Housing: Affordability and the Underoccupancy Charge

Debate between Lord True and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Thursday 31st October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords I will start by thanking my noble friend Lady Quin for leading on this first-class debate, the focus of which is the availability of affordable housing and the impact of what—the noble Lord, Lord True, notwithstanding—I shall continue to call the bedroom tax. I offer my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, on a very impressive maiden speech and I have no doubt that her expertise in local government will be put to good use in this House. I am sure that she is disappointed at having just missed the Local Audit and Accountability Bill, but I can promise her much more excitement in the future.

We should acknowledge, as have most noble Lords today, that we face the biggest housing crisis in a generation because of the long-term failure of successive Governments to build enough housing to meet a growing need. That issue will not go away. For many, the desire to own their own home has shifted from being difficult to being frankly impossible, with home ownership falling for the first time in a century. There are now nearly 9 million people in private rented accommodation—a largely unregulated sector—who spend on average 41% of their income on rent. There are 5 million people on the list for social housing and we know that there is an increase in homelessness and rough sleeping.

We can only begin to tackle this crisis if we build more homes of all tenures. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, said, this means a long-term effort. In the past three years the number of houses built has reached its lowest level in peacetime since the 1920s, but it is welcome news that new building is picking up, albeit from a low ebb. However, we are still starting to build less than half the number of homes we need to build each year. Can the Minister say whether the Government are still guided by the 2008 household projections, which imply an overall need for new homes—affordable or otherwise—of 230,000 each year until 2033? If not, what is the new projection and what level of annual new homes provision are the Government working to?

Given the demise of regional spatial strategies, the determination of housing needs is to be driven by a bottom-up approach. Can the Minister also say how current local plans underpin the Government’s affordable housing programme, and how many local authorities have in place a strategic housing market assessment and a strategic housing land availability assessment? How do these correspond to the overall numbers the Government propose for this and the next spending round?

As we have heard, the programme for affordable housing comprises some 170,000 new homes for the period to March 2015, although 70,000 of those were commissioned by the previous Government and 165,000 back-end loaded for the period to March 2018. We will have to see what gets delivered, but that is not a step change on what has gone before.

We have heard about the previous Government’s record. They were faced with significant competing priorities for housing investment. They had in particular to deal with the stock of social rented housing which had generally been starved of funding. Rotting windows, outside toilets and poor or non-existent insulation could not have been ignored. Had we done so, the consequences today, especially with soaring energy costs, would have been distressing indeed. In 1997 the Labour Government inherited a £19 billion backlog in repairs, but brought 1.5 million social homes up to a decent standard through the Decent Homes programme. Notwithstanding that, we still built 500,000 more affordable homes during our time in office and delivered 256,000 additional affordable homes in our last five years. Between 1997 and 2010, nearly 2 million more homes were built in England.

So far as this Government are concerned, we have seen the switch in the funding model—my noble friend Lord Whitty in particular referred to this—for the provision of affordable housing from capital to revenue with the halving of grant funding, and we heard about the initial negative impact of that on delivery. Can the Minister give us any information about the numbers and spread of properties now let at “affordable” or intermediate rents, and any figures for the estimated increase in housing benefit payable as a result of social rents being payable at this higher affordable rent level?

For us, Ed Miliband has set out the ambition of building 200,000 homes a year by the end of the next Parliament—which is just a start. He and Hilary Benn have asked Sir Michael Lyons, supported by a panel of experts, to lead a new housing commission to look at the policy solutions needed to deliver the step change required to close the gap between housing demand and current levels of delivery.

At present, we know that some areas want to grow to meet local housing need but do not have the land within their local authority boundary to do so. Neighbouring authorities too often block the building of badly needed homes, particularly affordable homes. That is why we propose that local authorities should have a new “right to grow”, with bids to the Planning Inspectorate leading to the requirement that neighbouring authorities are required to draw up a joint plan. We would also like to see local authorities given strengthened compulsory powers so they can buy and assemble land which is being hoarded and is holding back development. There should be powers to charge developers who sit on land with planning permission.

The last time we faced such a big need for housing, new towns and garden cities played a big part in meeting it. We need to build new institutions and incentives to help deliver this, and we look to local authorities to engage and take this forward. Given the need for more social housing, it is surely time to look again to local councils to play a larger role. Many would welcome this and some—mostly Labour—councils are already beginning to build on a scale not seen for a generation. Of course, that would involve looking at the financing arrangements for local authorities. There is much else to say on that but time does not permit me to go into it.

There must be a fair basis for supporting those who need help with housing obligations. At the very time when there is a switch to funding affordable housing by revenue support rather than capital, we see attempts to cut back housing benefit through the bedroom tax. Working-age renters of affordable housing are the direct targets of this draconian measure. Let me be clear: we consider this a cruel, misguided attempt at behavioural economics which has already caused great hardship and distress to the vulnerable and disabled. We have heard some individual stories today and there are doubtless many more. This measure is already putting people into debt and leaving them with impossible choices regarding how they spend meagre budgets. We know that it is distorting the allocation of properties, with larger properties lying empty and pressure on rents for single-bedroomed accommodation.

As usual, Ministers have sought to justify this policy by setting one group against another—underoccupiers against those who live in overcrowded accommodation and those in the private rented sector against those in social housing. Then we get the small pot of extra discretionary money, which is supposed to cover all the problems that might arise but, of course, never does—the “loaves and fishes” money in the terms of my noble friend Lady Lister.

Noble Lords will be aware that the Government expect to save some £450 million, gross of DHP, in the first year of this programme, but this is on the assumption that tenants caught by the provisions will generally sit tight and take the hit—a cynical approach to policy-making, as my noble friend Lady Hollis touched on. However, the Centre for Housing Policy, referred to by my noble friend Lady Quin, has worked with four significant housing providers, looking at the early data to test some of the DWP assumptions on savings, and has concluded that the suggested savings are likely to be substantially lower than the impact assessment suggests. In particular, it suggests there has been an underestimate of the proportion of those underoccupying by one bedroom who will move, and of the proportion of those who move who will go to the private sector. It suggests that for some who move to housing associations at so-called affordable rents the housing benefit bill will rise, and some vacated homes will be taken up by new households claiming housing benefit for the first time.

