Housing and Planning Bill
Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord True. It is an excellent idea. I hope the Minister will come back, as the noble Lord suggested, with some suggestions for what could be done in the next few months with local authorities.
When I go to Lewisham Town Hall, I get off at Catford Bridge station and walk past a scruffy bit of land clearly owned by the railway that you could easily get six or seven houses on. It just sits there and irritates me every day. The railways have bits of land near them. On a number of sites in Lewisham you could build some houses. We are in the midst of a housing crisis and there is no good reason that this land just sits there. I hope the Minister will respond favourably to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord True.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
Well, my Lords, that was very brief. I, too, will try to be very brief. Before addressing the amendments in this group, I want quickly to update your Lordships on discussions I have had since Committee. In Committee I promised to write to my noble friend Lord Carrington of Fulham to clarify the position of the Corporation of London, given its unique hybrid nature. I take this opportunity to reassure the corporation that our intention is to apply regulations under this part of the Act to the corporation in its capacity as a local authority only, and that the drafting of the Bill allows for this.
Turning to the amendments in this group, I will start with Amendment 129 in the name of my noble friend Lady Williams. Clause 185 provides a power for the Secretary of State, in circumstances to be specified in regulations, to direct a relevant public authority to take steps for the disposal of the body’s freehold or leasehold interest in any land. At present, the regulations setting out these circumstances will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. Amendment 129 amends Clause 185 to require the affirmative procedure to be used instead, as recommended by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
I thank my noble friend Lord True—he is indeed a friend—for his arguments and concerns regarding Amendment 129YE. I entirely agree with him and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that surplus land held by public bodies should be brought forward for development without delay, and that local authorities, which are indeed expert on local planning matters, should be able to make their voice heard. That is why we are introducing the duty on Ministers to engage with them under Clause 183.
I assure your Lordships that the Government are equally committed to making sure that more public land is brought forward for development and that surplus land is released for development, including for housing, without delay. I think we all share the impatience for this to happen, and Clauses 184 and 185 will help to deliver it. Clause 184 will ensure that relevant public bodies report any land which has been held as surplus for two years or more—six months for residential land—and the reasons why.
It pains me to say that my noble friend’s amendment could risk undermining this—he himself said it was defective—by giving a local authority the ultimate power, if it does not accept the reasons put forward by the landholding body why the land should not be developed at this time, to force development to proceed. I fully accept that most local authorities would not use this power for mischief making, but the potential would exist. More pertinently, there would be cases in which a fine balance of judgments would need to be made regarding a public authority’s total land asset requirements, at a national level, now and in the future. Given their local focus, however well meaning they may be—and they are well meaning—local authorities are not that well placed to make these judgments. Getting them wrong would undermine carefully planned land disposal strategies across the wider public sector.
The Government’s view is that this power should sit with the Secretary of State, who is best placed to take a balanced judgement on a given public body’s need for the land, taking account of their broader functions, future plans and assets. However, there should be no doubt about our commitment to ensuring that unused public land is put to good use.
My noble friend Lord True has also tabled Amendment 129A—
Lord Bridges of Headley
Amendment 129A, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has added his name, would remove Clause 186 from the Bill. This clause mirrors Section 86 of the Climate Change Act 2008, which requires the Minister for the Cabinet Office to publish an annual State of the Estate report setting out progress in improving the efficiency of the civil estate.
Local authorities are already subject to a number of efficiency and sustainability requirements, such as producing energy efficiency certificates for their buildings. The new duty draws on these and requires authorities to publish reports to enable local people to hold them to account for the use of their assets. I reassure noble Lords that any additional costs to local authorities will be met by central government. DCLG is currently undertaking a new burdens assessment of Clauses 183 to 187 to determine which of the provisions create new burdens, and their extent.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 129ZA, proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, which would remove Clause 185 from the Bill. The power to order disposals was brought into effect through the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. The power underpins the community right to reclaim land, which enables people to hold public authorities to account for their use of land. Under this right, communities can drive improvements in their local area by asking the Secretary of State to direct that underused or unused land owned by public bodies is brought back into beneficial use.
Since 1 April 2011, when the National Planning Casework Unit was tasked with considering requests under the right, we have received 106 requests. Only one of these resulted in the power being exercised, over a piece of land of 0.26 hectares in Tiddington, near Stratford-upon-Avon—no doubt a blessed plot. A great deal of effort has been expended by those making requests, and by the casework unit in considering them, for very little gain. This is why the Government wish to strengthen the existing legislation—to enable people to challenge their local authorities to release land, even where it is used, if it could be put to better use. Far from being centralising, Clause 185 gives more power to local communities.
The 1980 Act already provides important safeguards which will continue to apply to the new provisions. Public bodies must be notified of the Secretary of State’s proposal to exercise the power and are given 42 days in which to make representations. If a representation is made, the Secretary of State may not give a direction unless he is satisfied that the disposal can be made without serious detriment to the performance of the body’s functions.
All this shows that we are determined to ensure that public land is used as efficiently as possible, and that where it can be made surplus and put to better use, especially in building more homes, this happens as quickly as possible. These clauses are essential to that agenda, and I hope that noble Lords will be fully reassured by the explanations I have given.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I was a little disappointed by his response to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord True. The bits of land I am talking about are not big or strategic. No one wants to use them. They have sat there for years. There are now trees growing there. That is of no benefit whatsoever. The Minister suggests that this power should be held by the Secretary of State and that local councils would be mischievous. This is about us building three or four houses and getting a bit of scruffy land cleaned up, sorted out and into use. I cannot see why that would be better in the hands of the Secretary of State than the local council.
Lord Bridges of Headley
I understand the point the noble Lord is making, but when we are talking about public authorities’ land that may stretch the entire breadth of the country, the Government believe that it is in our interest to ensure that the Secretary of State takes that decision.
Lord Shipley
Before the Minister sits down, I point out that the Government are very critical of builders who hoard land, but are they critical of Whitehall departments that also hoard land? Is there a list, a register, of all the pieces of land the Minister is talking about? If power is to reside with the Secretary of State, the following question must be: how does the Secretary of State know what needs to be done? Is it not better to accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord True, which gives the responsibility to initiate the procedure to the local authority?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I am sorry to say that I disagree with the noble Lord on his final point. We are indeed looking at the land that the Government hold at national level very carefully indeed. As the noble Lord will have seen, Table 1.12 in the Autumn Statement catalogues what each department is being expected to provide in land for housing and land surplus to requirements, which we will be looking to dispose of.
Lord True
My Lords, obviously, I am slightly disappointed by my noble friend’s reply. I am gratified he recognises the problem and thinks that local authorities might be useful, but he thinks that it is too risky to allow them to do anything. That is the disappointing part of his reply. I want to take the spirit of my noble friend’s answer, rather than the letter. I like to think that further thought will be given to this problem, because it will remain and I will not cease to put the case for local authorities to be able to take the initiative.
I had intended to speak to my other amendment in its place but, as my noble friend has already spoken to it, it will perhaps be for the convenience of the House if I respond now, and then we can move on. My reason for criticising Clause 186 is that, as my noble friend acknowledged, it is potentially a major new burden on local authorities. He did not address that; he said that money would be provided. I question whether it is necessary for money to be provided. One of the achievements of the Government after 2010 was to sweep away the nonsense of a process called asset management strategies and asset management plans, where every local authority was required regularly to submit to the Government what they were doing with their land. This is simply officials in Whitehall reviving that process under another name. It was one of Gordon Brown’s most disliked operations, and local authorities were very glad to see it go.
It is absurd to expect the Cabinet Office to monitor all the bodies in Schedule 22 to check whether authorities are reducing the size of their estate. Ministers in the Cabinet Office are going to check, every time that a local authority changes building, that it is in the top quartile of energy performance. This will be an interference with local authorities’ ability to use their land efficiently. We must explain. Let us say that we wanted to take leasehold space in a building to use our estate more profitably, but it was less energy-efficient. My officers have to file a report with the Cabinet Office explaining why we have taken three rooms in a block of flats to put some officers there briefly.
