Localism Bill

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Lucas]

195ZAZMA: After Clause 41, Insert the following new Clause—
“Empty rates
In section 45 of the Local Government and Finance Act 1988 (unoccupied hereditaments: liability) in subsection 4A for “one” substitute “or equal to one fifth”, and for “prescribed” substitute “chosen in each particular case by the Local Authority”.”

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I am not at all sure that this is the right solution to the problem but I am sure the problem is there and I very much hope this Bill will deal with it. When one is looking at the application of localism to urban environments and to giving local communities some degree of control and influence over what is happening, one of the great problems—certainly a problem in the bit of London I lodge in during the week which is Lavender Hill—is empty properties. They are principally retail properties where the owners appear to have decided that they would rather they went empty than accept a lower rent and have some kind of commercial activity within them.

My view is that these owners should pay the full cost they are inflicting on the community by following that course of action. By allowing the street to appear derelict and empty they reduce the trade for other businesses. They reduce the prosperity of the area. They reduce the opportunity for jobs for people who live in the area. It is a thoroughly delinquent behaviour. It is something that costs the rest of the community dear. I do not believe that the current arrangements that merely allow for an ordinary empty rate are at all satisfactory. If we are going to have in the future the opportunity to create a neighbourhood in Lavender Hill, one of the first things we will wish to tackle is all the empty shops. We will not wish to do it by trying to persuade people to pay the vast rents which the street used to be able to command in the days when it was prosperous which was now some long while ago—it was 10 or 15 years ago. Some of these properties have stood empty since then. We will need some way of battening on to these landlords and making them realise that although it is their property and theirs to do what they do with it, if they choose to leave it empty and derelict they should pay the community something in respect of the costs they are causing it by their actions. I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, the noble Lord has drawn attention to a significant problem with commercial property but the same principle can apply to residential property, particularly in the private rented sector. There are a significant number of homes left empty—it runs into some hundreds of thousands. In urban areas in particular it is very often private rented properties that are left unoccupied. They are as much a blight on the local neighbourhood as empty commercial properties and of course the demand for accommodation is considerable. Just recently walking around the ward I represent I noticed a number of properties that have been empty for some years. They are not in particularly good condition but not sufficiently dangerous to allow the local authority to take steps. It would certainly be an incentive for landlords to let those properties and bring them into use for the benefit of the whole area if a similar principle were adopted for residential properties as the noble Lord proposes for commercial properties. I hope the Government will look sympathetically on that aspect of it and endorse the noble Lord’s amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who moved it. The amendment would give authorities the power to reduce the liability for empty property rates. Our ability to take action on empty property rates needs to be balanced against the costs involved, the targeted support that we already provide on business rates and the overriding need to reduce public expenditure and support the economy generally by reducing the deficit. This Government have already doubled small business rate relief for two years, which will benefit about half a million rate payers, with about one-third of a million paying no rates at all for that period. We are also taking powers through this Bill to waive £175 million of backdated business rates demands levied on businesses, including some in ports.

Unfortunately, in taking these matters into consideration, support for empty property rate measures is currently simply unaffordable. While the Government have no immediate plans for reform, we are certainly keeping this matter under review. However, the Bill does give local authorities powers to provide discounts on business rates bills as they see fit, provided they fund the relief themselves. So authorities will be able to reduce bills in the way suggested by the amendment.

I hope that the noble Lord is willing to withdraw the amendment, but I assure him that the matter is under review. It is quite interesting, because I have within the papers here a note about the reliefs. In 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, changes were made.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, can I just point out to my noble friend that the effect of my amendment is not to reduce business rates but to multiply them by five times, resulting in greatly increased revenue to the local authority and the Exchequer. I am afraid that in some way his briefing is somewhat wide of the mark. I should be delighted if he would write to me when his officials have been able to revise their mathematics. As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, clearly understands, this is about increasing the rates and increasing government revenue. I would hate it to be thought that I was in any way undermining the stalwart efforts of my right honourable friend the Chancellor to reduce the deficit.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord has made those comments. I think that the officials had difficulties with this, and quite frankly so did I. I sought out the Local Government Finance Act 1998, but I am afraid that it has been amended, because the reference that he makes is not there. Immediately before speaking, I tried to check this myself, because I had some doubt about this. The whole area is under review, as it seems to have been for four years on the trot, because Chancellors and local government people have changed the position. So it is still the fact that the area is under review, but it is one that does impact on the economy. Having heard what the noble Lord said in his latter remarks, clearly, we will need to reflect further. But I cannot make any commitments at this stage. Perhaps a few tender words here and there might help us to understand exactly what he is about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. I apologise for being so confusing in the preparation of my amendment. I say this as an aside, in case anyone from the House authorities is listening in, it is high time that statutes in force were made easily available to Peers who wish to table amendments. They are in the Library, but that is no use if you happen to be working from outside. I imagine that I picked up the statute as it was on the internet and have been tripped up by that and have confused my noble friend and his officials. I apologise for that. But to have a proper set of statutes in force available over the internet would be a bonus.