This early study suggests that savings might be between 26% and 39% less than originally predicted—a very substantial difference. This is before taking account of the additional challenges the policy presents to providers. RSLs will doubtless invest to support their tenants and will also carry an increased burden of tenant debt which they have to manage; and this at the same time that universal credit is coming down the track, albeit slowly.

We are absolutely clear that we will abolish the bedroom tax and have given detail of how we would fund that commitment. That includes taking away some tax breaks from hedge funds and the nonsense of selling employment rights for shares. If, in doing so, we are joined by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and other Liberal Democrats, we would very much welcome that. However, the challenge in the mean time, before we get to do this, is for providers, support services and families to help those affected through the misery it is creating.

[Lord True]

Before the noble Lord sits down, I thank him for clarifying that point and am grateful for the clear answer that he gave, but does that logic follow through into LHA, and was it a mistake in 2007 to address underoccupancy in the private sector?

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I think there is great confusion in that regard, although I am not sure that there is confusion in the noble Lord’s mind. However, confusion has been spread about trying to equate those two tenures. They are completely different so the argument does not follow through to the LHA arrangements.

Local Audit and Accountability Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord True and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord True]

My Lords, I need not speak at length on this because I made a relatively lengthy intervention at Second Reading setting out the reasons for my concern about the need to be assured of proper public accountability for the actions of NHS bodies. I think that public accountability is important, and there is material in the Bill about what should be done with reports, but it is essential that a body cannot just receive a report and sit on it.

Reference has been made to a case in which a primary care trust lost £28 million. At Second Reading, I described to noble Lords what happened. A supervisory body called in an auditor but the audit report was not ultimately published. Instead, a commentary was published with various recommendations—some good and some bad—but it was written on the basis that, as no one had really lost any money, we could all proceed and other bodies would make up the money. It was entirely unsatisfactory.

Since speaking at Second Reading, I have been contacted by the leader of another local authority, who thought that I was rather mild in what I said and felt that I should probably have named some names in connection with this affair. I have reflected on that. I think that my decision not to do that at Second Reading was right, and I maintain that position. Since Second Reading, I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to meet with my noble friend Lady Hanham and with officials from the Department of Health. My noble friend had very kindly drawn the attention of her colleagues in the Department of Health to this issue.

We have a fast-evolving world in health and local government, and these worlds are now encouraged to overlap. Indeed, my own authority, along with another local authority, is currently negotiating with clinical commissioning groups and, we hope, a foundation trust to set up an integrated commissioning organisation. That is the way in which the Government wish everyone to go within eight years. Alongside that, other elements of the health service will continue.

I believe that we now have the very odd situation where there is one strand of law which is semi-engaged in this legislation and which derives from the National Health Service Act 2006, as amended in 2012, and a whole strand of local authority-related legislation concerning audit and accountability. As the two empires come together, so should those two worlds come together. In my judgment, they need not necessarily be identical, but the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, made a fair point when he said that the clinical commissioning group is being treated very differently in this Act from the way in which local authorities are treated. I do not make a case for identity but I do for accountability.

Local authorities have a public responsibility to ensure that what is done in their area is done for the good of their local populations, and that it is done effectively and openly, as we would expect it to be done ourselves. I made the point at Second Reading that there were various issues relating not only to audit but to scrutiny and its important role. I would like to think that while it may not be possible to achieve it in the short term, as I understand it from my discussions so far with my noble friend, in the time that this Bill is before Parliament—perhaps even when it is in the other place—it might be possible to think with a little more foresight about how we are going to adjust to this world and ensure full accountability. It is simply not acceptable that a body existing in an area and other parts of the health service, as happened in the case that I reported to noble Lords at Second Reading, should simply refuse to respond to questions from a public authority about the use of resources, certainly considering the scale involved.

We have to find a method somehow, whether or not it is through guidance—and there is existing guidance—although I would perhaps prefer it to be stronger than that. This Bill should provide us with opportunities, as local accountability is not just about local authorities and neither is this legislation. I am encouraged by what my noble friend has said so far. We may be able to find some improved structures, which may be simplified in some respects, as other noble Lords have said in Committee. They should be structures which ensure proper behaviour in the first place, effective independent audit and effective and open accountability. All those strands need to be addressed. If an internal audit document is published with a commentary and then scrutiny is refused, it is not a satisfactory outcome where there is evidence of large-scale ineptitude. That is a kind way of putting it regarding the use of £28 million of public resources. I am sure that there are other examples.

I am not going to repeat all the circumstances of the case but I urge the Committee to see those great public entities of local government and the National Health Service as two great elements of the state, providing vital services to our country and overlapping in many ways. We should therefore find the opportunity to construct an architecture that meets those three strands: effective and proper governance; effective and ultimately independent audit, although internal audit is vital in all those things and I do not denigrate it; and the strand of openness and, ultimately, scrutiny. This is really a probing amendment although my noble friend encouraged me to think that were this to be laid, she might perhaps be able to give some encouragement to me and to the Committee that the Government would be prepared to look at these matters in the months ahead. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I would simply urge the Minister to give some encouragement to the noble Lord, Lord True, who has raised a very important point, as he did at earlier stages in our deliberations. I hope that the Minister can help him at least a bit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, Clause 16 concerns the resignation and removal of the local auditor, and the amendment refers in particular to circumstances relating to the removal of a local auditor, although on reflection it could refer equally well to circumstances in which a local auditor resigns.

The purpose is to ensure that the procedure specifically encompasses the right of a local auditor to make representations to the auditor panel or supervisory body, or the audit committee, if that is what is in place, and that might encompass a right to make representation to members. The removal or resignation of an auditor is a serious business. Under the Companies Act 2006, an extensive process is set down where somebody is removed or resigns. These include, in the first case, the right to make representations to members when removed and a statement of circumstances when resigning. It is these Companies Act processes which the Government are seeking to import into the Bill, and we support that.