I will not press the amendment, because I read in the commencement clause that it does not come into force on the day on which the Bill comes into force. For that reason, I will withdraw the amendment, but I urge my noble friend to think about the bureaucracy being recreated here. Section 7 is in any case defective because a building can be part of an authority’s estate where two authorities are working together. An authority may well have a building in a partner authority’s area and may have an interest. Say if Richmond were partnered with Wandsworth and using a building in Wandsworth, according to the amendment as drafted by the Government, that building would not be classed as part of Richmond’s estate. That is absurd, and officials need to look again at the drafting of this legislation.
I am disappointed by seeing this bureaucracy returning, albeit under the guise of climate change, but I hope that before this comes into force my noble friend will give more consideration to it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Trade Union Bill
Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking those who have helped us reach a modicum of consensus—I should probably stress the word modicum, as I do not want to tempt fate—in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, with whom I have had several conversations, along with her colleagues on the Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham.
A number of legitimate concerns have been expressed about how far reaching these provisions relating to this clause will be and how they might be implemented. The Government have listened to these concerns and, to address them, have acted in a variety of ways.
First, we produced a clear list of bodies that will be in scope. We used the Freedom of Information Act as a starting point for this and, as I committed to do on Report, we have now shared this list with the House as part of the draft regulations. However, I clarify again that the scope of facility time transparency will mean that it applies only to organisations with 50 or more employees and at least one trade union official. Those bodies that do not meet these criteria may exclude themselves from the facility time transparency measures.
Secondly, there was equally legitimate concern about the need to ensure that we are clear which organisations may be in scope. In particular, several noble Lords were concerned about the provisions applying to organisations only partly funded by public funds. The Government agree that that is a legitimate concern and, with that in mind, I now put forward an amendment that would ensure that only those public sector bodies mainly funded by public funds could come within the scope of regulations made under Clause 13(9). I know that that change was important to a number of your Lordships.
Thirdly, we have also brought forward Amendments 5 and 7, which will ensure that any exercise of the power in Clause 13(9) will be by way of the affirmative resolution procedure. This should provide the assurance that a number of your Lordships sought—namely, that inclusion in regulations of bodies that are not public authorities but are performing functions of a public nature will come about only once both Houses of Parliament have expressly so agreed by affirmative resolution.
Let me now address a specific concern raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, regarding the scope of this clause and Clause 14, and the possible impact on charities. As I have said before, none of us wishes those clauses to apply to what I would call a typical charity—for example, Oxfam and charities of the type that fall outside what I would loosely refer to as the core public sector—or a relatively small charity performing laudable work in the community, such as tackling homelessness or addiction. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, highlighted, some of those charities might—might—receive most of their revenue in one year from the public purse. The Government agree that we need to give them the comfort that, were that ever to be the case, they would not and could not come within the scope of these provisions. I therefore committed on Report to continuing to work with officials and the noble Baroness to devise an approach to alleviate and address those concerns.
I now confirm that the Government are committed to ensuring that regulations made under the extension powers in Clauses 13 and 14 capture only those charities that could be captured by the Freedom of Information Act and its Scottish equivalent and are also mainly funded by public funds. In future, if a charity met both of those criteria, Parliament would properly scrutinise whether the scope of the regulations should be extended to them, and this would be done via affirmative resolution. Therefore, because I know just how important this issue is to noble Lords, I will ensure that we will not use the powers to capture a charity that the Freedom of Information Act and Scottish equivalent could not also capture.
I believe that we have given due consideration to your Lordships’ concerns regarding the scope of the clause. We have reflected on many of these matters, the Government have made amendments to discharge noble Lords’ misgivings, and we hope that your Lordships will support the amendments.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the amendments, each of which we are pleased to support. In doing so, I recognise the movement that the Government have made—particularly from “partly” to “mainly”.
We should, however—the Minister is right to smile—read the amendments on the scope of facility time and check-off restrictions in the Bill in the context of the helpful, albeit slightly belated, letter that I received from him late on Friday, which I imagine is also in the Library, and which outlines which organisations will be caught by the provisions. In the light of that 15-page draft, a skeleton regulation which would give effect to the mandatory reporting on facility time and the restriction of an employer’s freedom to operate check-off, I fear that I have seven questions for the Minister.
First, have the 255 bodies listed in the draft regulations, which are about to find themselves caught by them, been consulted? Secondly, why is the Legal Services Board on the list? It does not get government money, being funded by a levy on lawyers, and should therefore be excluded, alongside the Gambling Commission, by virtue of the third of the Government’s exclusions, as set out at the top of the second page of the Minister’s letter of Friday 22 April. When this House accepted the Legal Services Act 2007, it felt it important that the Legal Services Board should be independent of government for international as well as domestic reasons. Its inclusion in a list of bodies, restricting its managerial freedom, could be of concern.
Thirdly, the list refers to the proprietor of an academy under the 2010 Act. Given that the Government are now threatening that all schools should become academies, despite the resistance of many Conservative MPs, to say nothing of that of head teachers, governors and parents, particularly of primary schools, will the Minister clarify whether, should that White Paper find its way into the Queen’s Speech, any forced new academies would be covered by this provision?
Fourthly, with regard to charities—and I thank the Minister for our discussions on this and for what he said today—would housing associations be covered under his definition? The Minister made what appears to be a useful statement today and in his letter: it is not the Government’s intention to include organisations which the general public would consider to be charities—such as Oxfam or others doing valuable charitable work funded by the public purse—within the scope of the Bill. However, the letter also states that the “starting point for scope on public bodies captured remains those public authorities in the Freedom of Information Act”.
Given the reports last year that Matt Hancock, the Cabinet Officer Minister, was considering extending freedom of information into the charitable sector, will the Minister confirm that the Government have dropped that idea or at the least confirm that even if it were to be resurrected, the Government would still exclude charities of the sort he described from these facility time and check-off provisions? The Minister has kindly had discussions with us about charities, but there remain problems within the sector and concern about the definition. Will he therefore look again, as we asked before, and give some comfort by using words to define the exclusion, such as: “charities, regardless of their funding arrangements, which are independent organisations that have satisfied the public benefit test and are regulated by the Charity Commission.”? This would not cover the exempt charities, such as universities, which are regulated by another body. That would give comfort, should freedom of information be extended in a way that has not been covered by what the Minister said today.
Fifthly the breadth of the scope on facility time, in particular the inclusion of public broadcasters, including the BBC, and arts bodies, such as the British Museum and the Tate, continues to concern us. What is the justification for intervening in such beacons of independent and artistic freedom? The Minister no doubt saw the amazing tribute to Shakespeare from Stratford on Saturday night. It must have involved lots of discussions of safety, overtime, copyright and performance rights. Is he content these would all need documenting before the show could go on?
Sixthly, with regard to the detail that employers will have to document on facility time, we remain concerned about both the onerous—indeed, “burdensome” is the word—amount of red tape and the bureaucracy involved, as well as about how much information employers will have to demand of union reps about how they spend their time, often encroaching on to confidential or contentious matters. For example, the draft skeleton regulations require employers to provide a breakdown of the proportion of facility time spent on different union duties. They list them: health and safety, redundancies, TUPE, collective bargaining, training, and representation in grievances and disciplinary hearings. This means union reps having to disclose that to employers, but those amounts of time will vary on a weekly basis, and in many workplaces it will be difficult for employers to decide what counts as time spent on collective bargaining as opposed to time spent on redundancy, on TUPE or on training, because these activities often take place at the same time, including when a lay official meets with a full-time union official or the employer to discuss a basket of issues.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, I want briefly to contribute on this set of amendments to welcome, on behalf of my colleagues, the way in which the Minister has responded to our request last week to ensure that we saw the draft regulations. In particular, he has addressed the issue of the affirmative and negative procedures, and I am delighted to see in Amendment 7 that he has opted for the affirmative procedure.
However, I have a similar concern to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on the issue of the cross-reference to the freedom of information legislation. As she and I are well aware, it is, we suppose, currently still under review. We therefore need to know whether the list of those organisations that are included in that legislation is as now or as it might be in the future. Would it not be a sensible compromise—perhaps the Minister could give us this assurance—that the cross-reference should be to those organisations that are included at the time of Royal Assent to this Bill and therefore relevant to this section of this Bill, in terms of facility time and indeed of check-off? It would be rather peculiar if, as it were, the Minister anchored himself into something that was on the move, and we therefore found ourselves in a period of less transparency, less credibility and less definition rather than, as I think was his intention, greater clarity.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, for those very acute contributions. I apologise to them for not getting the letter to them sooner. However, I am grateful for the welcome that it has received. The noble Baroness, with her customary acuteness and accuracy, has shot seven Exocets across my bow on this. I shall attempt to answer them, and if I fail to do so then obviously I shall write to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord and put the letter in the House Library.
