Shutt of Greetland
“(4) Any provision of a certificate under subsection (1) which has the effect of excluding the whole or part of any periodic payment mentioned in subsection (3)(a)(iii) (including any such payment which has fallen due from the United Kingdom since the earlier certificate was given) may be varied by a further certificate under subsection (2).”
Lord Shutt of Greetland
Lord Shutt of Greetland
Lord Shutt of Greetland
“(ii) any periodic payments not included in that total amount (including both payments that have fallen due since the date specified under section 64(7)(b) and future periodic payments)”
Lord Shutt of Greetland
“(i) have caused or contributed to the infraction of EU law concerned; or(ii) have caused or contributed, or will continue to cause or contribute, to the continuation of that infraction;”
Lord Shutt of Greetland
“(8) Sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 4 of Schedule 8 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (contributions regulations for a financial year to be in force by preceding 1 January) does not apply to regulations under that paragraph in their application to the financial year beginning in 2012 so far as they make provision related to the operation of section 47 of that Act as amended by this Act.”
Lord Greaves
“Sustainable development: duty to publish guidance
(1) The Secretary of State must—
(a) publish guidance on the meaning and application of “sustainable development”, and(b) take such steps as he considers necessary to bring such guidance to the attention of relevant bodies.(2) For the purposes of this section “relevant body” shall in particular include—
(a) a local planning authority,(b) a county council in England that is not a local planning authority,(c) the Secretary of State when carrying out functions relating to applications for development consent,(d) a qualifying body as defined in section 61E(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and(e) a body or other person that is prescribed or of a prescribed description.”
Lord Greaves
My Lords, we move back fairly quickly to discuss Part 5 of the Bill on planning. My amendment is grouped with a Labour amendment, Amendment 51. This is my fourth attempt to put a reference to a definition of sustainable development in the Bill. We have the end of this Bill in sight in your Lordships’ House, and I should like to take this opportunity, specifically in relation to sustainable development and the other planning provisions in the Bill, to thank the Ministers in this House; Greg Clark, the Minister in the Commons in charge of the Bill; and the team of civil servants responsible for the Bill for what seems to have been an enormous number of discussions and careful consideration that they have given to the points I and my colleagues have raised in relation to planning.
As for this issue, I believe that there was a willingness to consider it seriously. However, it has again fallen prey to the legal advice that Ministers have received—like their predecessors in the previous Government—that the Bill is not the place to provide for sustainable development. I regret this but, nevertheless, we are where we are.
The amendment sets out what we understand—from discussions with the Government and from government statements in all our debates on sustainable development and the national planning policy framework in recent weeks—the Government are going to do. We believe and sincerely hope that they are going to set out a better and fuller definition of sustainable development within the NPPF. It is worth going back to what the draft NPPF says. Paragraph 9, headed, “Delivering sustainable development”, states:
“The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Sustainable development means development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”—
the 1987 basic Brundtland definition. The draft NPPF continues:
“It is central to the economic, environmental and social success of the country and is the core principle underpinning planning. Simply stated, the principle recognises the importance of ensuring that all people should be able to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life, both now and in the future”.
That, as we have all recognised, is okay so far as it goes, but it does not go far enough.
In particular, it does not recognise that the definition and strategy for sustainable development moved on significantly in the 2005 sustainable development strategy, Securing the Future, which the present Government have assured us on a number of occasions is still valid, that they are not in any way revoking it, and that they still stand by the strategy. The 2005 strategy contains a number of basic definitions of sustainable development and the Labour amendment in this group sets them out. While I should not, technically, speak to that amendment until it has been spoken to by the Labour Party, I feel some proprietorial right to do so, given that it is, as far as I can see, word for word, identical to the amendment that I moved on Report. I am flattered by the fact that the Labour Party has tabled that amendment again, and I regard it as being a compliment on my parliamentary drafting. Perhaps I should make it clear that I regard that as requiring an ironic comment. Never mind— perhaps it requires what I might call a “Sewel smiley”. If we can have Sewel Motions, perhaps we can have Sewel smileys. However, it is interesting that, yet again, the Labour Party seems to be one step behind what we are doing on this Bill.
My amendment on Report was to an extent probing, but its essence, and the essence of what has been put forward across the House—both in the debates on the Bill and on the national planning policy framework—is the three pillars of economic, social and environmental considerations; the need for balance between them; and the importance within the planning system of achieving that balance.
I was interested to read and watch on the television what Greg Clark said when the House of Commons debated the NPPF on 20 October. He stated:
“There has been some suggestion that the proposals represent a fundamental change in what the system is about, but they do not. They will, quite rightly, balance the environmental, the social and the economic, and there is no change in that regard”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/11; col. 1082.]
At col. 1084 he said:
“It was necessary to update the 1999 strategy in 2005. Six years on,”—
that is, in 2011—
“there are some respects in which thinking on sustainability has progressed. For example, there is the idea that the separate pillars of the economy, the environment and the social aspects of sustainability can be traded off, one against the other. Some people argue—and I think there is some merit in doing so—that that is a rather defensive position and that one should be looking for positive improvements to the environment, not simply to trade-off. That is very much the thinking in the Government’s natural environment White Paper, which talked of a net gain for nature”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/11; cols. 1084-85.]
I regard that as extremely helpful and encouraging. I know that the Minister will have some difficulty in saying too much, or indeed anything at all, about what the Government may be intending or wishing to put in the NPPF at some point in the future after they have considered the consultation on it. The consultation has closed. There have been 14,000 responses, which are more than a few, and I understand that for the best possible reasons the Minister cannot pre-empt the government response.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has spotted, we have an amendment in this group which may be familiar to him. Frankly, particularly following the debate last week, we were concerned that something was not going to get on to the agenda for tonight, so we reached for a handy amendment and this one came within our view. We tabled it to make sure that we had a last opportunity to address issues concerning sustainable development.
I am comforted by what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has just said if it is his understanding that the Government’s intent is consistent with the contents of his amendment. We accept that definitions are not going to be included in the Bill but I hope that at least we shall be able to get very strong assurances that there will be full definitions in the NPPF. However, again I accept that the state of the consultation and what now has to happen will mean that the noble Baroness cannot be as fulsome as she would perhaps wish to be.
Notwithstanding that, I should like to hear from the Government more precisely where they stand on sustainable development. We have had assertions in the past that Brundtland and the 2005 strategy still hold sway, yet some of the wording in the draft NPPF document seems to countermand and undermine that. Therefore, when the noble Baroness responds, can she tell us whether it was the Government’s intent to change the balance of that 2005 Brundtland sustainable development approach or whether it was just due to inconsistencies and lack of clarity in the wording? If the consultation took the Government in a direction of supporting more growth at the expense of other pillars of the approach, is that something that they would resist? Where is their core on this? Is it Brundtland in 2005 and is the issue making sure that that is comprehensively dealt with in a consistent and coherent manner in the NPPF, or is it open for change? If it is open for change, what is the Government’s view on what the direction of that change should be? It will be interesting to hear what the Minister can say on that.
Lord Best
My Lords, perhaps it would be valuable to noble Lords to hear the views of the Local Government Association. I declare my interest as its president. The LGA believes that sustainable development can only be defined locally. Indeed, sustainable development makes sense only at a local level, as set out in the definition of sustainable development at the beginning of the national planning policy framework. There must be a balance between economic, environmental and social issues and locally elected councillors must have the flexibility to make the necessary trade-offs locally. In relation to guidance from central Government, the LGA maintains that the NPPF should make clear that it will be for the local plan to set out what sustainable development means for the local area and for the development that it will require.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the LGA are surely right that sustainable development must be interpreted locally and in the end you can only determine what it means in relation to local circumstances. However, I agree with both noble Lords who have spoken in the debate that it is important that the Government should fill out their definition, or at least their understanding of what is intended by sustainable development. The Brundtland definition is so high level that it leaves too much scope for varying interpretation. In the absence of specificity and rather fuller detail in the way in which the Government have set forth this policy, there is space for all sorts of anxieties to grow. Those anxieties have been intensified by what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech when he referred to the planning system as being a “chronic obstacle to growth”. That is a profoundly misplaced analysis. Whether or not the planning system has played some part in obstructing growth over the years, what matters now is that a lot of people in this country are anxious about the Government’s intention. While they may possibly acquit CLG of desiring to concrete over the countryside and so forth, they have anxieties about the Treasury’s reading of the situation and intentions. I think that they feel the Treasury would be too ready to see the protections that the planning system has historically given to our countryside to prevent inappropriate development being swept aside. The more desperate we become to achieve economic growth the more reckless they fear the Government may be over those protections.