Under the current regime, there is no need for regulation on the removal or resignation of local public auditors because it is the Audit Commission that appoints and removes them. However, a change in auditor could be straightforward—arising, say, from a new potential conflict of interest—or it might be indicative of a fundamental difference of view as to the accounts, where an auditor feels that they can no longer carry out the audit effectively because of concerns over the governance of the body or a fundamental breakdown in the relationship. Ensuring that there is a right for auditors to make their case at an appropriate level is therefore very important.

The Bill includes, at Clause 16, regulation-making powers which cover a range of issues. Doubtless, the Minister will say that they are broad enough to cover the thrust of this amendment. So be it, but perhaps we can hear from the Minister what the plans are in respect of resignation and removal to cover circumstances where the appointment has been made by the local body, jointly with another body, or in transition by the Audit Commission. I beg to move.

[Lord True]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes an extremely important point which in certain circumstances could touch on issues of public accountability, although referred to on another matter. It may well be that he could be satisfied in that Clause 16(3)(d), at the top of page 12, allows a regulation-making power in relation to,

“the role of the relevant authority’s auditor panel or … supervisory body”.

On this issue of a right of audience, or a right to make representations, my noble friend might well be able in discussion to consider including the point which the noble Lord has raised. It is a significant one and he is right to refer to Companies Act procedures. Perhaps it could be clarified whether it is potentially encompassed in that area, which might help some of us on the Committee.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord True and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, this amendment is entirely consistent with Amendment 13, which I trust I will be able to support after it has been spoken to by its mover. Amendment 5 seeks to ensure that, when an application is made to the Secretary of State under the provisions of the Bill, there must, nevertheless, be adequate consultation with the local community. One of the fears arising from Clause 1 is that it facilitates the bypassing of local planning authorities and, along the way, local communities. It is a rerun of a Committee amendment because we considered that the matter was not fully resolved at that stage.

The Minister at that time asserted the intention that all current statutory requirements on local authorities would be transferred to the Planning Inspectorate, including requirements around publicity and consultation. Perhaps the noble Baroness will remind us this afternoon of the process and timing for this. Notwithstanding that, the concern lingers about the presumption that applications dealt with by PINS will largely involve engagement by means of written representations, with possibly a short hearing to allow key parties to put their views, and that this would not necessarily be typical of major applications to a local planning authority. In moving the amendment, I seek reassurance from the Minister on that point.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I have an amendment in this group, which the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has effectively summarised in the points made. I do not pretend that the specific wording or format is necessarily correct, but none the less the broad principle enshrined in it, and in what the noble Lord has just said, is important. As this process goes forward there will inevitably be fears that a Government—not this one necessarily—may in time use this process to ensure that it is made easier to secure agreement to major developments against the wishes of the local population. It might be feared that that could be done either by having a process that is conducted through written procedures or by a rather cursory appearance from an inspector for a hearing in the local area. In this process, a great deal also goes on in the pre-planning stage. Good developers are these days very active and are often encouraged by local authorities to meet local populations to discuss and undertake consultation, perhaps in relation to what might be the specific local community benefits that come from the development. All those things are best conducted locally, in the place and community where the development will take place and which will be affected by it.

As I said, I do not intend to try to write law that is prescriptive. My noble friend gave some general reassurances earlier, but in both the pre-planning stage and the period in which a planning application is under consideration, it is absolutely essential that the Government leave no suspicion in the minds of the public about their rights, about which they feel ever stronger. Those of us who have the honour to represent people in local authorities know that the people’s wish to have their voice heard is greater, not less, as time goes by. I hope that we can hear a very strong reaffirmation from my noble friend that if not the specifics of my amendment, certainly the spirit of it will be written into whatever provision the Government might follow up with as they refine secondary legislation, codes of practice and so on, once the legislation becomes law.

The public must not believe, or have any justification to believe, that there is something herein that makes it easier for development to take place in the teeth of what local people believe to be in their interests. That is not nimbyism; there is a balance in these matters. Giving people a chance to have their day in court and to have their voice heard is extremely important in the principle of securing consent to planning developments, which all of us in this House know that this country will need in the decades ahead.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) Regulations 2012

Debate between Lord True and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for the introduction of the regulations. The Minister will be aware that these were not hotly contested in the other place and that they will not be by us on these Benches. They have our support and we are not seeking to give the Minister any trouble—not very much trouble, anyway. The approximate 15% increase is said to reflect inflation since the last uprating in 2008. Can the Minister let us know what measure of inflation has been used for this purpose?

My colleague in another place asked a question relating to the removal of permitted development rights under Article 4 directions relating to HMOs and whether fees would be applied to planning applications relating to HMOs. Has the department yet had the chance to produce an answer on that? We note the reluctance of Government to go down the path of decentralisation of fee setting, although I think the door is not completely closed on that matter.

The question of resources is a matter of importance and it seemed to be tacitly accepted that the increase in fees would not bridge the current deficit. There are always difficult questions in this area. I remember talking to planning officers in Luton about what goes into the cost base when one is looking at costs and fees. There was some shenanigans around central administration charges and all that. The Minister in the other place was rather broad-brush in suggesting that the new homes bonus could deliver lots of money to help support a range of things, including planning. Clearly, for some it may, but for others it will not, particularly if it is constructed on net rather than gross additions to stock. There will not be a bonanza for already tightly developed areas where new build comes, in large measure, from demolition of old. Surely it must be important for central government that local authorities have access to quality planning capacity, if local authorities are to be leading the charge for growth.