Have the 255 bodies been consulted? We will be discussing these with all these bodies as we proceed towards implementation. As regards specific bodies, the noble Baroness has clearly picked on a few here. I shall write to her as regards the Legal Services Board. We have been working very hard to try to make sure that the list is as accurate as possible—I stress that this is a draft—but I quite understand your Lordships when they say that that is not altogether satisfactory, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing my attention to the Legal Services Board. As regards academies and housing associations, those bodies will be covered if they meet the provisions as set out. I shall write with complete accuracy to the noble Baroness on those two points—but, as regards academies, my understanding is that they would be covered if they met the provisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and the noble Baroness referred to the FOIA, and whether or not we might be looking at these issues. I stress that the FOIA was based as a starting point. Clearly, there is the double lock of not just being on the FOIA but being mainly funded. I shall look again at the words—I make no commitment about this, I am sorry to say—but I am unable to do so right now. The noble Baroness made some suggestions about wordings and the noble Lord made some suggestions about where we might be in future. I shall write to them both about those specific points, but I cannot make any commitments to change right now. However, I repeat that those are good points.
As regards the burdens, I heed what the noble Baroness has to say. As we saw in the previous exchange, when my noble friend discussed the previous amendment, this Government wish to ensure that we do not unnecessarily add to burdens. I stress that the information required for publication is a narrow and reasonable range, similar to that which, for example, English local authorities publish as part of the Local Government Transparency Code and which the Department for Education recommended that all schools publish in its 2014 guidance.
I shall end on that point. I commit to write to the noble Baroness.
“(1) A relevant public sector employer may make deductions from its workers’ wages in respect of trade union subscriptions only if—(a) those workers have the option to pay their trade union subscriptions by other means, and(b) arrangements have been made for the union to make reasonable payments to the employer in respect of the making of the deductions.(1A) Payments are “reasonable” for the purposes of subsection (1) if the employer is satisfied that the total amount of the payments is substantially equivalent to the total cost to public funds of making the deductions.”
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, following our positive discussions in your Lordships’ House on Report, I am amending Clause 14 as I promised, to reflect an arrangement whereby check-off continues within the public sector on the crucial proviso that there is no burden on the taxpayer.
There was one concern, which concerned the Certification Officer’s role. While I appreciate the sentiment of my noble friend Lord Balfe and others, the Government believe that it is not the role, and should not be the role, of the trade union regulator to assess the reasonableness of the cost to employers and unions of check-off. However, it is important that these costs are indeed reasonable. So we have set out on the face of the Bill that employers must satisfy themselves that the total amount of the payment is only substantially equivalent to the total cost to the taxpayer of making these deductions.
I stress that the amendments regarding those organisations within the scope of this Bill apply equally to Clause 14 as they do to the facility-time transparency clause. This means that, were the scope to be extended in future, it could apply to bodies which are not public authorities only if they are mainly funded by public funds. To be absolutely clear, it is not the intention of this Government ever to include charities if they could not also be captured by the Freedom of Information Act.
I assure your Lordships that we will, of course, give adequate timeframes for new charging arrangements to be set up. It is our intention to provide a 12-month period prior to commencement for such arrangements to be properly established. I appreciate the co-operation of the noble Baroness and others and I beg to move.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome this clause. It represents common sense and shows that the Minister has listened to the representations that have been received.
I do not intend to speak again during this debate but I will pick up on a point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, who mentioned twice that he had been to an USDAW conference. I am sure that he had a very good welcome there. I was a member of USDAW for a few years, when I worked for the Co-op. I will place on the record that the understanding of the trade union movement would be much enhanced in the political comity of Great Britain if the unions extended invitations to their conferences beyond just one political party. One of the difficulties, which has been seen in the Bill and is seen in other places, is that although 30%-plus of trade unionists vote Conservative and a good number vote for the Liberal Democrats and the nationalist parties, the trade unions persistently seek to relate to only one political party. It would be for the good of the trade union movement and that of the noble Lords sitting opposite if the union movement could be persuaded to look a little beyond its comfort zone and to engage with all legislators. That could possibly avoid many of the misunderstandings that have occurred in the past. Having said that, I welcome the clause; it is a very good step forward and I thank the Minister for his introduction of it.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I start by echoing the thanks to my noble friend Lord Balfe for his contribution to the Bill. I should have included his name at the start. I, too, love paying a visit to the seaside: Blackpool, Bournemouth and Brighton—I do not think we should forget the other “B”s. His point about extending plans across the political divide when it comes to trade union conferences was very well made.
I turn to the points that have been raised and begin with the very good point that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made about enforcement. All public sector employers are expected to comply with the law and will have monitoring arrangements in place to ensure that such compliance happens. Failure to comply with a statutory duty is of course judicially reviewable, but personally I do not expect any responsible public sector employer to let non-compliance get that far before the matter is addressed.
I turn now to the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, has made. Again, I apologise for not getting her the regulations sooner; I accept that that is not ideal. The noble Baroness made a very good point about consultation. This is why we need a year before the commencement of this, and we will of course wish to talk to bodies that are affected by it to make sure that it is run and introduced as smoothly as possible.
With regard to the point about scope and why smaller organisations are not excluded, the underlying principle is that there should be no burden on the taxpayer. As such, this clause applies to all those we consider public authorities for the purposes of the Bill. We accept that for small organisations the costs may be correspondingly smaller. However, they are still costs. If an organisation determines that the costs are truly negligible, we will have to trust those on the front line—that we need to trust those on the front line is a point that has been made by a number of your Lordships in the past—to make a sensible decision. They may decide to move a few members over time to direct debit, for example. However, and I stress this point, the organisations in scope are, in the main, subject to the FoIA, and must be prepared to respond to any FoI requests with regards to their check-off arrangements. I again stress that the bottom line is that we need to trust those on the front line.
Will we commit to a further impact assessment? Yes, we will. With that in mind, I beg to move.
Trade Union Bill
Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, if the House will give me leave, I wish to clarify the Government’s position on the first policy—check-off—that the House will consider this afternoon. I have been a Member of your Lordships’ House for a little under a year. One of the many lessons I have learned is that when Ministers stand at this Dispatch Box and face cannons to the right of them, cannons to the left of them, cannons in front of them—and maybe even behind them—it is usually best to pause and to ask the reason why. Uncomfortable though this may be, it is nothing like as uncomfortable as charging on.
I have met, as has my noble friend, a number of your Lordships to discuss the clause on check-off, and I think it only fair to say that many of your Lordships do not support the Government’s contention that the measure we are debating will modernise the relationship between a trade union member and his or her trade union. I fear that my trying to convince your Lordships of our case this afternoon may simply add grist to the mill of those who see this measure as a means of undermining the trade unions themselves. That is certainly not—and never has been—the Government’s intention. Trade unions play a crucial role in companies, organisations and communities across the country. Furthermore, arguments have been made with considerable vim and vigour that by ending check-off and moving to direct debit those on low pay—especially those who have payday loans—might have to cease being trade union members, or have to pay extra bank charges. Again, that is not our intention, and never has been.
To show that the Government mean this and to avoid further acrimony on this issue, the Government will support the principles behind the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. Amendment 21 would allow check-off to remain where there is an agreement with the employer to provide check-off. It sets out how the administration of this will be paid for and allows that employees can pay by another means should they wish. This amendment ticks three boxes: cost, which will be borne by the unions, not taxpayers; consistency across all sectors; and control, as individuals would be able to choose how to pay their union. However, the Government have one misgiving. We genuinely understand the noble Lord’s wish to ensure that only the specific costs required to administer check-off are charged to the trade union. I want to ensure that we would not expect to see undue costs applied at financial detriment to the trade union.
However, the Government do not feel it appropriate for this role to be undertaken by the Certification Officer—we will debate that role in due course—and we have therefore accepted the principle of allowing check-off to continue where the union meets the costs. I therefore ask my noble friend Lord Balfe not to press his amendment and to allow the Government to bring back an amendment at Third Reading for consideration by this House.