The Government would do themselves a good turn and would allay a great deal of anxiety that I am sure in reality is needless if they would undertake to clarify and amplify their intentions in committing themselves to promoting sustainable development. Like other noble Lords I do not think that it is appropriate to attempt a full definition on the face of primary legislation because, as we have noted, the understanding of sustainable development has itself developed over the years and will surely continue to do so. It seems that the right place for that is guidance, whether in an expanded section of the NPPF or perhaps in greater detail in fuller supplementary guidance that I continue to hope the Government will issue to support the NPPF because, admirable as I believe most of its tendencies to be, it is too high level and leaves too much scope for ambiguity and doubt.
There is not only anxiety but the danger of legal conflict and uncertainty among all concerned. I think that it would be very helpful if the noble Baroness were able to say that the Government have made up their mind firmly that they will provide a fuller explanation and definition of what they intend by sustainable development.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, in the previous debate I promised to go away and think about what should be done and whether sustainable development should find itself in legislation or in the national planning policy framework. It has been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that this matter has demanded careful consideration. It has been raised over and over again. We discussed this very thoroughly on Report, and I think we established that there was a good degree of agreement between us about the outcome that we are trying to achieve. I said then that there should be no doubt about the Government’s commitment to securing sustainable development through planning and to meeting environmental, social and economic needs in a balanced way. Those are the three legs of the stool that reference the planning side. It has been apparent from the debates we have had on the Bill and in the House that we need to be clear and to go further in setting out how our commitment can be achieved.
Having agreed to go away and come back with our view on whether the Bill could be amended to effect this aim or whether it could be part of the consultation on the draft national planning policy framework, it is appropriate to say more on that. I appreciate that the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and his colleagues is designed helpfully to probe our intentions on this, and I accept that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, was trying to do the same thing. I hope I can provide reassurance.
We now have the benefit of the consultation responses and the draft NPPF. As noble Lords have said, there are 14,000 replies, and many of them are going to address this specific issue. We also have the evidence given to the environmental audit committee, so there is quite a lot of external thought coming on this. Of the responses that we have been able to look at so far, many have made a cogent case for defining sustainable development in more detail in the NPPF. Noble Lords have also voiced strong views about what should be included. Clearly, we need to tailor our definition in the light of all the views we have received. This is something that we intend to do as we revise the document. The explanation will not be a legal requirement in the Bill but will address the policy issues in the policy framework.
We cannot finalise our policy on the NPPF until we have considered all 14,000-plus responses, so I am not going to try to pre-empt that, but important themes are emerging that we want to take into account as we refine our approach. In particular, we know that we need to address the way in which the definition works alongside the presumption in favour of sustainable development, so it is clear that what we want to see through the presumption is that development is sustainable. The planning system should help to secure net benefits for present and future generations, including promoting strong, vibrant and healthy communities together with protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment—we have always had a commitment to that, but I think some of it got skewed during the early part of the consultation process, almost before it had started—in situations in which there could be limits to the environment’s ability to accept further development without irreversible damage. We will carefully consider what noble Lords and noble friends have said about building on and explicitly referencing the principles that underpinned the 2005 UK sustainable development strategy, which is the relevant strategy. We are crystal clear—as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, pointed out, my honourable friend Greg Clark, who has been managing this Bill, is clear—that sustainable development has the three legs that we have spoken about: environmental, economic and social dimensions. The purpose of the planning system as a whole is to achieve a balanced outcome—I hope that this to some extent addresses the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth—that actually reflects all three of these points.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
When the draft NPPF was issued for consultation, did the Government seek to change what had hitherto been the balance between the various components of sustainable development at that stage? Was it the Government’s intent to place greater emphasis on economic growth at the expense of the others? I do not assert that that is where the Government may end up, but obviously there was great concern from the wording of the document that that was the intention at that stage. Can the noble Baroness dispel that concern, or is it a real issue?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the initial expectation in the NPPF was that there would be a balanced approach to this. There are the three legs that are really relevant to planning: economic, social and environmental. Brundtland, of course, includes science, and we have been given lots of other ideas of what it might include. If I can just leave it at that, we expect this to be a balanced approach to sustainable development and we recognise that there are elements that are more reflective of the planning system. Then we will have to wait and see what comes out of the discussions.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I am extremely grateful for that reply from my noble friend the Minister, who I think went as far as she could—in fact, I think she pushed the limits a little further than some of her more cautious advisers might have liked. I hope that what she said turns out to be satisfactory in the long run.
I just want to say another couple of quick things about sustainable development. Going back to what Greg Clark said in the House of Commons debate on the NPPF, which I think is extremely important, this is not just about balance. Balance is very important indeed, but really good planning can enhance all the three legs, or pillars, or whatever they may be called, of sustainable development. That is possible with good planning. Clearly individual decisions may be balanced one way or another, but overall there has to be balance and enhancement, particularly of the environment. Again, I hope that the issue of environmental limits that you cannot go beyond will be addressed in the NPPF.
Listening to this debate, I was musing that we have not only had the four debates on sustainable development in this Bill and the two NPPF debates; the debate seems to have gone on over the years. I was thinking back to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Planning Act 2008, the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, when there was a willingness of the then Labour Ministers to think about what they could do about putting this into the Bill. In the end, however, they said, “No, it cannot be done, for all the reasons that have been put forward”, and all the legal reasons put forward by their advisers. Having struggled against a Labour Government on four of these Bills and trying to find our way through this one under the coalition Government, we are where we are.
Will the outcomes be satisfactory? Will we look back on these debates and say, “Yes, the NPPF is okay, despite the inauspicious way in which it was launched upon the world and despite a lot of the unfortunate wording within it”? Will that all be sorted? Will we get a document that will work? All I can say is that I hope we will. We have a lot of good intentions from the Government and from Ministers, not least my noble friend the Minister here. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches will certainly be keeping up the pressure, and we simply ask them not to let us down. On that basis, I withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“Local development plans: transitional arrangements
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify transitional arrangements concerning the timetable and procedures involved in the introduction of changes to local development schemes and the preparation and adoption of local development documents.
(2) Subsection (1) applies—
(a) where changes are required by any enactment, and(b) where changes are required following the issue of new or revised guidance by the Secretary of State.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, becomes flattered again, I should say that this was another handy vehicle to make sure that we got this on the agenda.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, if the Labour Party really needs a new parliamentary draftsman to write its amendments, I might be prepared to offer my services.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
They would be very welcome.
The Bill is about to leave the House when we have no certainty that there will be any transitional provisions, let alone what those provisions might look like. The changes to our planning system, the demise of regional spatial strategies, the introduction of the duty to co-operate, the introduction of neighbourhood planning, together with the NPPF and the proposed presumption in favour of sustainable development, represent a major upheaval to the planning system. The key continuing feature—we support this—is the significance of the local development plan, which, subject to material considerations, should continue to determine which planning applications would be approved. However, we know that many local development plans are not up to date. Even if they were, there seems to be uncertainty as to whether the NPPF in its current form would itself cause all of them to be out of date.
The Minister, in our debate last week, contended not. I am bound to say that I believe that this is not a universal view. Is it accepted that the NPPF will introduce new policy which must be complied with? It is of deep concern that the noble Baroness gave the Government’s position in our debate in the following terms:
“We have not decided yet what, if any, transitional arrangements there should be”—
although the Minister then added—
“but we see that you cannot get rid of the regional spatial strategies and not have something else”.—[Official Report, 27/10/11; col. GC 384.]
Perhaps the noble Baroness can expand on the latter phrase to see whether we can derive any comfort.
As we made clear in last week’s debate, we do not support or encourage local planning authorities to hold back on updating their local plans, but is it not the case that they are dealing with a moving target? There has been a very considerable response to the NPPF consultations, to which the Government have to give due consideration. It may not be until next April when we see the final version of the framework, with the prospect of no further consultation thereon, and probably no parliamentary process. It is acknowledged that the Government would be looking to fast-track a process for updating local plans, and for obtaining certificates of conformity, but this is not, surely, a total solution. Local planning authorities will not know what they have to conform with until they see the final version of the NPPF sometime next year. What assessment have the Government made of the planning inspectorate’s capacity to cope with all of this? Indeed, what assessment have they made of local planning authorities’ capacity to cope with this?