Will the Minister say more about what assessment the department has made of the capacity of planning departments up and down the country in the current environment? Will he say when it is proposed to look at fees again and whether there is merit in having more regular changes, rather than larger step increases? It seems to me to be fairer to those who are developing along the way, but I reiterate that we have no problem with these regulations and are happy to support them.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for what she said and for the change that has been made. I declare an interest as leader of a planning authority. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has just said—that it would be desirable, in principle, if changes could be made more regularly, rather than in a stepped arrangement. I think I heard my noble friend say, and I find in the papers, that she recognises the need to go back and examine, at some point, the case for decentralisation. I very much welcome that. In the nature of things the balance of planning applications, the nature of business between one authority and another, will be different. Some will have very large numbers of large construction projects, others will rely mainly on householder projects; but given that the principle that the Government sets down, that it should be possible to recover costs, is accepted, I hope that, over time, we can also move towards decentralisation. I am sure that local authorities would welcome that and work with it.

I note that it is said that there is a need for restraint; that councils should not respond to current reductions in central government grant funding simply by increasing fees to raise lost grant revenue. That is a nice obeisance to Treasury doctrine, but of course the principle is that within the planning framework, planning costs should be met by planning fees, plus whatever grant is available. I hope that that principle is accepted. We are obviously not allowed to charge a commercial rate for part of a function, whereas everybody else who is involved in a planning process is. That is by their nature, whether it is the lawyers indulging in some judicial review or the builders charging a commercial rate, so councils in time should be allowed to do so. With that rider, I welcome the commitment to look again at decentralisation. I thank very much my noble friend for her announcement and give it my warm support.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lord True and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Well, my Lords, it seems that clarifying remaining uncertainties could keep us going for a month of Sundays, given what is outstanding on the Bill and the tardiness with which some of its provisions have been made available.

The noble Baroness talked about the 8.5% maximum that would be required for people to access the scheme. She referred to it meeting the cost. What we do not know is the extent to which it will cover the costs for councils which move from the existing scheme on which they have consulted to the new arrangements. We do not yet even know how it is to be allocated and apportioned. We may know that later in the week; we may not.

The noble Baroness said that it is easy to fulfil the criteria of the new scheme. It may be easy to identify what those criteria are, but how you move from where you are on the scheme on which you have consulted to that position is a completely different matter. There will be a whole variety of arrangements on which people have consulted. I doubt whether the Government have done any analysis on how practical or easy it will be or how costly it will be for people to move from where they are to where the Government want them to be. In any event, even if that were accomplished, that does not deal with the issue of what will happen in year two. I do not see the connection between knowing that this is available in year one and having a better idea of how councils can smooth it in for subsequent years if the plug is to be pulled on the transitional funding.

The noble Lord, Lord True, went on about the deficit and of course the deficit has to be addressed. Our point is: why does this have to be a component of it? Does every line in the government accounts have to cough up some sort of proportion? Why this one? Surely it is right that the Government have to evaluate the consequences of each cut that they are trying to make—and not only each cut. What the Government have singularly failed to do is to look at the cumulative effect of cuts on people. My noble friend Lady Hollis made the point about housing benefit and council tax benefits. We know that those two things often go together and that some people will get dramatic reductions in housing benefit because of underoccupancy provisions: an average of £14 a week. My noble friend Lord Smith referred to the importance of £3 a week for people in some of the poorer areas for which he has responsibility. How are those judgments made? The reality is that they are not, which is why we are justified in bringing forward an amendment on this basis.

The noble Lord, Lord Tope, said that this really was not something for the Bill but if we want to constrain the Government and cause them not to create the upset that they are going to cause by this legislation, what other mechanism do we have? He referred to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, which we will come on to in due course. We believe that this amendment is a better way of dealing with the situation. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, may disagree but, at the end of the day, the root problem that we are trying to deal with here is the so-called localising of council tax benefit and the massive cut that goes with that process. So long as the colleagues of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, support that approach, they cannot challenge us on where we end up on these issues.

When we heard from my noble friend Lord Smith, your Lordships heard then the voice of somebody who has to deal with these issues on a day-to-day basis and in challenging circumstances. It is not only about the council tax costs that people are suffering and the increases that this will bring but about housing benefit, about what is happening on food prices and about inflation generally. As my noble friend put it, there is also the growth of payday loans and worse forms of lending. That is the authentic voice of someone who is dealing with the chaos that these measures are creating. As he put it, there are no more cuts that can be made in the system and the Government should recognise their responsibility for that. My noble friend Lady Hollis spoke with her usual passion and the great analytical approach that she has to things. Again, that is the authentic voice of someone who is dealing with housing on the ground and knows local government through and through.

We do not have a meeting of minds on this. We see this as a very important issue—

[Lord True]

Before the noble Lord sits down, will he answer the central point that I put to him? I accept all his strictures about wishing to reduce spending on welfare. However, the effect of his amendment on every council in this country, including my own, is to have responsibility for this decision transferred from where it has been decided—in the other place and in the Cabinet room in Downing Street—to cabinet rooms and town halls up and down the country. If this were passed, I might well say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, “Right, you pay for it, mate”. I do not think that your Lordships’ House should give the power to local authorities to take those decisions away from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is that not the effect of this amendment? Will the noble Lord answer that point?

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lord True and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Wednesday 10th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I think that I can be brief because this follows on from the debate that we have just had. Amendment 16 seeks to enshrine in primary legislation that the local share must never be less than 50% of the business rates aggregate. Therefore, it is entirely consistent with Amendment 13, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, spoke a moment ago.

In Grand Committee on 3 July, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, declared in response to an extensive debate about central and local shares that,

“it would be imprudent to presume that there might never be a time when we might need to increase the central share”.—[Official Report, 3/7/12; col. GC 327.]

The import of that was, I think, to increase it beyond 50%. We have just had a good debate about how the business rates should be shared and about the strong desire, which we support, for the local share to be higher than 50%. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that my reticence about the formulation was not necessarily due to the mechanistic approach; it was a question of whether you can just change the central and local shares without having to address all the other ramifications and components of the system. That arises in respect of another amendment in the name of the noble Lord. I would not assert that that is the case but there is an issue there that needs to be resolved.