I would like briefly to touch upon one other aspect of Clause 14—its scope. We have produced a clear list of bodies, taking as our starting point the Freedom of Information Act, and we will share this list as part of draft regulations prior to the Third Reading of the Bill in this House.
As to organisations which may be in scope in the future, legitimate concerns have been raised about this clause, and Clause 12 relating to facility time, applying to organisations only partly funded by public funds. To address this, I shall not move Amendment 21A but will bring back an amendment at Third Reading that would allow only those bodies mainly—I emphasise “mainly”—funded by public funds to be added to the provisions of this Bill, and that would be via the affirmative process. This will apply to both Clause 12 and Clause 14.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, raised an important concern regarding the impact of the clause’s scope on charities, and the Government share her concern. Where organisations are what the general public would consider to be charities—such as Oxfam or others doing valuable charitable work funded by the public purse—it is not our intention to include them within the scope of the Bill. I am working closely with officials and with the noble Baroness to find a way in which such charities can be assured that they will not be included.
Before I sit down, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, as well as my noble friend Lord Balfe, for their good-spirited engagement on this issue, and I hope that we have found a resting place on which we can agree.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I apologise to those who have had to edit their speeches so quickly and spent time over the weekend to no avail. In response to the points on charities made by the noble Baroness, I completely agree, and we will seek to address this point. As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, about further consultation and what the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, said about facility time, she is right. We have made further progress on the reserve power to cap facility time.
Obviously, we are not discussing Clause 12 today, but I will update noble Lords on where we are. Our commitment is to engage the cap only on the basis of evidence from the transparency measure. Our proposal is that the power will not be exercised at all before there are at least two years of data from the bodies subject to the reporting requirement. Following this, should a particular employer’s facility time be significantly above the levels of those of comparable organisations, the Minister will send and publish a letter to the employer drawing attention to the concerns. The employer will have the opportunity to set out the reasons for the level of facility time. The employer will always have a year to make progress in relation to their facility time levels. Nothing would be done until a third set of reporting data was published. If there is insufficient progress, the Minister will then be at liberty to exercise the reserve power and make regulations to cap facility time for that employer or those employers. Our intention is to set out the key elements of the arrangements for triggering a cap in Clause 13 when we introduce it.
As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, on delegated powers, I absolutely hear what the noble Lord is saying. The substance of regulations will be available before Third Reading. I very much hope, therefore, that the skeletons will be well and truly buried. On that point, I would like to thank your Lordships for the comments that were made this afternoon.
Lord Balfe
This has been a very pleasant little debate. The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, reminded me that I did not declare my interests, which are to be found in the register. I thank all the people who have contributed to the debate, in particular my noble friend Lord Cormack. When I was first appointed by the Prime Minister as the Conservative Party envoy to the trade union movement, I was met with much suspicion within the party. My noble friend was one of the first people to welcome me and point out the work that he has done over many years with unions, including with USDAW and on Sunday trading and other things. I appreciate the support that I have had from him and from many other noble Lords.
I also appreciate the support and briefings that I have had from UNISON, Prospect and the TUC. Several million low-paid workers depend on check-off. UNISON has more than 7,000 agreements in the public sector and a further two-and-a-bit thousand in the private sector. This is not a very small thing but a major part of low-paid workers’ security. I am pleased that we have secured this. I thank the Minister—he is not only a noble Lord but a noble Minister today—for this and I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lobbying: Government Grant Agreements
Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have considered the effect on scientific and medical research, the arts, campaigning organisations and other bodies of the anti-lobbying clause in government grant agreements to be introduced on 1 May as a condition of public funding.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, grant recipients can continue to discuss the findings of publicly funded research with government or Parliament, whether that be by giving evidence or in an advisory capacity. The clause in question is about making sure that taxpayers’ money is spent as intended and not diverted from good causes to fund political campaigning and lobbying.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, does not the Minister believe that a healthy, open society not only allows but actively encourages the use of public money given out as grants to question the status quo, to challenge the Government over policy when felt necessary and, indeed, to make constructive recommendations for new policy? This is an essential aspect of the national public debate. This clause threatens that, will damage democracy and should be scrapped.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I fear that there is a fundamental point of principle on which I cannot agree with the noble Earl, who I know holds passionate views on this subject. This is about making sure that the many billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money that go to grant recipients are spent on the original allocation of the grants and do not find their way into political lobbying and campaigning.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that many charitable organisations falling within the purview of this Question are fearful of voicing their opinion in the context of the referendum on the European question? Will he make it clear to all such organisations that they will not be penalised under any circumstances for voicing their opinion, on whichever side that may be, in the context of the referendum?
Lord Bridges of Headley
The noble Lord makes a good point. The Charity Commission has published guidance for charities that may wish to participate in debates on the forthcoming EU referendum. The commission’s guidance reflects the existing legal position that charities can undertake campaigning and political activity where it is in support of their charitable purposes and where the trustees consider it to be in the interests of the charity.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, is it not important that we err on the side of freedom? And is not it true that, almost universally, what the Government intend to do is seen to be a bar to freedom of expression? Should not the Government think again before they get a reputation of being a bit lily-livered about opposition?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I am very sorry to say that, on this point, I disagree with my noble friend. As I said, it is not about curbing freedom of speech; it is about making sure that taxpayers’ money is spent effectively and goes where it was meant to go.
Lord Taverne (LD)
My Lords, do the Government recognise that this anti-lobbying clause is going to have a serious impact on research, since most people do research in order to influence policy and make it more evidence-based? Is it not odd that this in fact does not apply in any way to commercial lobbying and restricts only government-funded lobbying? Should not its real emphasis be on the control of the abuse of funds, as with Kids Company? Would it not be wise in the present circumstances to postpone the application of this new agreement until after 1 May so that further consultation can take place on this very important threat to the freedom of research and speech?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I heed what the noble Lord is saying. I have certainly received concerns, as have other Ministers, from the research and academic community. Clearly, the implementation of this clause as regards science and research is a matter for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Let me tell your Lordships that it is not the department’s nor the Government’s intention for research councils, the Higher Education Funding Council or the national academies to be covered by this clause. Ministers in BIS are continuing to engage with the academic research community and they will outline more detail by 1 May.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, could the Minister tell this House at what point in the process the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Mark Walport, was consulted about the impact on scientific research? Could the Minister also inform the House of Sir Mark’s response?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I am sorry to say that I cannot go into great detail on that, as I am not furnished with that information. However, obviously there have been conversations with Sir Mark and others in the scientific community.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, the press release that announced this said that it was as a result of research done by the IEA—so that lobbying led to this, with no consultation either with the academic world or anyone else. If I have understood the Minister, he is now willing to exempt academic research but not research carried out by other organisations, be they charities, the Marine Management Organisation, English Heritage or any others. Will the Minister consult with them before they are restricted from giving information to Parliament, government and, under the rules, to the European Union?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I understand what the noble Baroness is saying. Her concerns have been heeded in the sense that the consultation on the implementation of this clause began the minute that the clause was announced in February. As regards curbing freedom of speech by charities, that is not the case. Let me remind your Lordships that charities make up only 7% of grant spend. Charities can continue to use any other funds to lobby government. Indeed, in the DCLG, where this clause has been in place for the past 18 months, Shelter, which has been receiving a grant from the DCLG, has continued to lobby this House and the other place on the contents of the housing Bill, for example.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, could we remind the House that this public money has come from taxation of well-off people, poor people and other people throughout the kingdom? The money is there to be granted for useful purposes; it is not there to pay for campaigning and lobbying. It is public money. If people want to campaign or lobby—I have lobbied and given money for lobbying—it should not be done with public money.
Lord Bridges of Headley
It will not surprise your Lordships that I agree with my noble friend. As I said, £130 billion is paid out in grants, and it is absolutely concomitant on any Government to ensure that that money goes to where it is meant to go.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, would the Minister not consider something which occurred in this House? The hybrid embryo Bill, an area with which I am particular familiar, was an example of a piece of science and legislation for which this kind of lobbying and consultation was really important. It depended hugely on the advice that we got from research councils and other experts who lobbied. Even I, who have a detailed knowledge of much about science, learned from that process. Therefore, it greatly helped our debate and decision on the process, which in fact turned out well. It would be a mistake to ignore that.