As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, understood, this amendment is clearly about trying to allow neighbourhoods through referenda to encourage their local councils as part of a plan to regenerate a neighbourhood to put a squeeze on landlords to bring empty properties back into use. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said. Flats over shops are certainly a significant problem round where we are; there are just empty properties at a time when accommodation is short. There has to be some way in which to encourage these properties back into use, some backstop that allows a local authority to get tough if a landlord will not be reasonable about these things. To my mind, that particularly applies to street frontage property, when the fact that it is empty is apparent to everybody and it becomes a blight on the other people trying to do business. To answer the point made by my noble friend, they can be converted into offices, or starter units for young businesses, which again are in short supply in Lavender Hill, and would be most welcome if we went down that route.

I know that this is a complicated area and I am not at all sure that empty rates is the way in which to attack it, but I would be very grateful for a letter from my noble friend to say how the Government intend to enable neighbourhoods to tackle this problem under the general heading of localism. But for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 195ZAZMA withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, if the purpose of this amendment was to enable a short debate on the political engagement of young people, I have no hesitation whatever in supporting that intention. If it is the intention to prescribe how local authorities should do it—and I do not think that it is—it has no place at all in a localism Bill. However, I am assuming it is the former, and indeed I think that the noble Baroness, in moving the amendment, said it was a suggestion—in fact, a very good suggestion. I want briefly to echo the importance of the political engagement of young people in the community. I can only speak with direct experience of my own local authority, where our youth parliament plays a very active role, and which in its elections last year had almost the highest turnout in the whole of London. That is in a relatively small London borough where young people play an active part. Similarly, we have young ambassadors who play a very active part not in matters particularly for young people but in the whole life of the borough, in issues that are of importance to people of all ages.

Therefore I wholly support and encourage the intention of this debate. It is important not just that young people are listened to but that what they are saying is heard and acted on. I can give another example of a project in which I am involved with a new building. We had the young ambassadors round to carry out a very detailed and thorough inspection of it. They raised a whole load of points, both about the physical nature of the building and particularly about the programmes that were being run there. They made a report to us, I ensured that the management board gave them a full written response and they came back six months later to ensure that it was being acted on. That is the sort of engagement that we want, not the rather patronising one where we say, “Yes, of course, that’s very good”, and then do nothing whatever about it. Real engagement means not that we are listening but that we are hearing and that we are acting on their suggestions. To enable me to make that point, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the amendment. I hope very much that she will not press it, because I do not think that it is for us, in a localism Bill, to be prescribing to local authorities how they should act on this issue; rather it is for us to encourage all local authorities to act on it and to do it effectively.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, in contrast to some of my noble friends, I am very much in favour of the involvement of young people in democracy and in giving them a formal role in it.

[Lord Cormack]

I hope my noble friend will not mind my pointing out that one can be wholly in favour of young people being involved in democracy without necessarily believing that the age of 16 should be the voting age.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, of course I believe always in the wisdom of my noble friend, even if my own views differ. I note that the Government, in their wisdom, always intend to legislate that people of any age may be members of a neighbourhood forum; so young people may well take part in the formation of policy for their area. I regret that the age at which they may vote on it remains 18. As noble Lords may remember from Committee, I would like to see it a good deal lower. I think that when you get down to a very small area, young people have a much more active and early understanding of what needs to be done in a locality than perhaps they do when you are trying to balance the affairs of a whole local authority, let alone a country. However, I celebrate the wisdom of the noble Baroness in not putting an age limit on participation in neighbourhood forums, and I very much hope that she will encourage other ways of allowing young people to participate in neighbourhood referenda and other aspects of localism.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I am provoked into making a few remarks. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that this amendment does not have a place in the Localism Bill. However, like him, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for raising this issue. I think we must all accept that we have not engaged our young people sufficiently. When we came back for one day after those dreadful riots, I made the point that perhaps we should consider some form of citizenship ceremony for all young people—I believe at the age of 18, although perhaps it could be 16—where they proclaim recognition of their role, their responsibilities and their allegiance. It would demand reciprocation on our part that they have a greater opportunity to participate.