Of course, the difficulty in setting an increasing share, by a ratchet mechanism or otherwise, is that the shares cannot be seen in isolation. They have to be considered together with all the other components of the business rate retention scheme—the tariffs and top-ups, the levy and safety net. There is also the important question of how the central share is to be deployed. The system has to seek to promote an incentive for growth as well as ensure that local authorities have adequate resources to carry out their functions. However, it clearly also, from the government perspective, provides a mechanism to control local government expenditure, and we have seen the latest devices for taking yet further resources from local government.

The Government are controlling expenditure next year at a level above the local share by using all the projected central share—and more—in revenue support grant. However, all the indications for the future are that the revenue support grant will reduce or disappear, so the Government cannot use that mechanism to control expenditure. Their reach in this respect cannot go beyond the central share. Therefore, the prospect of increasing the central share and reducing the local share implies particularly draconian expenditure controls on local government, perhaps even if there were dramatic growth in the business rates over the period.

Therefore, the amendment does not mandate increasing local shares, although there is a strong argument for that, which we would support; it simply prevents the local share reducing beyond what the Government see as a fair starting point, and we believe that that ought to be locked into the legislation. I beg to move.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend intends to support this but I think that if she did it would be very odd. We have just heard from her a clear statement of the direction of travel in which the Government wish to go. She sees 50% as the minimum and we are going further. Given the state of the economy that we have inherited and still have—and there has been agreement across the House on many things during the course of the Bill—limiting, in effect, the discretion of any Government in the future in this way in respect of local government finance would probably not be, if I may borrow the word, a prudent step. Therefore, if the party opposite presses this amendment, I certainly hope that my noble friends will not be gulled into that Division Lobby.

Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012

Debate between Lord True and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Monday 23rd July 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord True]

My Lords, my noble friend anticipates one of the things that I was going to ask in relation to non-parished areas. I was not intending to intervene. I endorse what was said by my noble friend Lord Gardiner and other colleagues. I welcome the efforts that my noble friend Lady Hanham has made to reduce some of the worst threats, as some of us perceived them in the debates on the Localism Bill. The stripping down of the proposal to the essentials, at least in terms of those assets to which it might apply, is very welcome. None the less, declaring an interest as leader of a local authority, in some circumstances, local authorities could find themselves as piggy in the middle in operating this process with a community group on one side and the landowner on the other. We simply do not know how onerous these duties are going to be. Some local authorities find it hard to determine planning applications in eight weeks. There are figures of eight weeks and six weeks in here.

We are adjured to make further major savings in local government spending—we are debating this on the Local Government Finance Bill—to which I have no objection, but as we go forward I hope my noble friend will give a firm assurance that she will be careful of the burdens that are imposed on local authorities in administering the system because the paradox we are living with is that in the planning system we have had a massive simplification, in theory, of the planning system nationwide but on the other hand we are creating extraordinarily complex structures, such as some of those coming out of the Localism Act. In these quite complex regulations, we are having regulations to decomplicate them and take some of the other things out. This world will take a little time to settle down. I think we will all try to make it work. Localism is important, and we do want to protect assets of local importance, but I hope that my noble friend will resist the blandishments of the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, to tighten up even further the requirements on local authorities to respond.

One has to live with the art of the possible. Local authorities will, within the resources available, try to make this work, but in some circumstances, all the appeals systems, the registers and all the things that have to be done will take time and it may even require the recruiting of new local authority staff in some areas where this thing takes off. With that rider, I associate myself with the remarks of other noble Lords and thank my noble friend for the time and attention she has given to avoiding some of the potential abuses of the system as originally designed.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very full explanation of these regulations. They relate to legislation that we support, as my noble friend Lady Thornton said, and we wish them to work effectively. A policy to assist local community groups and to preserve buildings or land of importance to their communities and social well-being is clearly important. It is of course not a right to buy, nor is there any obligation on the owner to sell.

As my noble friend and other noble Lords have said, this is a very complex piece of primary legislation, as are the regulations before us. It is to be hoped that that complexity will not deter engagement. There will inevitably be complexity around issues relating to land law and charity law. To a certain extent that is unavoidable, but I hope that some simplified guidance will come out. The noble Lord, Lord True, said it is quite difficult to gauge how onerous the duties on local authorities will be in practice.

A number of noble Lords posed a series of specific questions, and I await the Minister’s answers with some interest. In fact, I wanted to ask some questions myself. The first relates to the right to nominate. The regulations and the Explanatory Memorandum state that a neighbourhood forum is included among those who can nominate. Does that right extend to a neighbourhood forum that is designated as a business area?

Paragraph 7.14 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to the powers relating to the fact that non-community nominations have not been used. Perhaps the Minister can remind us of what the intent of including such a possibility in the legislation was and why it is not being taken up.

I should also like to understand a little better the exemptions for disposals by one body corporate to another. Specifically, is a disposal of the shareholding of a group company into which an asset has been transferred a relevant disposal for the purpose of these provisions? Clearly if that was not the case, there is a gaping hole in the legislation.

A number of noble Lords touched upon compensation issues. It is clear that the claim for compensation is rightly limited to delay wholly caused by delay under the Act, but if there are joint causes for the delay, assuming that one can apportion the effect of those joint causes, is the part attributable to the delay caused by the Act still capable of compensation; or would the fact that there is another contributory factor, even if the value of it can be stripped out, deny that compensation?

I want also to make sure that I understood what happens as regards the difference between a freeholder and a leaseholder. As I understand it, if there is a freeholder and a leaseholder, the ownership of a lease that was originally granted for 25 years would be deemed to be that of the leaseholder, because one would look to have one owner for the purposes of the operation of these provisions. If that is right, what would be the position on the grant of a new 25-year lease at the point of expiry of the original lease? Would that be a disposal? How does that work under these provisions?

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee recites the one-off and ongoing costs, and other noble Lords have referred to that. We have an assurance that those costs are going to be met by DCLG, at least during the course of this spending review. I do not know whether that means that it definitely will not under the new spending review or whether we simply have to wait and see what that review entails. I will be interested in the Minister’s answer on that point.