Lord Bridges of Headley
I completely defer to the noble Lord’s considerable experience in the scientific community. I say again that, if the grant is used to fund a public campaign to seek legislative or regulatory change, that would be in breach of the clause unless specified in the terms of the grant agreement. However, organisations are free to use their own funding to publicise their research. It is therefore perfectly legitimate for the recipient of a grant to appear on the media or write press articles so long as that does not incur costs to the public purse.
Economy: Productivity
Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, productivity growth represents a serious challenge for all advanced economies, and the UK is no exception. The Government last year published our productivity plan, Fixing the Foundations. In last month’s Budget, we went further—for example, announcing additional reductions in corporation tax to incentivise investment, and giving the green light to infrastructure projects such as Crossrail 2 and High Speed 3.
Lord Harrison (Lab)
Indeed, my Lords. Given that productivity levels in the UK are lower than when the previous Labour Government were in office, and given that in the G7 only Japan stands worse than us, would it not be a good idea if, with some enthusiasm and gusto, the Government actually pursued their plan of fixing the foundations and building homes, rebalancing the economy and taking timely decisions about our transport infrastructure? Indeed, can they apply the enthusiasm with which they quarrel among themselves about Europe to addressing the real problems of the United Kingdom?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I am bursting with enthusiasm and full of energy to get things done. I cannot claim that this Government will not encounter some of the problems that previous Governments down the ages have encountered when implementing their plans, but I refer the noble Lord to chart 2.B in the National Infrastructure Delivery Plan, published a fortnight ago, which shows that, of the 602 projects that the plan sets out and are in the pipeline, 61% are in construction, 50% will have been completed by 2020-21 and a further 49% will by that point be either under construction or part of an active programme. So we are full of enthusiasm, full of energy and we are getting going.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Will my noble friend explain to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, that the Office for National Statistics figures which so worry him may not tell the full story by any means, because they take too little account of the huge output of data and information in the digital age, which now generates more economic value than the whole of global goods trade?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My noble friend makes an extremely good point. Sir Charles Bean recently completed a review of the UK’s economic statistics, and one of his findings was, as my noble friend said, that if the digital economy had been properly taken into account, economic growth would have been one-third to two-thirds of a percentage point higher over the past decade, with similar implications for productivity. However, I stress that that would not explain the UK’s recent poor performance in comparison with other countries, nor why productivity has worsened since the financial crisis, so we are not complacent.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the UK’s poor performance on productivity will surely never improve until we get in place the infrastructure—housing, broadband, power and transport—that we need. Will the Government give up or curb their obsession with the budget surplus, borrow at the current zero-coupon rate available to them, stop faffing around with expensive and reluctant private sector and sovereign fund investors, and actually get spades in the ground on the major projects—Hinkley Point being one example—that are at present all suffering delays?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, we are getting going and cracking on with things. I dispute what the noble Baroness says about having a choice between ditching the projected surplus that my right honourable friend the Chancellor has set out and achieving what we are setting out. They are not mutually exclusive. For example, noble Lords might be interested to know that we have committed to the biggest investment in transport infrastructure in generations, increasing spending by 50% to £61 billion in this Parliament.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister cannot get away with those glib replies. Where has he been for the last six years? The fact is that our productivity levels are back to those of the recession year of 2008. Most of the projects that he mentions have been started in the past year or so. What about those projects which were meant to commence from 2010 onwards, which have in fact achieved very little? Does he accept that we will get nowhere until we successfully address the issue of training? Even the construction industry, which is clearly important to the development of economic growth and jobs, complains that it cannot get work people of sufficient skills to do the tasks it wants them to do.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I apologise if I sound glib, but I am certainly not complacent. I quite agree that there is a lot of work to be done. That is why, for example, on the point about construction skills, we are launching the apprenticeship levy to fund more high-quality apprenticeships. On top of that, we are protecting the core schools budget; we have removed the HE student numbers cap; and we have cut corporation tax to 18%. I could go on and on—there are lots of things. This is not glib; this is work in progress, but we are not complacent.
Lord Vinson (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the latest figures for High Speed 2 put the overall cost at £80 billion. It will be 16 years before it begins to run at all, and then it will run at a loss. Meanwhile, in this country 90% of our economic activity is conducted by road. Would not it be more sensible—taking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison—to divert these enormous sums into something that would give more immediate productivity gains, have a less ambitious target and put that money into millions of small, economically beneficial and productivity beneficial developments that could be done through rail and road improvements?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I hear what the noble Lord says about HS2, but I would not say that these were mutually exclusive. As I have said, the UK will invest more than £100 billion in infrastructure over this Parliament. My noble friend wishes to see more investment in roads. The £15 billion of investment in the roads investment strategy will include resurfacing more than 80% of the strategic road network and delivering more than 1,300 miles of additional lanes. As I say, these are not mutually exclusive.
Lord Tomlinson (Lab)
When the Minister replied to my noble friend Lord Harrison, he produced a long list of good intentions, but none of them has actually come into effect. In a subsequent answer, he went on to tell us about a number of measures that the Government have taken. Having taken all those measures, we now have the appalling productivity statement from our own department dealing with national statistics. I am not going to accuse the Minister of being complacent, but he really has to get a better story to tell.
Lord Bridges of Headley
I hear what the noble Lord says, but I think that we do have a good story to tell. I draw his attention to the national infrastructure plan that was published, which sets out very clearly what the Government are doing and how we are delivering it.
Housing and Planning Bill
Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will be surprised at this, but I support his amendment. If you believe in the concept of a strong mayor—whether a strong Mayor of London or a strong mayor in combined authorities—what is proposed in these amendments is absolutely right. If you believe in a localist agenda, which I understand that the Government purport to do, this is the right approach. This should be how decisions about surplus land should be made.
On the basis of the comments I have made during the course of today’s Committee, it is important that there is the opportunity for people to make places. The people best placed to do that in this instance will be the mayors; the Mayor of London and the mayors of combined authorities. This is an opportunity. If it is the case—and I believe that my interventions in the last hour perhaps helped facilitate the discussions that may have led to an agreement—that the Government are going to accept the principles behind this, then I, for one, will be delighted.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, I, too, will try to be relatively brief. It is very good to be here at last; good things come to those who wait. The noble Lord has just raised some important points about these amendments. Let me turn directly to Clause 183, which requires Ministers of the Crown, in developing proposals for the disposal of their interests in land, to engage on an ongoing basis with each local authority in whose area the land is situated and other public authorities specified in regulations.
Clause 183 was inspired by local authorities which have experienced varying levels of engagement from central government, ranging from excellent to none at all. The aim is to ensure consistency in the way the Government engage with them. Amendments 105 to 109 would undo that common approach by making separate provision for the way authorities in London engage with each other. Amendment 108 could create particular confusion by requiring authorities in London to have regard to two sets of guidance, one published by the Secretary of State and the other by the mayor.
Turning briefly to Amendment 106, Clause 183 provides for the Minister for the Cabinet Office to issue statutory guidance on how the duty to engage is to be complied with. The clause is framed in this way to allow for flexibility. The duty to engage is new and we want to be able to monitor how it works in practice so that the detailed requirements can be fine-tuned if necessary. However, I agree that the regulations and guidance will need to take account of the role of the mayor in London. The mayor has a fundamental role in housing, planning and regeneration in London and has wide powers to acquire land, including by compulsion, and to develop or dispose of land as appropriate to a given scheme. Noble Lords will know much about that.
In view of that important role, I can reassure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that we will specify the Mayor of London in regulations made under this clause, so that Ministers and public bodies, when developing proposals for the disposal of land in London, will need to engage with the Mayor of London.
Clause 184 is a transparency measure. It aims to incentivise bodies to release land in a timely manner, and where they have good reasons for not doing so, ensures that these are made transparent. Reports are not intended to be provided to a particular body, but made available publicly so that bodies can be held to account in respect of their use of surplus land. Reports will be readily accessible by the Mayor of London and there is no need for the express provision sought by Amendment 110. However, it will be important to ensure that the mayor is made aware of any reports under Clause 184 which include land in London. We will therefore undertake to consult the mayor when drawing up regulations under subsection (9) to ensure that the mayor’s views on how they should be published are taken into account.