Is it not the case that the presumption in favour of sustainable development is supposed to be the stick that encourages local planning authorities to get local plans up to date, because if they do not, the national policy will be the framework for planning decisions. This carries the implication that if the stick is effective, local authorities will want to avoid the NPPF on its own providing the framework without the local plan—that is, development which an up-to-date local plan would not support could gain approval unless the adverse impacts of development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Does the Minister accept that this could be the consequence of not having local plans up to date?
The Government are asking local planning authorities to ensure that their local plans are up to date when the NPPF, as drafted, includes new policy and the final form is unknown. Will an up-to-date plan not have to reflect the duty to co-operate? The draft NPPF is clear that local planning authorities will be expected to co-operate and to plan for issues with cross-boundary impacts. A demonstration of this will be required when local plans are submitted for examination. Will it be the case, therefore, that any plan which does not involve the duty to co-operate could be challenged as being not up to date?
Lord Best
My Lords, in Committee and on Report, I tabled amendments on transitional arrangements. I agree that it is imperative that local plans are in place as soon as possible but councils must have adequate time and resources to put in place sensible plans that conform to the new NPPF and ensure that local needs are met and local people have a say in the development that affects them. This will require clear transitional arrangements so that citizens, councils and developers have certainty about when and how the presumption of sustainable development will apply. Those areas that have invested a significant amount of time and resources in getting an up-to-date local plan in place prior to the changes should not be required to go through the process again or to face further delays. It is important that any process for registering conformity is light touch and swift.
I have been pleased to hear from the Royal Town Planning Institute that progress is being made in making transitional arrangements. I know that the Local Government Association is also part of the process of working with the Government on this. I feel sure that the Minister will be able to confirm that appropriate arrangements will be put in place quickly and I look forward to hearing her response to the sensible points raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I congratulate the Labour Party on writing such a brilliant amendment. The interesting thing about transitional arrangements is that when the Bill came to your Lordships’ House, they were not being talked about at all. The view was that in six months it could all be sorted out. The more it has been discussed in this House and with Ministers, the more it has become clear to everyone, including those of us who raised it tentatively at first, that it is an extremely important issue. Getting it right is crucial to the transition from the present system to the new system. The good news is that I believe that the Government, particularly the planning Ministers, now understand that. The bad news is that they have not yet produced a clear plan for that transition and how it will work. I believe that it is being thought about seriously across government.
Whether or not it should be in the NPPF is an interesting question. Originally, we were told that it did not need to be in the Bill because it could be in the policy framework. The more some of us think about it, the more complex it is and the policy framework may not be the best place for it—certainly not for most of it. It is so complex and requires so much detailed and substantive guidance to planning authorities on how to cope with the transition that it probably will need separate guidance. I do not think that this would in any way undermine the Government’s wish to bring the total of planning policy guidance down to around 50 pages, although I think that it will be a bit more than that when it comes out. The point is that, by its very nature, guidance on the transitional process will be temporary; it will come and then it will go. That is another reason why perhaps it should not be in the NPPF but should be separate guidance to local planning authorities in some detail as to how to cope.
Going back to another anecdote, I am reminded of the following phrase, which I learnt from Professor Danny Dorling:
“Anecdote is the singular of data”.
In this case I think it genuinely is.
I am about to read from a Pendle Council press release, not for special pleading but because I believe it is typical of the position that very many local planning authorities are in at the moment. I received the press release on Tuesday, headed “Six week consultation on Pendle’s most important planning document”. It says:
“It’s the final chance for Pendle residents to comment on a document that will influence how Pendle changes in the years to come. A six-week consultation starts on Friday 28th October on the Core Strategy”.
Then it explains what is in the document and what its purpose is. It continues:
“Between now and Monday 12th December you can view a draft version of the Core Strategy”,
at various council outlets and libraries throughout Pendle or, alternatively, on the website. It goes on to say:
“During the six-week consultation, planning officers will be attending a series of drop-in sessions in different parts of Pendle”.
That is what that glossy leaflet was all about. I think there are 10 or 12 of those taking place. It is a big consultation operation and exercise. It then says:
“A display will also be available to view at Nelson's Number One Market Street”—
which is the council’s call-in centre—
“for the full six weeks”.
The councillor who looks after planning issues in Pendle says:
“‘The Core Strategy will set out the overall approach for planning and development in Pendle for the next 15 years, so it's essential that residents make their views known before it's finalised … This is your final chance to help shape the future of Pendle’”.
Then I thought: this is all going ahead. The council quite rightly, I think, decided to continue going ahead with the production of its local plan as quickly as possible despite the presence of the Localism Bill casting a shadow over all these operations. This is really localising and turning into an anecdote some of the broad questions that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked. Will Pendle Council and lots of other councils around the country have to start again when this Bill comes into effect? To what extent will they have to go back and revisit their evidence base for their local plan? To what extent will they have to go back to the core strategy—which is 200 to 250 pages thick, I would guess—and rewrite it? To what extent will the whole process now be put back by six or 12 months? Will this quite intensive consultation process all have to be done again at this time next year perhaps? Those are the kinds of practical questions that councils all over the country are facing. They need very clear guidance on the transitional period from the Government as quickly as possible.
I think that this is my last speech on this Bill. There may be sighs of relief around the House. I have already thanked the Minister, her colleagues and the civil servants on the Bill team for their great kindness and for the assistance that I and my colleagues have had. I also want to thank people around the House. I thank the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Beecham, on the Labour Front Bench for their very sensible and constructive approach to the Bill. I may be doing severe damage to their career prospects within the Labour Party by saying that, but I think it needs to be said. We have worked with them and discussed things with them. We have not always agreed, but the amount of co-operation that there has been around the House on the Bill has been to the advantage of the House and to the advantage of the Government in that when the Bill leaves very shortly now, it will be a very much better Bill than when it came.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, it is a great strength of the Government’s policy that it commits us to plan-led and sustainable development. It follows from that that it would be extremely unfortunate if there were to be possibly a long interval—a black hole—in which possibly half of planning authorities, maybe even all, did not have a valid plan. During that period there would be real danger of abuse and bad, inappropriate development gaining permission, and perhaps even being built, which would contradict the Government’s proper objectives. Unless the Minister is able this evening to give clear-cut reassurance that there will be firm and legally binding transitional arrangements, I fear there could be consequences that the Government do not want. I also fear that there will be needless public anxiety—or, possibly, even justified public anxiety—and it would be sensible and helpful if the Minister could finally allay our anxieties on this point.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am not going to be able to reassure everyone on everything. When we discussed this in the past, I pointed out the Government’s concern that there had been transitional arrangements on previous occasions which had resulted in only 40 councils having local plans, with some of the remainder being on tap and others having some being prepared. Transitional arrangements are a bit of a worry. In response to a question today, I said to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that this is very much in our minds and I can confirm that that is the situation. We are looking very carefully at transitional arrangements, particularly in respect of the analysis of the NPPF and what that will throw up. We have listened also to the views of the Local Government Association and others and will be taking them into account.
We place an enormous amount of importance on up-to-date local plans and we will put in place transitional arrangements that advantage plan making to reflect the fact that the national planning policy framework is all about putting local communities in control of planning decisions through their local plan. As I have said previously, the framework is policy not legislation and legislative measures are unnecessary as the Secretary of State can deliver transitional arrangements more appropriately through policy or guidance. That clearly will be part of the discussions and talks we are having about how much of that is required.
It would also be helpful if I made it absolutely clear that the status of local plans will not change when the Bill is enacted and the final national planning policy framework comes into force. Local plans will continue to be part of the development plan and the plan will remain the first point of reference for decisions on planning applications and appeals. It is, of course, for local councils to decide when they should update their local plans—it is entirely a matter for them and their communities—but it is important that we help them through the process. We are supporting councils by simplifying the process of preparing plans. This will help provide flexibility so that councils can concentrate on issues that matter to them and their communities.
On the question about the Planning Inspectorate, we are working closely with it to make sure that the examination process can be quicker and that, if necessary, only parts of a local plan need to be reconsidered. It is a flexible arrangement and we are sure that the Planning Inspectorate will be able to help with that appropriately.