This is something that we want to see work and we are supportive of the Government in seeking that, but there are a number of technical issues here on which we need to be satisfied that we are not opening up easy routes out of the application of this legislation that the wise, or at least the well advised, will take every opportunity to use.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lord True and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord True]

My Lords, the noble Earl has raised a number of issues and I know that my noble friend will respond. That will be important because as business rates take the burden over the coming years these issues will become matters of considerable controversy and potentially democratic controversy. Knowing the noble Earl’s expertise and the courtesy of my noble friend, I am sure that these matters will be discussed further over this summer. I hope that in her response she will not necessarily rule out the idea of at least exploring these proposals. It may be that the Government have the necessary powers that the noble Earl is referring to in Amendment 96 to make adjustments in the system. But if that is not the case, it is a matter that we ought to consider further because this area will bear further examination. Indeed, I referred to an incident in my borough, which demonstrated the problems that can arise.

I am not going to tempt the noble Earl to his feet immediately, but perhaps when he replies to the Minister’s response he will say how he envisages in Amendment 70ZC this concept of a decline in market value being a reason, rather than a proximate event, to occasion appeals and change. I am not absolutely certain as to how he envisages that would be triggered. Would it be triggered by each individual land holder? You could have whole series of appeals in the light of a general trend in market decline. The noble Earl nods, so I think that that is the case. If that doctrine is to be imported into law, for some of the reasons that the noble Earl set out, some mechanism might be needed for collective action in those circumstances, otherwise it could be another reason for a proliferation of appeals that might come out of the works.

I listened with great interest to what the noble Earl said and I hope that we can be assured we will have the flexibility to address some of these issues as they arise over the next few years.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, the noble Earl has treated us to a veritable manifesto of issues. Like the noble Lord, Lord True, I am grateful to have had the benefit of his expertise on these matters. Perhaps I may also say in the noble Earl’s defence, if he needs it, that I am advised that the 20-minute rule does not apply to legislation—quite apart from the fact that the noble Earl could have degrouped all his amendments.

It also seems that some of the issues raised would impact on local business rate deals. In line with the discussion we have just had and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, we would expect there to be some consultation on that. I hope that noble Lords will understand if we formally reserve our Front-Bench position on some of these issues, at least until we have heard from the Minister. The list prompted a visit to the Valuation Office Agency website to try and get some briefing. It is worth reflecting that the group of amendments brings home the breadth of responsibilities of the Valuation Office Agency and underlines the importance of the points made in earlier debates by the noble Earl about the significance of maintaining this important service. Its work includes not only the compilation of rateable values for some 1.7 million non-domestic properties in England and 100,000 in Wales, and the list of council tax bands for some 23 million properties in England and 1.5 million in Wales, but determining local housing allowances across 153 broad market rental areas in England. That is a heck of a responsibility and a major task.

The theme of much of the noble Earl’s group of amendments is the fitness for purpose of the current system, with particular issues around appeals. If the noble Baroness is unable to give satisfaction on that this afternoon, it would lend itself to an amendment on Report, saying that there should be, within a period of time—maybe two or three years—a specific report on how the system is coping with the business rate retention scheme. Given where we are, that is probably the best that we can do with the generality of those issues. Have the Government recently assessed the fitness for purpose of the Valuation Office Agency and the system that it supports in driving forward the business rate retention scheme?

Having said that, perhaps I might comment on one or two specific amendments. Amendment 62 requests the paying off in instalments of backdated liabilities. I seem to recollect that we had some heated debates about the backdated liabilities suffered by some ports. They were paid off in instalments. There was a facility to allow that, so I wonder why there is not sufficient in the system to protect that at the moment.

As the noble Earl identified, there are issues not only for rural petrol filling stations but for shops and rural pubs. I am particularly interested in who bears the cost of these reliefs under the current system. How will that break down under the business rate retention scheme? Will there be a switch in the bearing of costs for that? Will 50% now be borne by local government and 50% by central government? What is the change on that?

On Amendment 64, the noble Earl talked about no reallocation of funding coming the way of parish and neighbourhood councils. My understanding is that there is certainly an expectation that the grant for council tax support will be paid to billing authorities and major precepting authorities. The bit attributable to local precepting authorities goes to billing authorities and there is an expectation that they should engage with parish and town councils with the prospect of payment being made. Therefore, to that extent at least, there will be some relief.

In Amendment 65, the noble Earl refers to completion of a single annual return. We are not opposed to this principle, although if the system is creaking at the moment, I am not sure of the benefit of imposing another annual return—even a simple one—if there is no resource to deal with it. There is nothing worse than having a system of returns that simply cannot be coped with; the system is brought into disrepute.

Perhaps the Minister will tell us how central rating lists will work under the business rate retention scheme. The central bit of these rating liabilities deals with hereditaments such as railways, telecoms infrastructure, toll motorways and so on, which straddle multiple billing authorities. These liabilities are collected by the Secretary of State. How is the local share fed back to appropriate billing authorities, if at all?

Amendment 68 seeks to reflect the role of billing authorities in the appeal system, given the changed circumstances that arise where billing authorities have a more direct interest in the outcome of rates collection. That does not seem unreasonable. I shall be particularly interested in the response of the noble Baroness on that. I will not comment further on the specific amendments, but there is a case emerging for having a specific look at the whole system—not to hold things up, but so that we can make a judgment in a relatively short space of time as to whether it is fit for purpose for the new demands that are being imposed upon it.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord True and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Monday 31st October 2011 Lords Chamber

[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.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord True and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

My Lords, I support the spirit of my noble friend’s amendments, particularly Amendments 150 and 167, although I slightly fell out of love with Amendment 167 when I read the last few words, which refer to,

“any guidance issued by the Secretary of State as to the definition of ‘community views’”.