Turning to mayoral combined authorities, I am unconvinced that the amendment would be helpful, as it would add to bureaucracy and reduce efficiency by requiring authorities to provide information to the mayoral combined authority or requiring the mayoral combined authority to request information from local authorities in its area. Individual local authorities will take decisions as to which land is surplus and will have this information readily to hand. Requiring individual authorities to report is the simplest and most straightforward approach.
Amendments 112 and 113 would insert two new, almost identical clauses which would prevent a relevant public body from disposing of any surplus land without first giving a mayoral combined authority, or the Mayor of London respectively, the right of first refusal to acquire that property, either at best consideration or at a sum that is less than best consideration by consent of the Secretary of State. Here, I point out that the mayor already has significant powers in relation to land. The mayor can acquire land, including compulsorily with the consent of the Secretary of State, and can develop and dispose of land and property. Where large, strategic opportunities arise, the mayor is empowered to designate a mayoral development area, which then triggers the establishment of a mayoral development corporation. For smaller opportunities, the London Land Commission has been established to play a strategic role in brokering agreements between land-owning bodies and government departments to facilitate development.
I am concerned that the amendments would add time and complexity to the disposal process without guaranteeing the best disposal routes. While there will be instances in which the mayoral combined authority or Mayor of London will be an appropriate disposal route for sites, they will not always be so. Schemes such as large urban extensions or garden cities require authorities to work with a number of developers and other partners, often over a number of years. In such instances it would not be appropriate for authorities to offer land to a mayoral combined authority or the Mayor of London, or for the mayoral combined authority or Mayor of London to dictate what the disposal route should be. Moreover, the proposed process would add considerable time and complexity to the disposal process.
Amendments 114 and 115 would amend Clause 185 to devolve the power to order disposal to the Mayor of London for relevant public authorities in Greater London. The bodies to which the power applies are not limited to local authorities but include a range of authorities with public functions, which span the whole country. How authorities with a national focus use their land must be judged in the wider context, taking account of their strategic need for land now and in the future. It would be inappropriate for the Mayor of London, with functions concentrated within the boundaries of Greater London, to make a judgment on whether a given piece of land within London is surplus to requirements. Devolving the power could risk undermining the ability of such bodies to carry out their functions properly. Government Ministers have the strategic overview necessary to identify where local directions to dispose of land may have a broader impact nationally.
Finally, Clause 183 already provides for regulations to be made setting out how relevant public authorities should engage with other relevant public authorities when taking forward plans to dispose of land. Clause 184 would require authorities to publish details of land that has been declared surplus for two years or more, or six months in the case of residential land. The Government are also consulting on updating the transparency code to require local authorities to record details of their land and property assets on the Government’s electronic property information management system. Given these new measures, which will improve engagement and increase transparency, it is unclear what Amendments 117 and 118 would add.
I hope I have dealt in some detail with some of the points raised by the noble Lord and noble Baroness, that I have been able to give some reassurance in the area in which it was sought, and that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Tope, decides whether or not to withdraw his amendment, can we have a little more clarity as to why the Government believe that Amendments 112 and 113 would add significantly to the time taken to dispose of assets? This is simply giving the Mayor of London or the mayor of a combined authority an opportunity to consider whether to acquire or to refuse to acquire, whereas the route that the Minister described required the creation of a mayoral development corporation. That seems to be a much longer, more drawn-out process than the one in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tope.
Lord Bridges of Headley
I would be happy to discuss this with the noble Lord privately to explain our views. We believe it would add unnecessary bureaucracy, time and complexity, but I am happy to discuss this further with him.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, for coming in to demonstrate her support and having to do that so very briefly under these circumstances. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, for his support. It is not quite as unusual as he seemed to think. There have been many occasions over the years when that has happened. I also thank him for raising the point he did just now. Finally, my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord True, sent me the message very clearly although very briefly, and I take his point.
This is clearly not the time to pursue this further. It is clearly not the time to test the opinion of the House. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. In doing so, I ask the Minister, if he is to have a further meeting, to include those who spoke to this amendment.
Lord Carrington of Fulham
My Lords, before we proceed, I have a question on Amendment 183. I do not intend to delay the House very long. The Corporation of London has a specific problem with Clauses 183 and 184. The Corporation is very much a hybrid body, in that it is both a local authority and a corporation under the corporation Acts. It is unclear, in these clauses, whether it is covered in its private capacity as well as in its public capacity. I would like reassurance that that will be covered in the regulations.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I sense that an answer is winging its way to me. I am aware of these concerns, and we will specify its functions as a local authority. I will meet the noble Lord to discuss this issue, but we are very alert to it and will address it.
( ) a Minister of the Crown (within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975), or”
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I beg to move this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Williams. This is a minor technical government amendment. It corrects the drafting of Clause 184 to give proper effect to the intention that the duty on a Minister of the Crown to report on his or her surplus land holdings should apply to all their surplus land, regardless of whether it lies in England, Wales or Scotland.
The current drafting of Clause 184 does not achieve this in respect of Scotland, as a result of the interaction of this clause and paragraph 3 of Part III of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act. An example of the sort of land that should be covered by the duty to engage is the former Army headquarters site at Craigiehall near Edinburgh, which the Ministry of Defence announced in January was being released for new homes. The intention was, and is, to cover all reserved matters that are the responsibility of Ministers of the Crown. This amendment achieves that aim. I beg to move.
Trade Union Bill
Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, I begin by saying that I have read the previous debates and have met a number of your Lordships; I thank those I met for their time. I acknowledge the misgivings that have been expressed about this policy and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for extending the hand of friendship and co-operation on this. Before I address the point on scope, I repeat a key point to your Lordships that I wish no one to forget: it is not the intention that facility time is to be banned. As has been said—I repeat again—trade union representatives provide a valuable role in many organisations and facility time will always have a role to play throughout the public sector.
On scope, we are clear in our aim to cover core public bodies—employers that the taxpayer would expect to be covered by public sector transparency regulations. To meet this aim, our approach is to include public sector bodies in the regulations only if they meet the following policy aims. First, bodies that we wish to capture are already listed in Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002—I refer to both of them as FOIA. We believe that whether a body is in scope of Schedule 1 to FOIA is a good indicator of whether they are a public authority for the purpose of Clause 12. However, to include all the employers on Schedule 1 to FOIA would be too wide for our aims. I totally take the point that the noble Baroness makes about small organisations. We will filter organisations out of this list where their inclusion would not be appropriate. The regulations will place obligations only on employers with more than 49 employees and at least one trade union representative. FOIA Schedule 1 includes several bodies that do not currently meet this criterion and will thus not be obliged to follow the publication. They will, however, appear in the regulations and it will be for any such body to appropriately exclude itself if it does not meet the criteria. This is in recognition of the fact that the size of organisations and their trade union membership is likely to fluctuate over time.
Next, in the event that at some point in the future the Government were to identify a body that is not in Schedule 1 to FOIA and not capable of being added, we would seek to capture such a body, relying on the powers in Clause 12(9), only where the body has not been set up to function in a predominantly commercial, competitive, or market-facing way; has more than 49 employers and one or more trade union representative; and has functions of a public nature and is funded wholly or partly from public funds. Furthermore, if the Government wish to add new bodies that pass these tests, they propose to amend the Bill so that the powers in subsection (9) are exercisable by affirmative resolution. This House would then have the chance to scrutinise and debate any regulations that the Government bring forward to include these bodies that are not public authorities but carry out functions of a public nature.
In the light of the noble Baroness’s wish to consider the content of my letter and potentially revisit this issue at Third Reading to discuss it further, I hope that the approach set out my letter, which the Government intend to stand by, will enable us to avoid revisiting this issue in depth at Third Reading. I have already also referred to the Government’s commitment to make the extension of the list an affirmative resolution procedure before the Bill leaves this House. On this basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel free to withdraw her amendment this evening.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I thank the Minister for that. I think we have made progress. The Bill will probably need to be amended to take account of the approach that the Government are now taking. On the basis of our looking forward to future discussions and returning to this, we hope very quickly, at Third Reading, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 20 and the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake. I will concentrate my brief remarks on the provisions in the Bill that relate to safety reps, and in doing so I declare my interests as president of RoSPA and a vice-president of the LGA. Concentrating on health and safety reps is not in any way meant to undermine the broader thrust of the amendment as it applies more generally.