As we have discussed before, if there are policies and regional strategies that councils wish to incorporate in local plans they can do so by undertaking a review focusing on those policies. Councils can also continue to draw on evidence that informed the preparation of regional strategies to support local plan policies, supplemented, as needed, by up-to-date local evidence. The availability of an existing body of evidence will also help councils through the local plan review process and, consequently, transition.
The NPPF offers councils the opportunity to seek a “certificate of conformity” with national policy which will help them identify which of their existing local policies are consistent with the framework. We expect that many elements of local plans will conform with the direction of national policy. Where issues are indentified, councils should attempt to address these through reviews undertaken as quickly as possible. We will, of course, be considering any representations made on this point in the current consultation.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I think there is an important point here. Will the certificate of conformity be available to planning authorities that have an approved local plan that is waiting for inspection before it is inspected, or will it be only for local plans that have already been adopted?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thought the noble Lord had had his last word on this Bill, so I am a little bit taken aback. I will get an answer to that question as we go along. The answer is no—only adopted plans will have the certificate of conformity.
I hope that I have made it clear that the transitional arrangements are still under consideration but that there will be transitional arrangements. I have been asked whether there will be guidance from the Secretary of State. It will set out as clearly as possible what the transitional arrangements are and any other procedural issues.
Let me conclude by reiterating—this is not my last word, unfortunately—the importance that this Government place on local plans and the need for effective arrangements, delivered through policy or guidance, to manage transition. I want to offer a firm reassurance that the Government recognise the importance of this, as I said earlier today, and will ensure that this is addressed alongside the revisions that are made to the NPPF itself. We are of course looking very closely at all the suggestions that have been made about transition during the consultation process.
We recognise there are genuine issues to be addressed about the status of local plans during the transitional period. I hope that I have addressed some of these tonight, but we will also be considering them further. With these reassurances I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for as clear an indication as she is able to give about transition. I take some comfort from that. Whether it ends up in the NPPF or in guidance is not the most important issue as long as it is there and it is effective.
I thank other noble Lords who have supported and argued in favour of transition, including my noble friend Lord Howarth and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Greaves. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his kind words—this must not get too much like a love-in—which we ought to reciprocate. This has been an interesting experience for those of us who are new to planning legislation. It has been an intriguing position. I used to think that Luton was the centre of the universe, but I understand Pendle now may begin to be a bit of a rival—perhaps we will pay a visit one day to see.
I am happy to withdraw the amendment because I believe the noble Baroness has given us the strongest degree of reassurance I have heard to date on this issue.
Earl Attlee
“Local authority, statutory undertakers’ and National Trust land
(1) The Planning Act 2008 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 128(3) (order authorising compulsory acquisition of local authority or statutory undertakers’ land subject to special parliamentary procedure if representation made by the authority or statutory undertakers and not withdrawn)—
(a) after paragraph (a) (but before the “and” at the end of that paragraph) insert—“(aa) the representation contains an objection to the compulsory acquisition of the land,”, and(b) in paragraph (b) (condition that representation has not been withdrawn) for “representation” substitute “objection”.(3) In section 130(3) (order authorising compulsory acquisition of certain National Trust land subject to special parliamentary procedure if representation made by National Trust and not withdrawn)—
(a) after paragraph (a) (but before the “and” at the end of that paragraph) insert—“(aa) the representation contains an objection to the compulsory acquisition of the land,”, and(b) in paragraph (b) (condition that representation has not been withdrawn) for “representation” substitute “objection”.”
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the need for this amendment emerged following the first decision under the regime a little over a week ago when it became clear that the Planning Act 2008 contains a drafting flaw that could have serious consequences for the regime if not corrected. Under compulsory purchase law, local authorities, statutory undertakers and the National Trust have special protection from proposals to compulsorily acquire their land. Where they object to a compulsory purchase order, and do not withdraw that objection, the order is subject to special parliamentary procedure—an involved, complex and often lengthy process which can add six to nine months to the timetable.
The first decision under the regime has demonstrated that the Planning Act 2008 has inadvertently widened the grounds on which special parliamentary procedure is engaged. Any representation by a relevant body on any aspect of the development consent order not limited to compulsory acquisition can trigger SPP. This means that many more projects will need to go through the SPP than do at present, with implications for growth and jobs. Government Amendment 53, therefore, seeks to correct the drafting of the Planning Act to bring it into line with compulsory purchase law as it operates under the town and country planning system.
Let me be absolutely clear on this for the benefit of the House. We are absolutely not seeking to lessen the important protections for land belonging to those bodies, and indeed this amendment would not prevent the National Trust, for example, from invoking SPP where a development consent order would grant consent for its land to be compulsorily acquired. The amendment seeks only to correct an error in the 2008 Act, thereby ensuring that the compulsory purchase regime is consistent across both the 2008 Act and the major infrastructure planning regimes. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing his amendment and allowing me to speak to my three amendments in this grouping. He has agreed to respond after this, and it is very welcome that we can do it in this way.
I shall just make a very small comment on government Amendment 53. While I welcome the amendment—it is good to see that the Government recognise that some changes have to be made to the Planning Act in this regard—it does nothing for the point that I shall come on to shortly. In a wider sense, the special parliamentary procedure seems to be an additional safeguard in the 21st century, with a rather heavier touch, as I shall come back to several times, than the approach taken in the Harbours Act or the Transport and Works Act orders, which are two of the principal order-making regimes that the Planning Act draws on and replaces.
I turn to the amendments in my name. The House will recall that, both in Committee and on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd and I moved, and spoke in support of, a number of quite technical arguments, which we thought were pretty important to the Bill, designed to make a number of changes to the provisions of the Planning Act 2008 dealing with the new regime for considering national infrastructure projects, which are currently operated by the Infrastructure Planning Commission. The Planning Act is a distinct improvement on the many regimes that we had before for the types of infrastructure that it replaces, and I think that it is settling down.
My concern, which I expressed previously and will have to return to shortly tonight, is that this Bill should have gone further and made more changes to the 2008 Act that are either a necessary or logical consequence of the IPC's abolition and the return of decisions to Ministers or are simply required to make the 2008 Act work better. I have been briefed in particular by the National Infrastructure Planning Association, which has people with great experience in this field. I welcome the Government's intention to keep the new regime under review, but it would be helpful to hear from the Minister tonight a little more as to quite what they are going to review and when.
The House will recall that the Minister, Greg Clark MP, said in a Written Ministerial Statement that the Government are,
“listening to industry, representative groups and others using the system … and will be exploring opportunities for improvement to ensure the system has the right mix of certainty, flexibility and efficiency”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/3/11; col. 73WS.]
That is good. In the impact assessment for the Bill’s provisions on major infrastructure projects, published in January this year, we are told that, in relation to the policy behind the preferred options, which is now reflected in the Bill,
“It will be reviewed 04/2014”.
I would like to hear from the Minister how this review will take place.
Before discussing in more detail the issues focused in these amendments, I want to mention a very recent development that appears to be highly relevant. Apparently,
“The European Union is concerned that the single market is not operating effectively because of a lack of integrated energy, transport and digital infrastructure”—
I certainly support that view—
“and is also not moving to a secure, low-carbon energy future quickly enough”.
On 19 October, only a couple of weeks ago, the European Commission launched two new proposed regulations to address this: the “Connecting Europe Facility”, which is about to spend €50 billion on all three sectors of infrastructure, which is a great deal of money; and a focus on energy infrastructure, for which the Commission will require new authorisation regimes because such projects will have to be subject to a special “permit granting process”. It is a bit complicated, but €9 billion has been earmarked for energy projects.
The Government will have to change regulations or legislation to allow these internationally significant infrastructure projects—which are apparently called ISIPs, as opposed to NSIPs or something—that will sit above, or instead of, the Planning Act regime for nationally significant projects. There are various processes and timetables set out for this and the pre-application consultation requirements are quite prescriptive. I understand that all these are required to be in place by 1 September 2013, which is only nine months after the regulation is due to come into force. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to do this and make sure that the money being offered from the EU is available.
I am grateful to the Minister for arranging a meeting between his officials and myself and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, between Report and now. We had a very useful meeting and I take the opportunity to thank Ministers and officials for the very helpful discussions. We should have had the meeting some time ago, but we did not—as was said at Report. However, I hope that, even so, we can make progress.