That might be determined more locally. Otherwise, the light-touch approach was much to be welcomed. I also strongly agree with my noble friend’s point about traffic controls, parking and so on. In my contention, ultimately, we should move towards a position where high street shops and shop owners have a decisive role in deciding how those matters should be policed locally.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I should like to comment briefly on parishes. I can see the strength of the argument that for the purposes of these provisions we have a parish, which deals with issues around governance, probity and the democratic component. I have not thought through, which I guess we need to balance, the consequences of having parishes within an urban or a rural area where you have area committees, a district council or a unitary authority, how those sit together and the consequences of all that. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, from his experience will be able to hold forth extensively on that issue. I do not encourage him to do so on this occasion. We need to look at issues around parishes in the round and not just in relation to these provisions, but I see the benefits of parishes for the application of these provisions.

As I understood it, the thrust of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, were about not just having formal arrangements to input community views and the wishes of a community but that they must be collected in a variety of different ways, which must be right. I hesitate a little around issues where there are written expressions of community interests. Those must be included and taken up, and one should always be conscious that people communicate and express their views in different ways. Some are very forthright and able at doing it in written form and others are not always in that position. Therefore, we need to take account of that. But the idea that there should be a variety of informal and semi-formal ways for the views of communities to be brought to bear on neighbourhoods is absolutely right and one that we would support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

My Lords, I have three amendments in this group. On Amendment 153ZC, which relates to the weight given to emerging documents, I think that that has been discussed and I will not pursue it at this point. I have been reassured that emerging documents are given weight. Amendment 153ZD is relevant to the short debate we have just had about design, which strikes me as being a rather pleasant and agreeable way of spending an afternoon in the Moses Room when the Education Bill is not being discussed there. I do not want to detain the Committee on that, but I am absolutely certain that what my noble friend Lord Hodgson, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and others have said must be right because if this Bill is about localism the vernacular should matter. Local people like their vernacular and they like building that is in keeping, whatever the design is, if that design is good. Local authorities as well as national housebuilders have failed in that respect over the years. I do not mind a little cajoling to them in the Bill, but we have to be careful because design, as I think Lewis Carroll said, is probably “what I say it is”. There is a problem there.

Amendment 153ZD is related to that because it is about how the examiner deals with neighbourhood planning orders. A case in our authority involved the Government intervening on our existing core strategy to say that it must include high-rise building. Notwithstanding that there was cross-party agreement against it and that hundreds of people protested against it, a planning inspector imposed an extension of the ugliest building in our borough on the basis that the existing core strategy provided for such buildings. The local authority, with the strong support of local people, is trying to revise its plans. It takes a long time to revise a local development framework and my right honourable friend Secretary of State has said that he hopes to accelerate it.

There will be circumstances in neighbourhood planning where local communities say, for example, “We do not want any more high-rise”. However, if an examiner looks, as that examiner did, at the previous building and says, “Your existing plan says let’s have some high-rise”, then unless we include a provision such as my Amendment 153ZD to allow a local authority to assent to an order that is not in compliance, we may find that neighbourhood planning is defeated. Perhaps I am being oversuspicious, but there might be circumstances where the will of the local community is clear and the examiner should be able to give weight to that informal opinion.

I will deal with Amendment 153ZE very briefly. It refers to the situation in London and the definition of localism. I am simply saying that if an emerging policy is not necessarily in compliance with the higher-authority policy and there is tension between the policies of the mayor and the borough as regards its neighbourhood plans, then the examiner should, in circumstances where those matters are being considered, give greater weight to the more local of the two emerging policies. I do not expect an answer from my noble friend on that or the other amendment to which I referred, but both are significant.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

This has been an interesting group of amendments. I certainly support the amendments of my noble friend Lord Whitty which seek to strengthen the relationship of NDOs with national policies and the strategic policies of the local development framework.

The noble Lord, Lord True, focused on emerging policies, when the local development framework is not in place or is being revised. I certainly see the thrust of his point. How one tests those emerging policies and encapsulates them, when they are in the process of being consulted on, is an issue. However, I take his point.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked what happens if there is no local development plan in place. Does that preclude a neighbourhood development plan? My understanding is that it does not, and thereby hangs a potential problem. If the only level of guidance available for the neighbourhood development plan is the NPPF, assuming that we see it at some stage, it is inevitably going to be written in relatively high-level terms. That is its purpose. It proclaims the benefits of tearing up a thousand pieces of paper and condensing them into 40 or 50 pages. We shall have to see how many there are in due course. Therefore, the leeway that that gives a neighbourhood development plan is an interesting point. If we were able to embed in the Bill issues around sustainable development and its definitions, it might help.

I support the thrust of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, about design issues. My understanding is that design is not just about individual buildings and their quality but about the landscape, the environment, the relationships between buildings and how the whole urban fabric works. Although there may be different views on the aesthetics of any particular building, and views may change over time, we all know and can spot situations where design has not properly been taken into account, and you get grotty buildings that the planners and architects often have no intention of living in themselves. The thrust of the argument on good design is absolutely right.

The issue is particularly pertinent because the funding for CABE has, I understand, been withdrawn and only a minority of people from that organisation are transferring to the merged body with the Design Council. Therefore, the opportunity of keeping focused on design is especially important.

The concept of trying to ensure that the neighbourhood development plan must have regard to or relate to the development plan must be right, and the concepts of sustainable development should be embodied in the neighbourhood development plan. That is why it would be good to get those provisions enshrined in the Bill in primary legislation. I hope that those comments from our Front Bench have indicated the level of support that we would give.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord True and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Thursday 14th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we all share the desire for the Bill to make as speedy a passage through your Lordships’ House as possible. It is not up to us or indeed to the Ministers who support the Bill to arrange these things but for the usual channels. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in raising the issue talked about being able to reschedule Tuesday and other days in the week. The noble Lord perhaps ought to be mindful that some of us, not just one of us, have commitments under the Welfare Reform Bill as well, which has its Second Reading. We understand that that is a very important Bill for the Government.