As a preamble, I reiterate points raised in Committee about the importance of TU safety reps and the positive impact that they have on the safety culture of their employers. There is an abundance of evidence about the importance of effective health and safety systems and that these systems work best when trade unions and employers work together. That is why the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act gave legal backing to union safety reps and why, rather than seeking to undermine or weaken the system, the Government should be concerned with its promotion and enhancement.
I would argue that the Government are in error in including health and safety reps’ time as facility time. Facility time is time off from an individual’s job granted by the employer to enable a representative to carry out their trade union role. We have heard why this should not be constrained in the manner proposed in the Bill. A safety rep, however, although appointed by a trade union, does not fulfil a trade union role as such. It is a specific legal position with defined functions, and the regulations state that in this capacity it must represent all workers in a workplace, not just union members.
This comes about not only from the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act but by Article 11 of the 1989 EU framework directive which deals with consultation and participation of workers. The directive specifically states:
“Employers must allow workers’ representatives with specific responsibility for the safety and health of workers adequate time off work, without loss of pay, and provide them with the necessary means to enable such representatives to exercise their rights and functions deriving from this Directive”.
There is no limit on this, but it would have to be reasonable. The UK regulations use the phrase “as shall be necessary”, which will obviously vary from workplace to workplace and from time to time. The exercise of reserve powers under Clause 13, which are triggered by consideration of the information requirements of Clause 12, would be entirely inconsistent with the directive, which focuses on the need for adequate time off to exercise rights and functions. The latter must have regard to the circumstances of individual workplaces, which, as I say, can vary from location to location and from time to time.
Moreover, the legal requirement under the directive is for the employer to comply in allowing time off. This is as it should be, because it is generally the employer who creates the risks which have to be managed. It is not for the Government to second-guess in respect of either public sector workplaces in aggregate or individual workplaces in particular. Can the Government spell out for us the circumstances in which they envisage using these reserve powers to limit the time of safety representatives otherwise agreed between an employer and a trade union? What evidence do they have that there is an abuse of the system as the law stands? The Minister in the other place, Nick Boles, is on record as acknowledging that:
“An employer must allow them”—
safety reps—
“as much paid time off work as is necessary or reasonable to perform their statutory functions, and we absolutely do not propose to change that rule”.—[Official Report, Commons, Trade Union Bill Committee, 22/10/ 15; col. 352.]
In that case, why they are potentially subject to reserve powers in Clause 13 and why will the Government not remove those powers?
There is one other point. The Bill applies only to trade union representatives. The Minister will be aware that there are two sets of regulations covering workplace representatives: the 1977 regulations, which apply only to trade union reps, and the 1996 regulations, which apply to representatives for workplace safety in non-unionised workplaces. If the Bill is passed in its current form, the Government will be able to restrict time off given to trade union representatives in the public sector but not to non-trade union ones. Is this the intention and why do the Government seek to discriminate against trade union reps in this manner? Can the Minister tell us how this measure is consistent with the fairness obligation that was set out at the start of our proceedings?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions this evening. I will try to keep my remarks relatively brief but hope to explain why I believe this measure is both proportionate and reasonable. First, as has been said, the reserve power may never need to be used. Our intention is that the transparency measures that I have outlined before, as noble Lords know full well, should encourage employers to moderate their spending where necessary. To pick up on the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, made, managers will, for the first time, be able to easily compare their spending with others in their sector. However, if for some reason inefficient spending is not addressed, it is only right that there is a reserve power to ensure that wasteful use of taxpayer funding does not continue.
Noble Lords should remember that even if this power were to be used, as I have said before, facility time will not be banned, as the Government note the considerable contribution that it makes. That brings me to the process that would have to be followed if these powers were to be exercised. First, as the reserve powers are subject to the affirmative resolution process, this House would have the opportunity to debate and scrutinise any cap that may be proposed. Secondly, crucially, implementation of the reserve powers must be rational and evidence based. Ministers must have regard to the relevant information to make their decision. If Ministers do not do so, they invite upon themselves the prospect of judicial review proceedings. The cap is a power of the last resort, and cannot be applied without due and proper consideration of all relevant factors.
I now turn to what might trigger the cap. The reserve powers are most likely to be triggered in one of two circumstances. First, if unjustifiably high patterns of spend were found to persist in certain parts of a sector, that would signal a need to investigate further why they were happening. If the answer were to be that particular parts of a sector needed to do more to control spending, a decision may be taken to apply a cap to that sector or part of that sector. Secondly, if a significant proportion of the cost of facility time is spent on trade union activities as opposed to duties—a key difference—across a sector, we may question why expenditure for which there is no statutory entitlement is being given such priority. We may conclude that such spending does not reflect reasonable prioritising of public funds and suggest applying a cap at a level we believe is reasonable.
If either of these situations were to arise, the Minister must present the case for using the reserve powers to Parliament to secure affirmative resolution. Before the Minister can do that, as I have said, they will have gathered trend data showing patterns of spend to support a rational, evidence-based case for why a cap should be made at a particular level. If Ministers do not feel they have sufficient data to arrive at a decision, they may also choose to consult the relevant sector. This House would of course have the opportunity to debate that cap.
I note the concerns that this is anti-localism but if a cap were to be imposed, it would still be up to local managers to decide how to manage facility time within the cap: for example, by deciding how they should prioritise trade union duties as opposed to activities. Working within budgets, while still meeting statutory duties, is not a novel concept in the public sector.
Turning specifically to devolution, I would argue again that this matter of industrial relations is entirely within the legislative competence of the United Kingdom Government. If an organisation is publicly funded, it should be held to account for how taxpayers’ money is spent. Taxpayers in Scotland and Wales have the same right to transparency about how much money and resource is dedicated to industrial relations—a reserved matter—as taxpayers in England.
A valid concern was raised about the effect of a very restrictive cap, were one to be placed on facility time spending, and what that might do as regards health and safety obligations. I cannot envisage any circumstances under which this Government would introduce such a restrictive cap that important statutory obligations could not be met. We would certainly take account of what was necessary to ensure such union duties could be properly performed. After all, to do otherwise would leave the Government exposed to challenge by judicial review. For that reason, we do not expect there to be any conflict with employers being able to meet their statutory duties, but we are not going to dictate to them the minutiae of how they may do that. As a final reassurance, if required, the Bill contains the power to make exceptions to the cap to meet statutory obligations.
At the end of the day, by removing the cap entirely, the Government would be able to point to where taxpayers’ money could be saved or better spent, but be unable to do anything about it. Government needs the power to act in a reasonable and accountable way. Under our proposals, this House will have the opportunity to scrutinise any cap, were one to be introduced. Ministers must have regard to relevant information to make their decision; failure to do so risks judicial review. Union duties such as health and safety will remain a statutory obligation. With that in mind, I ask that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Before the noble Lord sits down, could he just deal with the point about the difference between non-trade union reps being covered under one set of regulations and trade union reps under another? Why is that discrimination being allowed in the Bill?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, we need to make sure that taxpayers’ money is properly accounted for, wherever it is spent. My understanding is that that is the rationale behind this.
Lord Kerslake
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving his response and for the contributions to this debate, which have been most valuable. This provision can be described only as overweening central power, with no justification whatever. The Minister said that public bodies—in the main, local authorities—should be accountable for what they spend. Yes, they should be, but to their local electorate. That electorate will be able to see exactly how much the authority spends and what they get for it, and to form their own opinion. Do we seriously think that the process of democratic control cannot deal with less than 0.2% of the pay bill? It is, I am afraid, absurd and it has not been defended.
I will make one last point before we go forward on this. The Minister said that there would be flexibility within the cap to decide what arrangements there would be. Within this clause, there is provision for the Secretary of State to say: “I don’t like the fact that you are doing 100% time, trade union representative: I would like to change it to 50%, or maybe 25%”. There is not even the ability to make the decision on the deployment of whatever cap is created. This is overweening centralism, so I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Government Contracts: Steel Industry
Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hoyle
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, when steel is required for a government contract, they will specify that it be British.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to implementing measures that will address any barriers that prevent UK suppliers of steel from competing effectively for public sector contracts in line with EU legislation. All departments are now required to implement the new guidelines on how government buyers should source steel for major projects so that the true value of UK steel is taken into account in major procurement decisions.