Turning to the amendments themselves, I should say that Amendment 87 relates to the Minister’s amendment about development consent orders and the need to have special parliamentary procedures where there are objections. As the Minister said, it could take about nine months extra if one had to go through these procedures. I still wonder why we have to go through these procedures when there should be a single consents regime with a harmonised set of requirements and procedures, which I call a one-stop shop. I compare the complexity and difficulty of this with the transport and works orders and the harbours orders.
On Report, the Minister referred to the Planning Act drawing on long-standing and well-established protections from compulsory purchase orders for certain types of land. He thought that our proposals then would significantly weaken them, but I do not accept his reference to a two-tier system—why it should go further than happens with the TWA and the harbours order. The House will recall that the only project so far to be approved by the IPC, which is Covanta's proposed incinerator in Bedfordshire, will now have to be approved by this House and the other House under SPP. A lot of people may not like these incinerators but that has gone through a process and, again, will be subject to six to nine months’ extra delay. I hope that the Minister can indicate that these issues will be reviewed in the light of experience.
The next amendment in the group, Amendment 88, refers to the regulations made under Section 150, which deal with construction-related consents in England. Again, we discussed this quite thoroughly on Report—so much for having a one-stop shop, as there are still up to 42 other consents required from regulators in England and a further 36 in Wales. I still have not discovered why there are so many extra ones in Wales but it may be that the noble Earl will take the view that it does not matter very much. Again, the point is that it would be very good for those developing new projects to be able to reduce the number of these other consents which they have to get. I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to give some kind of timetable and a commitment to reviewing this number, and even to produce a report to Parliament every year for the next few years. That could challenge his colleagues in other departments on whether they really can be brought underneath this umbrella of the one-stop shop.
Finally, on Amendment 89, again, we have discussed the creation of criminal offences in some detail but it is still a worry that the types of offences which can be introduced through this process are not sufficient for the types of projects and offences which might be required. Again, that provides a much greater limit than the Transport and Works Act orders do, which is why I wanted to see whether we could include railways and construction in tidal waters. One example which springs to mind is the question of trespass during construction, which could well occur on the high-speed line—assuming that it gets built—or on some of the offshore wind farms, if people can get around there. Trespass is a very difficult thing to stop if you do not have the right regulations, and it would be good to see whether the Minister would be able to extend the existing criminal offences to the two issues in this amendment.
To sum up, we have made progress on these issues in discussions on the Bill but we have certainly not gone as far as I would have liked to see. However, is the Minister prepared to tell us a little more about the issues that I have raised and about three things in particular? First, there is the impact assessment on how the Planning Act 2008 has worked in respect of projects through the IPC and its successor, which I believe is supposed to be there in 2014. Secondly, there is how this connecting Europe facility will work and whether the Government are keen that projects here should get the extra €9 billion that will be available for energy alone. Finally, can I press him to have an earlier review and a progress report to reduce significantly those 42 consents, plus the 36 in Wales?
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, spoke to his amendment so comprehensively that I want to add only one point. As my noble friend on the Front Bench indicated, the Government’s own amendment came to light only a week ago. I should like to say a very warm thank you to him and to the officials who recognised so swiftly that there had to be a change to the 2008 Act to prevent quite unnecessary use of the special parliamentary procedure, or SPP.
I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said: there are still too many examples where such procedures will or could need to be invoked. If anybody makes an objection—for instance, where one is dealing with local authority land—and that objection is sustained, it will have to go through this special parliamentary procedure. While the decisions on major infrastructure projects were being taken by the Infrastructure Planning Commission, a quango, that may have been a necessary parliamentary protection. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has said, under the new procedure, perhaps from April 2012, these decisions will be taken by a Minister accountable to Parliament. This changes the nature of the necessity for these other protective procedures to be built in.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, I would very much welcome an indication from my noble friends on the Front Bench that they will look at this again. I understand that, in the short time that we have had to deal with this—it came up only on Report in this House—it has been difficult for Ministers to go as far as we would perhaps like. However, with the review coming up, there seems to be an opportunity to have another look at this so that it gets somewhat nearer the one-stop shop that was originally offered by the Ministers in the previous Government as being the major benefit of the new Infrastructure Planning Commission. It most manifestly is not a one-stop shop at the moment. Maybe it never could be a one-stop shop but it could certainly have fewer than the 42 consents that are necessary for these major projects. I hope my noble friends will be able to give us some reassurance that they are sympathetic to this and will, in the review, look at it very carefully with a view to coming somewhat nearer the original objective that was held out to Parliament when the 2008 Act was introduced.
Lord Boyd of Duncansby
My Lords, I declare an interest as a Scottish solicitor who is registered as a foreign lawyer in England and Wales. I also have an interest in planning. I thank the noble Earl for bringing forward Amendment 53, which deals with a real anomaly. I also support my noble friend on Amendments 87 and 88. Much of what I would say has already been said, but I shall just add a couple of points.
On the special parliamentary procedure, on Report my noble friend Lord McKenzie expressed some reservations about the abolition of what was perhaps seen as a protection. However, the point that my noble friend Lord Berkeley has made is that it is a heavier regime than that which pertained under the Transport and Works Act and the Harbours Act. Therefore, it seems curious that we have made the development consent orders regime more onerous than it was under those two Acts. I do not suppose that my noble friend will press his amendment tonight. However, I hope that the Minister will confirm that the operation of the special parliamentary procedure will be part of the review. Perhaps that will give us an opportunity to look at it and reassure those who are sceptical about removing the protection, giving them some comfort that the protections will still be there in the role of the Secretary of State and his accountability to Parliament.
Amendment 88 would do away with the large number of consenting regimes that are still in place, or at least significantly reduce them. It is not the case that doing away with these consenting regimes somehow removes protections, because protective provisions will be put into the development consent order. That is the crucial thing, and there are plenty of examples, again under transport and works orders, of protective regimes being put into place. I gave an example earlier in the proceedings of this House.
We have to strive to get a one-stop shop. If there is bureaucratic inertia to addressing this issue, then it is up to Ministers to argue the case in government against those who are suggesting that we cannot do anything about that. We need to get a more streamlined process, so that development is not held up simply because we have to go through yet another procedure. I welcome the forthcoming review, and I hope that will give us an opportunity to clear up some of these anomalies that have been left over from previous systems and planning regimes.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I shall be brief. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Berkeley for spotting a difficulty and the Government for responding with their Amendment 53, which seeks to deal with that. My noble friend Lord Berkeley, my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, have raised a number of profound and important issues about how the new system is working, the need for a one-stop shop, the connecting Europe facility and how we will take advantage of that, and the special parliamentary procedures, but I am not sure that we are going to solve all those issues tonight. I look forward to what the Minister has to say, but if he is able to confirm that there is a review under way, that seems to be the arena in which these very important issues can be picked up and addressed.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken to this group of amendments for their contribution to the debate on these important issues. I thought we had an excellent debate on Report, and I am grateful to the noble Lords for their time at the meeting we had a week ago to further discuss these matters. I am happy to adhere to correct procedure, and that is to allow noble Lords to move the amendments before giving a response.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to developments in the EU; this is developing policy and I will have to write to him on that point. Noble Lords have already explained the amendments in this group at some length, but I will briefly summarise. Amendment 87 would remove Sections 128 to 132 of the 2008 Act, which made provisions relating to the compulsory acquisition of special types of land. Amendment 88 seeks to amend Section 150 of the Act, so that it applies only in relation to land in Wales. Amendment 89 would extend the existing provisions of the Localism Bill in relation to the creation of offences in a development consent order so that offences could be created in respect of railways and off-shore development in addition to those already provided for within the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, gave the example of trespass during construction. I have listened carefully to what noble Lords have said and I agree that these matters need further consideration. These are complex issues and we will need to think on them carefully in the light of the new regime’s vanguard cases.
Baroness Hanham
“(1) In section 20B(2) of the Housing Act 1988 (demoted assured shorthold tenancy lasts for one year unless subsection (3) applies) after “subsection (3) applies” insert “, but see section 20BA”.
(2) ”
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, Amendments 54, 55 and 56 are technical amendments that ensure, in line with our original policy intention, that where a fixed-term assured shorthold tenancy is demoted, the tenant can be given another fixed-term tenancy upon successful completion of the demotion period.