I am very clear that we need to do the job properly in scrutinising this Bill. In so far as it might be alleged that there has been delay, it cannot be laid at our door. I do not believe that the noble Lord did that. We still have a lot to get through: most of the planning stuff, some very important housing stuff and issues around London. Frankly, even if we sat right through the night on Wednesday, I do not see that we would conclude by having one more day, particularly as we must have the Third Reading of the Bill that we just sat through. I do not think it is practical.

I really am opposed to sitting through the night when we are discussing a Bill that has a lot of intricacies in it; a lot of it is complex and technical, and we need to deal with it when we have minds that are still relatively fresh. I do not personally see that it would be a great disaster if we picked this up and concluded it when we are back in September. The key thing is that we should have the time to scrutinise the Bill properly and have the time and opportunity to do it when we are at least not all falling asleep on the Benches.

[Lord True]

I have taken some part in this Bill and, on the basis of having spent 13 rather misspent years in the usual channels, I heard what my noble friend Lord Lucas and others have said about potentially sitting on another day. As other noble Lords have said, I would be very willing to do that to make progress on the Bill. I did not hear the noble Lord opposite express similar willingness.

One thing that I looked up, which might be helpful to these discussions, is what has happened in previous years. This is in fact the earliest date on which the House would rise in July since and including 1996, apart from 2003. If one looks at three separate years after the party opposite formed a Government, in 1998 we were asked to sit until 31 July and noble Lords on this side co-operated; in 2002 we were asked to sit until 30 July and noble Lords on this side co-operated; and in 2006 we were asked to sit until 25 July and noble Lords on this side co-operated. I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask noble Lords opposite to show the same willingness as noble Lords on this side have to allow the usual channels some flexibility in considering not only sitting late but perhaps allowing an extra day to complete this important Bill.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord True and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, this is a probing amendment, prompted by the National Housing Federation. It specifically focuses on an authority that has not adopted its local plan document and provides that this cannot constitute a reason for refusing planning permission. In a sense, this picks up just part of the federation’s proposition, which sets this in the context of a statutory definition of sustainable development and the presumption in favour of sustainable development. We have already discussed definitions of sustainable development and whether they should be enshrined in primary legislation, and we touched on the Government’s draft presumption in favour of sustainable development. We will doubtless return to these points on Report.

In the mean time, we have the demise of regional spatial strategies, no agreement—as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said last week—to preserve for at least a limited period related policies that are not directly incorporated into LDPs, and no draft official NPPF. Perhaps the Minister could spell out for us how things will work when local planning authorities have not yet adopted a local development plan. It must be right that the absence of a plan cannot automatically be used to deny an application for planning permission. However, is the Minister’s position that, where a local plan is not yet complete, it is necessary to look just at the NPPF, given that the Government have heralded this as a framework that sets out government priorities only to the extent that it is relevant, proportionate and necessary to do so? Do they not envisage distinctive local and indeed neighbourhood issues that are clearly outwith the NPPF?

Clearly the answer to all this is for local authorities to get on and approve their LDPs. However, we should acknowledge that they are faced with challenges on resources—challenges faced generally by local authorities—that are not made easier by the requirement to support neighbourhood planning and not helped by the hiatus caused by the actions of the Secretary of State when coming into office. Nevertheless, I stress that this is a probing amendment, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to this issue.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I am conscious of the need to make haste and I am perhaps making too much. There are a lot of “nots” in this amendment. Obviously where local development frameworks are in place, local authorities are consistently working on development plan documents. In any clarification that may be being made, we would not want to arrive at a situation in which an emerging policy of an authority, which is traditionally given some weight by planning committees and often by the inspector, is disallowed because the final plan has not yet been formally adopted after the hearing by the inspector. I do not expect my noble friend to respond in detail on that point, but it is an extremely important point because emerging DPDs are very often the reflection of the latest thinking of local people and a response to localist pressure.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord True and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I think that we should thank my noble friend Lord Wills for giving us the opportunity to debate this issue. He had a distinguished ministerial career and responsibility for this area, which very much showed in his contribution today.

We are living in an era of transparency, which has already been very much the byword of many of our debates on this Bill. We are also living in an era in which there will be increasing partnership working, outsourcing and joint working, very much along the lines on which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, focused when he talked about scrutiny functions in our debate on a previous group of amendments. The focus of FOI in the current era is therefore entirely appropriate.

My noble friend’s Amendment 52A very much chimes with the group of amendments that we have just discussed in its presumption that meetings should be held in public. On Amendments 133A and 133B, he acknowledged—and the noble Lord, Lord True, touched on this—that we need to focus on the practical ramifications of driving freedom of information through a contractor, a subcontractor and then perhaps a sub-subcontractor chain. I am thinking particularly of the construction industry and how diverse and complex some of its contractual arrangements are.

In a sense, my noble friend offered the route to a solution when he said that there should be some sort of de minimis or cut-off point in the application of this. His focus, as he acknowledged, was partly on the business left over from when he was a Minister, but he also dealt with some practical examples, such as Swindon, and cited the Islington Council situation, which is not theoretical but actual.

The noble Lord, Lord True, said on the one hand that he was an enthusiast for freedom of information, but on the other urged his noble friend to be sceptical about it. I am not sure that those two concepts sit very comfortably together.

[Lord True]

Forgive me, my Lords, but openness and statutory freedom of information are not the same thing. They overlap, but in some respects openness can go further than statutory freedom of information.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I do not disagree, but I thought that the noble Lord said that he was also an enthusiast for freedom of information. Maybe I misunderstand him and he is not, but if he is I do not think that that sits with his urging his noble friend to be sceptical.

As I said, my noble friend has given us an opportunity to have an interesting debate on an important subject. In particular, he has done us a service by focusing on particular issues relating to the Housing Ombudsman, and I am keen to hear the Minister’s response specifically to those. His request is not for the Minister to give a detailed response to his quite extensive and detailed amendment but for her to say whether the Government agree with the principle behind it. That is a very important ask, particularly, as he pointed out, because the coalition agreement has a commitment to freedom of information and to extending its scope. This area is worthy of further analysis and I hope that the Minister can give us some comfort on that matter.