Lord Hoyle (Lab)
Can the Minister explain why we did not support the proposal of the European Commission to raise the tax on imported Chinese steel to 66%, which not only would have put it in line with the United States but would have brought stability to the British steel industry and security for British steelworkers?
Lord Bridges of Headley
The initiative that the noble Lord referred to is one that we welcomed in the sense that it wished to modernise tariff proposals, but we could not accept the removal of the lesser duty rule, which ensures that unfair trade practices are addressed without imposing disproportionate costs. We have also supported other EU initiatives on wire rod, seamless pipes and tubes, and rebar, as regards Chinese dumping.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that far more steel is imported from other EU countries than from China, and that if the Government were to do what the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, wishes them to do, we would have to leave the European Union?
Lord Bridges of Headley
Blow me down with a feather: my noble friend is wanting to leave the European Union. That is a surprise at quarter past 11. I am sure that he is right about his facts. The challenge at the moment is obviously Chinese steel. Chinese excess steel capacity is estimated to be roughly double the EU’s annual steel demand and 25 times the UK’s steel production. That is the real challenge we face.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, on the assumption that the Government made speedy and early representations to the European Commission regarding the dumping of Chinese steel, are they satisfied that the Commission has acted effectively and promptly to protect the British steel industry?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, there is always more that we can look towards the EU to do. For example, we are pleased that the European Commission is investigating where there is evidence that state support for steel industries is not compliant, as regards Italy and Belgium. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was one of the signatories to the letter to the European Commission only a few weeks ago that called for further action.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, I shall follow up the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—without sharing his conclusion. Will the Minister accept that some of our continental country friends seem to be better at protecting their steel industries than we are? I take the point made by other noble Lords on dumping of Chinese steel. Will he also indicate what the Government are prepared to do to meet the requests from the steel industry on energy costs?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I shall take the final point first. The Government are addressing the request for energy costs in one of the five prongs of their action to help the steel industry, which we all wish to do. As regards the EU, the noble Lord makes a valid point. I just add that, despite the widely held view that UK public procurement is more open than that of other EU member states, European Commission studies show that UK firms win more than 95% of UK contracts advertised EU-wide.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, does this Question not have wider resonance? The Government and public authorities in this country control about 40% of GDP spending. If the Government really wanted to back British industry—including British steel, which we would support—and help British workers, why will they not also ensure that our SMEs have a proper chance to bid for government contracts and require companies that are awarded government contracts to employ high-quality apprentices, as we did for the Olympics?
Lord Bridges of Headley
Those are valid observations. The public policy procurement note, which I have in front of me, makes the point that private companies should advertise through the supply chain when those contracts are available and make sure that British SMEs are able to bid for them. The contribution that companies make to apprenticeships is also highlighted in that public policy procurement note.
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, not absolutely right: is it not the case that the masochistic energy policy pursued by the British Government at present leads to a carbon price floor five times the size of the carbon price in the rest of the European Union? Is that not crazy? What are the Government going to do about it?
Lord Bridges of Headley
That is slightly going beyond my ken, my Lords. As regards the energy costs that the steel industry is looking for, £100 million will be saved over the financial year and £400 million by the end of this Parliament, thanks to the action that the Government are taking to give the industry relief.
Lord Watts (Lab)
If the Chinese are found to have been dumping steel in the UK, what action will the Government take to penalise them for doing so?
Lord Bridges of Headley
Let us wait and see. These investigations are obviously under way as we speak.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, the Government recently announced that the Chinese were going to invest in Hinkley Point power station. Will a condition of that be that Chinese steel and other products are used in its construction?
Lord Bridges of Headley
That is a very good point, my Lords. Responsibility for the construction of Hinkley Point C rests with EDF rather than the Government. The project will require hundreds of thousands of tonnes of steel and EDF has made it clear that it expects a large proportion of that to come from UK companies. The construction and operation of Hinkley are expected to create 25,000 employment opportunities and aim to create 1,000 apprenticeships.
Public Bodies: Israel Boycotts
Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Tonge
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what advice they have given to local authorities and other public bodies concerning boycotts of goods and services from the Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, on 17 February, the Government published procurement guidance for public authorities on existing policy that has been in place for many years under successive Governments. The guidance makes it clear that boycotts in public procurement are inappropriate, outside where formal legal sanctions, embargos and restrictions have been put in place by the UK Government. It is not an Israel-specific policy.
Baroness Tonge (Ind LD)
Knock me down with a feather, my Lords, if I was not expecting that reply. Is the Minister aware that the Foreign Office advice of July 2015 on overseas business risks in the Occupied Palestinian Territories said:
“EU citizens and businesses should … be aware of the potential reputational implications of getting involved in economic and financial activities in … settlements”—
in the Occupied Territories, and—
“should seek … legal advice before proceeding”?
How does that equate with the advice that we received last week?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I can easily tell the noble Baroness. Paragraph 2.4 of the advice says:
“The UK Government is deeply committed to promoting our trade and business ties with Israel and strongly opposes boycotts.”
This is the Foreign Office advice, and the Cabinet Office advice sits alongside that.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Has the Minister had a chance to check what the Prime Minister said yesterday in answer to a Question about settlements? He said that,
“the first time I visited Jerusalem … and saw what has happened with the effective encirclement of East Jerusalem—occupied East Jerusalem—I found it genuinely shocking”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/2/16; col. 297.]
Did the Prime Minister not speak for many Members of both Houses and indeed of all parties when he said this? Is it not time that we move beyond general expressions of dissatisfaction with Israeli settlement activity and took more concerted international action?
Lord Bridges of Headley
The noble Lord makes a perfectly valid point, but this is about the role of local authorities. I would gently say to him, with due respect, that local authorities should not pursue their own municipal foreign policy which contravenes international trade agreements. They should instead focus on local issues. The clue is in the name as regards local authorities.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
In the light of local government guidance, could the Minister say what action the boycott movement has taken with regard to the Russian invasion of Crimea—I apologise for asking this of a Cabinet Office Minister—the Chinese occupation of Tibet, Turkey’s occupation of Northern Cyprus and the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara?
Lord Bridges of Headley
The noble Lord raises lots of issues, but this is about boycotts being conducted by local authorities, which I would argue are counterproductive. They widen gaps in understanding, poison and polarise debate, and block opportunities for co-operation and collaboration.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I was in Israel last week as a guest of the Israeli Government when my right honourable friend Matt Hancock announced this guidance that he was giving to local authorities. As both Israel and the United Kingdom are members of the WTO, surely it is illegal to impose these boycotts. They would actually be against the law.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My noble friend is absolutely right. Such boycotts would be open to judicial review.
Lord Wright of Richmond (CB)
Hearing what the Minister has said about boycotts, can he reassure the House on behalf of his Foreign and Commonwealth Office colleagues that we and our European partners lose no opportunity to draw the attention of the Israeli Government to the illegality of their settlement policy and the damage which it is doing to the prospect of a two-state solution, which is surely in the interests of both Israel and Palestine?
Lord Bridges of Headley
Yes, my Lords, and let me reassure the noble Lord that the Government remain completely committed to a two-state resolution to secure lasting peace in the Middle East. The best way to achieve that is by diplomacy and negotiation.
Baroness Corston (Lab)
My Lords, given that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St John’s, has repeatedly said at that Dispatch Box that the settlements are a contravention of international law, that we deplore them and that they should not be there, how does it follow that it is illegal or impossible for a local authority to take action in response to those repeated statements by refusing to trade with those very settlements?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, to repeat what I said at the start, the guidance merely clarifies and reminds contracting authorities of their obligations under the WTO government procurement agreement, to which the EU is a signatory, which has been in place since 1996 and which the Labour Government and the coalition Government both upheld.
Baroness Eaton
Thank you. Three-quarters of Palestinian exports are destined for Israel and Israeli goods account for two-thirds of the West Bank’s imports. Does the Minister agree that a boycott of West Bank goods would be detrimental to the Palestinian economy?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I just wish to repeat what I am saying all along: this guidance is not about Israel per se. While what my noble friend says may have validity, I would say that boycotts are counter-productive and should not be taken by local authorities unless there is already a government action in place.
European Union Referendum (Conduct) Regulations 2016
Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bridges of Headley
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25 January be approved.
Relevant document: 24th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 22 February.