Without these amendments, such tenants would automatically become periodic assured “lifetime” tenants on successful completion of the demotion period. That would clearly be unfair—in effect, a reward for behaving anti-socially in the past—and mean that private registered providers would in practice be unlikely to demote fixed-term tenancies, rather than simply seeking to evict for anti-social behaviour. These amendments ensure that private registered providers of social housing who demote fixed term assured tenants are in the same position as local authorities who demote flexible tenants. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I accept that these government amendments are to correct a drafting error. I am pleased that someone spotted it before the Bill left your Lordships’ House. Well done to whoever did that. It would be regrettable if we had had to waste valuable parliamentary time correcting this error at a later stage if it had passed into law. The substantive amendment clarifies that a fixed-term tenant should get another fixed-term tenancy on successful completion of the demotion period. From these Benches we have no objection whatever to that. Time is getting on and I will leave it there.
Baroness Hanham
““20BA Assured shorthold tenancies following demoted tenancies
(1) Subsection (2) applies if—
(a) section 20B applies to an assured shorthold tenancy of a dwelling-house in England (“the demoted tenancy”),(b) the landlord is a private registered provider of social housing,(c) the demoted tenancy was created by an order under section 6A made after the coming into force of section 162(2) of the Localism Act 2011,(d) the assured tenancy that was terminated by that order was an assured shorthold tenancy that, whether or not it was a fixed term tenancy when terminated by the order, was granted for a term certain of not less than two years,(e) apart from subsection (2), the demoted tenancy would cease to be an assured shorthold tenancy by virtue of section 20B(2) or (4), and(f) the landlord has served a notice within subsection (3) on the tenant before the demoted tenancy ceases to be an assured shorthold tenancy by virtue of section 20B(2) or (4).(2) The demoted tenancy does not cease to be an assured shorthold tenancy by virtue of section 20B(2) or (4), and at the time when it would otherwise cease to be an assured shorthold tenancy by virtue of section 20B(2) to (4)—
(a) it becomes an assured shorthold tenancy which is a fixed term tenancy for a term certain, and(b) section 20B ceases to apply to it.(3) The notice must—
(a) state that, on ceasing to be a demoted assured shorthold tenancy, the tenancy will become an assured shorthold tenancy which is a fixed term tenancy for a term certain of the length specified in the notice,(b) specify a period of at least two years as the length of the term of the tenancy, and(c) set out the other express terms of the tenancy.(4) Where an assured shorthold tenancy becomes a fixed term tenancy by virtue of subsection (2)—
(a) the length of its term is that specified in the notice under subsection (3), and(b) its other express terms are those set out in the notice.”(3) Before section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 insert—”
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, our reforms to the complaints system for social housing are designed to promote the resolution of complaints as far as possible at the most local level, and to encourage a system where ideally the ombudsman is brought in only where local resolution does not prove possible. At Report, amendments were tabled by several noble Lords that would have modified our proposals by introducing a so-called dual-track approach to the process for making complaints to the Housing Ombudsman. As I made clear to the House, the Government’s view is that this would fail to deliver a sufficiently localist approach.
The noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Tope, proposed that a compromise should be considered. They recognised the value of local complaint resolution but were concerned that having gone through the local route tenants must ultimately be able to secure redress where they receive a poor service.
In the light of these most helpful observations, I agreed to take this issue away to see what more could be done to ensure that our provisions were sufficiently flexible.
With Amendment 58, the Government are now proposing a way forward that retains the localist approach but, in specified circumstances, allows the tenant direct access to the ombudsman. We hope that this gives assurance to noble Lords that we have acted upon their concerns through allowing a degree of flexibility into our proposals that will be of further benefit to the tenant.
Under these proposals, tenants will retain the option to go directly to the Housing Ombudsman if eight weeks have elapsed since the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process, or if a local representative explicitly declines to refer the complaint to the ombudsman or agrees that the tenant may approach the ombudsman directly.
The eight-week exception would assist tenants in cases where, for example, the local representative simply did not respond to their complaint. We propose that the time period for this condition would begin at the end of the landlord’s complaints procedure, not when the tenant first approached a local representative. This is so that a clear audit trail exists should the case eventually go to the ombudsman. Starting the clock at this point will make the system straightforward and minimise burdens on tenants.
The second exception is designed to address the concern that a local representative could simply prevent a tenant securing redress by refusing to refer the complaint to the ombudsman, despite the fact that the tenant had attempted to resolve the complaint locally. In most cases, we would expect a local representative to deal with the case or to refer it to the ombudsman, but we recognise that there may be occasions, such as where there is a conflict of interest, where it would be preferable for tenants to have direct access to the ombudsman. For this reason, we wish to provide that a designated person may agree that a complainant can take their complaint to the ombudsman directly.
Amendment 60 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, would alter the first of our proposed exceptions by providing that tenants may access the ombudsman directly after six weeks have elapsed. I shall let her speak to her amendment before responding to it. In the mean time, I beg to move Amendment 57.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 60 and, in doing so, I welcome enormously the amendments tabled by the Minister on behalf of the Government. I warmly welcome what she has put forward concerning the preference for having things dealt with, if at all possible, locally and as soon as possible. If it does not do his future career a lot of harm, perhaps I may associate the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, with the thanks to the Government for moving on this. He cannot be in his place tonight but I am afraid that the two of us are at one in thanking the Government, which I think puts us both in very bad odour.
What the Government have done has been welcomed very widely. I know that the British and Irish Ombudsman Association has supported this final retention of a citizen’s right to direct access. Similarly, the National Housing Federation supports the line which enables MPs and councillors to be involved as the first route at the discretion of the complainant but allows the fallback position. Likewise, the Law Commission prefers a system where the complaints can go either through a local representative or to an ombudsman. I hope that the Government know that tenants are similarly very happy with the new amendments, under which they can either deal directly with their councillor or go to the ombudsman. The organisation Which? similarly prefers the choice of the local route but, if not, then the fallback position if for whatever reason the complainant does not want to involve their MP or councillor. As the Minister said, the reasons for that could well be a conflict of interest: the councillor may be the provider; the MP may already have heard the case in their surgery; or the MP may know the local council official involved. The only other reason that has been mentioned is that there could be a threat to the tenant’s privacy where there are issues that they would perhaps not want to share with an elected official. The only other point when somebody may want to go to the ombudsman, albeit after the delay, would be when an elected representative perhaps would be rarely accustomed to awarding redress and would not have the authority to enforce any award.
The way in which this has been tabled by the Government is to be greatly welcomed. It clarifies the current position of the Housing Ombudsman because the scheme requires complainants to have completed any internal complaints procedure with their own provider before going to the ombudsman. Only in very exceptional circumstances, such as oppression or something like unreasonable delay, would the Housing Ombudsman take a case before it had been through the provider’s in-house procedure. That is also helpful in the wording of the Government’s amendments. All the other organisations similarly take that line.
I am delighted that the wording allows local access or the fall back after eight weeks. It is only that that brings up my very small amendment. I have no difficulties with the idea of some delay after the internal procedure is over for the complainant to take stock and consider whether a complaint to the Housing Ombudsman is still justified, having heard the reasons for being turned down by the in-house procedure. Two months seems a little long, especially as the internal procedure that they would have already gone through could also have been a bit lengthy. My amendment would simply shave a fortnight off those eight weeks. The Government have moved a long way on this amendment and I hope they will go a little bit further. An extra 14 days would make this a particularly good final answer to the original amendment.
Lord Tope
My Lords, as the noble Baroness has just said, the Minister has moved a long way since we last debated this. We all accepted the strong desirability of resolving these matters locally whenever possible, but we realised during or even before that debate that it had an unintended consequence of giving the designated person the right of veto. I do not think that that was what the Government intended and I am pleased that they have recognised that, and that it has been removed. Once again, I thank the Minister for not only listening but for acting. At this late hour at this very late stage of the Bill I do not propose to debate further whether it should be six or eight weeks. I am just glad that we have got to where we have.
Lord Best
Once again the House of Lords consideration of this Bill has led to a really sensible change to the legislation. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Newton—I have supported these amendments all the way—on persuading the Minister who I know has handled this with great distinction. On behalf of all the organisations which have been extremely worried about this and all the people whose complaints will now be better handled, I thank the Minister very much.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for moving the amendments. They are a work in progress. I also thank my noble friend Lady Hayter for her amendment which would reduce the period before referral from eight to six weeks. I hope that the Government will accept my noble friend’s proposal.
I never really got to the bottom of why it was such an issue for the Government. Looking back to the debate on Report, it was not only Members from the Labour Benches who expressed such concerns but Members from all sides. I have always thought that the democratic filter would do nothing to improve the process of enabling tenants to resolve their complaints. The Government’s proposals allow a tenant with a complaint direct access to the ombudsman after going through a process or on the refusal of a designated person to send it on.
When the noble Baroness responds to the debate, will she say how the ombudsmen satisfy themselves that either of the two conditions for direct referral have been met? I hope that that will be something very simple, such as the copy of a letter or an e-mail confirming that the complainant has gone through the process and the period of time has elapsed, or the refusal of a designated person, as I do not want to see added burdens on the complainant.
At this point, I would like to add my thanks to the Minister, other noble Lords on all sides of the House and the Bill team as we draw to a close on this Bill. This is the first Bill on which I have contributed to your Lordships’ House’s discussions from the Dispatch Box. It has been an interesting learning curve for me. I hope, in particular, that I have been of assistance to my noble friends Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Beecham. I again thank the Minister for bringing these amendments back. They are very welcome.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we thought carefully about the time limit and believe that eight weeks strikes the right balance. It allows sufficient time for a complaint to reach the local representative and for the local representative to make representations to the landlord and achieve a successful resolution to the complaint without imposing an unnecessary or onerous delay on the tenant. It might help the House if I unpick this a little further.
First, as the clock starts at the end of the landlord’s process in our proposal, we would expect the tenant to require a little time to forward the complaint to the local representative, and we make allowance for this. Secondly, it is important to recognise that in most cases the local representative will want to review the case materials before going further and will possibly want to discuss them with the tenant. It is key to our aim of getting local representatives more involved in housing complaints that they are given the space and opportunity to do that. If, on the other hand, the local representative concludes that the complaint cannot be resolved locally, they do not need to wait for the eight weeks to elapse. They can at any stage refer the complaint to the ombudsman or agree to the tenant accessing the ombudsman directly. We believe that we should trust local representatives on the ground to make this judgment and to provide effective support and advocacy on behalf of tenants.
I was asked how the ombudsman would know that the tests had been satisfied before the matter was referred to him. I understand that this is a matter for the ombudsman, who plans to consult over the next year on a revised statutory scheme that will set out these matters. I hope that that will enable the noble Baroness not to move her amendment.
Baroness Hanham
“(1A) Sub-paragraph (1) is subject to paragraph 7AA (complaints that need not be made by way of referral).”
“Complaints that need not be made by way of referral by designated person7AA (1) Paragraph 7A(1) does not apply in relation to a complaint against a social landlord made to a housing ombudsman under an approved scheme if the ombudsman is satisfied that—
(a) the social landlord has procedures for considering complaints against the social landlord, (b) the matter that forms the subject of the complaint has been submitted to those procedures,(c) those procedures have been exhausted, and(d) the complaint has been made to the ombudsman after the end of the eight weeks beginning with the day on which those procedures were exhausted.(2) Paragraph 7A(1) does not apply in relation to a complaint against a social landlord made to a housing ombudsman under an approved scheme if—
(a) the ombudsman is satisfied that a designated person—(i) has refused to refer the complaint to a housing ombudsman under an approved scheme, or(ii) has agreed to the complaint being made otherwise than by way of a referral by a designated person, and(b) the refusal, or agreement, is in writing or the ombudsman is satisfied that it has been confirmed in writing.(3) Paragraph 7A(2) (meaning of “designated person”) applies also for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2).”
Earl Attlee
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 62 to 67. These amendments are in response to two amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, on Report: Amendments 96 and 103. I know that my noble friend Lord True also has an interest in these matters. Those amendments related to obligations on the mayor to publish his reasons for not accepting comments made at consultation where he proposes to bring forward a mayoral development corporation. I am happy to say that we have looked carefully at the case put forward by the noble Lords for amending the Bill and propose to introduce the following changes.
Amendment 61 requires the mayor to publish his reasons for not accepting comments made by an affected borough where those comments relate to the mayor’s proposals for a mayoral development area. Amendment 62 requires the mayor to publish his reasons for not accepting comments made by an affected borough where those comments relate to an MDC’s proposed planning functions.
Amendments 64 and 65 are minor and technical relating to Clause 203 and put right minor inaccuracies arising from changes to the Bill. Amendment 66 would require the mayor to publish his reasons for not accepting comments made by an affected borough, where those comments relate to an MDC’s proposals for non-domestic rate relief. Amendment 67 defines “affected local authority”.
Together these amendments would put an affected borough on the same footing as the London Assembly with the regard to the duty on the mayor to respond directly to any concerns it may raise. I trust they address my noble friend’s concerns. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, of course, I am very grateful indeed to my noble friends for having, at this late stage, agreed these amendments. I cannot do better than quote a note I received only this morning from London Councils. It states that this is a notable change in the Bill and one that borough councils will very much welcome in years to come. I would endorse that very warmly. I thank my noble friends.
Baroness Hanham
“In paragraph (c) “affected local authority” means a person specified by section 196(4)(d), (e), (f) or (g) in relation to the area.”
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
“In paragraph (c) “affected local authority” means a person specified by section 196(4)(d), (e), (f) or (g) in relation to the area.”
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
“(2) In paragraphs 6 and 7 “education functions” has the meaning given by section 579(1) of the Education Act 1996.”
Baroness Hanham
“(10A) In paragraph 11A for “7 to” substitute “8 and”.”
Baroness Hanham
“Audit Commission Act 1998 (c. 18)5A In section 49(1)(de) of the Audit Commission Act 1998 (disclosure of information by Commission or auditor etc for purposes of functions of ethical standards officer or Public Services Ombudsman for Wales) omit “an ethical standards officer or”.
Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29)5B In section 31 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (exemptions from subject information provisions for data processed in connection with certain regulatory functions)—
(a) in subsection (7) omit paragraph (b), and(b) in subsection (8)(b) omit “, or to an ethical standards officer,”.”
Earl Attlee
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I beg to move government Amendment 76 and speak to Amendments 77 to 83.
Your Lordships agreed to government amendments to provide that a council tax referendum could not be triggered solely due to expenditure that had been supported in a local referendum. However, the agreement reached at Report stage to remove local referendums from the Bill means that any link between council tax referendums and local referendums is no longer relevant. These amendments, therefore, remove the references to local referendums from Schedule 5. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, these amendments come in Schedule 5 which deals with referendums, including council tax referendums. I apologise at this late hour for raising an issue which has only just come to light in relation to council tax referendums; that is, a communication from the Electoral Commission— received extremely late in the day, it must be said—raising concerns about the procedures. I had a word with the noble Earl previously under the misapprehension that the noble Baroness would be replying to this amendment. I am not asking for a definitive answer tonight, because I do not know whether the noble Earl has actually seen the communication from the Electoral Commission. However, it was recommending that the proposed arrangements that any council tax referendums should commence from next year—Spring 2012—should not take place and that referendums should not be required to be held until 2013. There has been a principle, apparently accepted for several years now, that regulations including conduct rules should be clear no later than six months in advance of the date of the first poll to which they will apply. It is clearly of the view that that will not be possible in this case, as it has seen only a very small part of the draft secondary legislation which will be required for referendums. It has not seen details specifically for these referendums. There are a number of factors, including the fact that there might be multiple referendums held because of the variety of precepting authorities which would be potentially involved in the issue of such referendums as and when these might be held.
The Electoral Commission’s assessment is that,
“there is a high level of risk that any council tax referendums held in Spring 2012 may not be well run … There is not in our view enough time before then to adequately ensure”—
I notice it is splitting its infinitives—
“that regulations are well drafted and electoral administrators are properly prepared, and campaigners are ready to engage with others”.
Therefore, it is asking for,
“a clear commitment to not hold these referendums until Spring 2013”.
It makes the helpful suggestion that we might table amendments, but of course we are out of time to table amendments. It raises questions about how the Electoral Commission works and I know my noble friend Lord Kennedy has already raised questions about that. However, it makes an additional point that has been touched on in previous discussions on the funding of referendums and whether the rules about donations and campaign spending and so on ought to be brought into play to deal with these referendums.
It is very late. I am not expecting the Minister to give a definitive answer but I would be grateful if he could assure the House that these matters will be considered. Obviously, I expect the Government to take seriously the views of the Electoral Commission. In practice, I suspect that next year there will not be many councils that, given the general state of play, will be proposing council tax levels such as to trigger potential referendums. We cannot be certain, of course, but it is probably unlikely. There is little to be lost and indeed much to be gained, I venture to suggest, by looking closely into these matters and responding positively to the belated recommendations of the commission. An indication that the Government will at least think about that would be very welcome. Subject to that, we will certainly agree the amendments, which are simply a tidying-up process following the welcome decision to abandon local referendums at large.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, does not disappoint me. I have read the letter from the Electoral Commission carefully. All organisations would love to have the maximum possible time to implement changes, and I understand that these are complex changes. However, council tax payers expect to have protection against excessive council tax increases. That is what we are delivering through the Localism Bill. We have a duty to consult the Electoral Commission. We are fulfilling that duty to make sure that the right processes are in place. However, the Chancellor recently announced a council tax freeze in England for 2012-13. We expect most if not all authorities to take up the freeze, in which case there will be no need for referendums next year, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, graciously recognised.
The Government intend these provisions to become effective from 2012-13 onwards, subject to the Bill receiving Royal Assent in sufficient time. We will of course reflect on what the Electoral Commission has said as part of our ongoing engagement with it. Noble Lords should also remember that the Secretary of State will set the excessiveness level, which will have to be approved by another place, and if necessary a local authority can be put into a special category if it has any specific problems. With that, I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
“( ) that the draft order is made by the authority, or”
Lord Best
My Lords, I am very pleased to be moving and speaking to the very last amendments to this Bill, after our many months of discussing it. This gives me the chance to say to the Minister, to the Ministers who have supported her, and indeed to the government Ministers in another place, that this Bill has been enormously improved during its House of Lords stages. Indeed, the key role of this House in scrutinising legislation has been wonderfully illustrated by the progress of the Localism Bill.
I have been given a list of 10 major issues that were originally of considerable concern to the Local Government Association, for example, and on which that body, representing local authorities up and down the land, now feels reassured and to a very large degree satisfied with the legislation as it now appears. The same kind of list could have been devised by a number of external agencies, with the same satisfaction rating at the end of that. It has been a long slog, with meetings all through the Summer Recess, and Ministers have worked incredibly hard. The outcome is a Bill that has been transformed. Both thanks and congratulations are in order, very much including congratulations to the opposition Front Bench, and, if I may say so, to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, in particular, who handled this process with great care, courtesy and skill to very great effect, and to the efforts of external bodies that have made their representations to us so helpfully and so effectively.
Lord Tope
My Lords, perhaps I may take this opportunity to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Best, at the beginning of his moving the amendment and echo also the words of my noble friend Lord Greaves in thanking very much the Ministers and the Bill team for the very constructive way in which this Bill’s very lengthy process has been approached. As I understand it, we are now sending something like 100 pages of amendments back to the Commons. What is more notable is that all those amendments have been passed without the need for a vote; in other words, we have truly reached consensus. Of course, like all consensus, it has not achieved everything that each of us would have wished but, without any doubt, we are sending back a very much better Bill than the one we received back in June.
Tribute has also been paid to the opposition Front Bench. I do not know whether the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Beecham, had any further hopes for their future careers but, should anyone read the late-night proceedings in Hansard, we have probably now effectively ended their prospects. I pay tribute to them for the constructive way in which they have approached the Bill. It reflects a view with which all of us started; that we were here not to play games or to score points off each other—some of us have known each other quite long enough to know exactly how to score points if we were so minded—but for the genuine interests of better local government and local democracy, which I think we have achieved.
My final thanks are to the Liberal Democrat team on this Bench. Recently, my noble friend Lord Greaves in private referred to my role as being that of team manager. By being the team manager I have been very much more fortunate than much better known team managers in having, certainly, an all-star team but without the all-star egos and tantrums that go with it. I put on record my thanks to my colleagues for the very effective way in which we have approached this Bill, and to the Minister for listening to the good advice that my all-star team has offered and for being so willing so often to take that advice.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this is the last time I shall speak on the Bill. Perhaps I may start by expressing support for the noble Lord, Lord Best, and his inquiries. I hope that he will receive the confirmations that he sought, certainly on the basis of the helpful background note that we received from the Government today, which confirms that proceeding via development plan documents and local development orders would obviate the need for referendums.
I should like to offer my thanks to several people. Certainly, I thank the Bill Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and her team, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who has gone on to other things. I know what hard work it can be working on a Bill and what a tremendous amount of effort has been put in. It has been a listening team, which has boded well for the outcome of the Bill. I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the manager, and his team, who have had a tremendous input into the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, made the point that a substantial number of changes have been made to the Bill. I have not worked on a Bill that has changed quite so much during its passage through your Lordships’ House. That has been due to the power of the contributions around the Chamber. It has not been the Opposition particularly or any particular group. The Government have listened to the voices of experience and common sense. Certainly, the Cross-Benchers have played their full part and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Best, in particular. I think that we all look up to him on housing matters. I thank my team and I offer big thanks also to the Bill team. Particularly at this stage of the proceedings there are a lot of last-minute amendments in order to try to get everything in shape for the conclusion of the Bill. The team has worked very hard and has always been receptive to inquiries that we have made. This has been a really good exercise in scrutiny of what, frankly, was not a great piece of legislation when it arrived in this place. It goes back to the other place in much better form. I am not quite sure how it will find the time to deal with all the amendments but I wish it well.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, before we get lost in the fact that we are nearly there, I will answer the noble Lord, Lord Best, briefly, but I hope satisfactorily. I want to make it clear that local authorities can use existing planning mechanisms to take forward planning proposals that a neighbourhood forum or parish council has produced without needing to hold a referendum. The draft neighbourhood plan policies can be taken forward by the local authority as a development plan document which is subject to independent examination but not referendum. Similarly, the permissions in the neighbourhood development order can be taken forward as a local development order which is subject to neither independent examination nor referendum. So both development plan documents and local development orders are required to be subject to appropriate and effective consultation.
However, it is an underpinning principle of this Bill that a parish council or neighbourhood forum should always be able to ask the wider community to decide in a referendum whether a neighbourhood plan or order should come into force. Therefore, neighbourhood development plans and neighbourhood development orders, which are tools that the Localism Bill introduces for planning at a neighbourhood level, will always be subject to a referendum of the neighbourhood. The referendum gives everyone in the community the opportunity to have their say and demonstrate evidence of community support in a manner that cannot be demonstrated through a petition or consultation.
Local authorities that work effectively with their communities in planning at a neighbourhood level will be in a good position to decide whether to take emerging proposals through the development plan or local development order route, but it has to be right that if a local community wants it, it can use the power in the Bill to prepare a neighbourhood development plan or order and ensure that the wider community has the final say in a referendum. The removal of that right would undermine one of the core building blocks of neighbourhood planning as envisaged in the Localism Bill.
With those reassurances and clarifications, I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
“51A In section 148(1) (HCA may not, during a moratorium, give or enforce directions as to the use or repayment of financial assistance)—
(a) before “the HCA” insert “neither”,(b) after “the HCA” insert “, nor the Greater London Authority, may”,(c) in each of paragraphs (a) and (b) omit “may not”, and(d) for the “and” between those paragraphs substitute “or”.”
Baroness Hanham
“Local Education Authorities and Children’s Services Authorities (Integration of Functions) Order 2010 (S.I.2010/1158) | In paragraph 47(2) of Schedule 2, the word “7(1),”.” |
“In section 148(1), in each of paragraphs (a) and (b), the words “may not”.” |
“Equality Act 2010 (c.15) | In Schedule 19, the entry for the Office for Tenants and Social Landlords.” |
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, before we finally conclude at the end of all this time, I join very much with the remarks that have been made about the constructive way in which the Bill has been dealt with. It is absolutely remarkable that for all the months we have spent on the Bill it has resulted in seven votes on all the amendments and changes that have been put forward. It has been a great pleasure to lead the team on the Bill. I thank my noble friends Lord Attlee, Lord Taylor and Lord Shutt for the help and support they have given me on the Bill and for the extraordinary detailed and useful work that they have done. I particularly thank—sometimes with gritted teeth—my colleagues behind me, all of whom contributed significantly to the Bill. It would be fair to say that it has been an all-round-the-House contribution. I thank all noble Lords and hope that we will meet again at some stage.