I do not believe and never have believed that the age of 16 is the right age to vote, but that does not invalidate the general point that I am seeking to make and indeed that the noble Baroness was seeking to make in her brief remarks. I will make my remarks equally brief. I hope that when my noble friend the Minister comes to reply, she will at least be able to indicate a general sympathy, just as I hope—when the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment, as I trust she will—that we will be able to recognise that this is not actually part of a mandate from the Government in a localism Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said. It is merely an opportunity for us to encourage local authorities throughout the country to address the issue of young people perhaps a little more imaginatively than some of them have done—although by no means all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. My morale has been sustained throughout the Recess by the prospect of shortly moving Amendment 195ZB, in which I see I have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. That amendment is directed at the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has addressed. I tabled it at the request of the British Retail Consortium. If it makes any difference to any doubts in the mind of my noble friend the Minister about what she is about to say, she will have the British Retail Consortium on her side when she does so.

I am less sure that Amendments 195D and 195E to Clause 59, which are in my name, will now be unnecessary. If we are to have a break for dinner, there may be an opportunity to find out whether they need to be moved.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I am significantly less well informed than the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. This has caught me by surprise, particularly since, in various discussions with my noble friend’s officials, the local referendum was used to ward off my requests for amendments in other areas. To go over some of my concerns, I have, throughout the passage of the Bill, tried to persuade the Government that they need to look at how localism will work in cities. In rural and suburban areas, planning is a great lever and generator of funds. All things will be possible if we get the planning side right. Once you have funds, you have the ability to do what you want in a neighbourhood to a certain extent. You certainly have a lever with which to negotiate with the local authority.

However, even in as gentle an urban area as Lavender Hill, planning has no function as a raiser of funds or people’s enthusiasm. The place is built out. There is very little that planning can do. You will never get a community created in Lavender Hill, let alone some of the more difficult areas of cities, on the basis of what is in the Bill. We should be turning our thoughts to how the section on allowing local initiatives to run local services might be made less formal so that neighbourhoods might group around it. We ought to turn our minds to how neighbourhoods can make representations to local councils and be listened to on subjects that they really care about, such as school catchment areas, how parking is enforced and how decisions are made about the distribution of services.

There are many ways in which we might build localism in cities. Surely the riots have shown us the importance of doing that. However, in removing this provision the Government remove the one bit of the Bill that gives a possible voice to neighbourhoods in cities in trying to persuade their local councils to do something in the way that the neighbourhood wants them to be done. I will not argue with the Minister and my other noble friends that what is in the Bill at the moment is not an expensive and bureaucratic way of doing it, but we have to find something else. The Bill is such an opportunity to improve life in cities but the Government do not seem interested in taking it. I find that enormously disappointing. I am particularly sad that—since somewhere in the great collective mind that is the department there is an awareness of my arguments—I should be kept in the dark and not given time to prepare thoughts and arguments to compensate for this loss later in the Bill. I shall apply myself to it for the rest of the evening. With luck, we shall not get so far into the Bill that I cannot find ways of putting back opportunities to argue these things. As I say, my main concern is that this great opportunity to help build communities in cities is being allowed to pass by at a time when we are all acutely aware that it should not be.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I very much welcome the Government’s decision to accept the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. We debated this at some length in Committee. The drawbacks of the system that the Government had intended to bring in were made manifest at that time. The Government, having made the egregious error—in the view of some of us—of adopting an American system for the direct election of police commissioners, were in danger of incorporating something like a Californian referendum system into local government. It has not been noticeably successful in California.

A referendum is a legitimate way of testing public opinion. That is absolutely right. It is less obvious that the proposals in the original Bill—to allow a very small minority of either elected members or the public to engender petitions on any subject under the sun, at any time and at any cost—would make a significant contribution to the kind of community engagement that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, rightly wishes to see not only for the Lavender Hill mob but more generally. It is a perfectly legitimate and, indeed, important part of what local government and local governance must be about. However, there are other ways of involving communities and testing opinion. It is a pity that one of those ways—the petitioning procedure that was admittedly somewhat overcomplicated by the degree of regulation applied to it—has been abolished by the Bill. It required a council response to a petition from residents. It was a good measure. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, made great play of the fact that it was extremely bureaucratic in the way that the previous Government laid out how these things should be conducted. There was some force in that but the principle was a good one. It required an authority to respond to a concern that was formally raised by petition. I hope that the Government might, even at this late stage, given that they have taken out this part on referendums, look again at whether that might be reintroduced, perhaps in some more acceptable form than previously.

There is also the councillor call for action. I do not think that the Government have disturbed that principle. Admittedly, it is up to a local councillor to make the call but, on the other hand, a councillor who declines to make a call when faced with a considerable body of opinion in his ward is unlikely to remain a councillor for long. There is also that mechanism. Generally, in recent years local government has been more inclined to establish local mechanisms for consultation and involvement. I hope that that will be reinforced. However, the substantial construction of the previous arrangements for referendum effectively constituted an invitation for people to make mischief, which would have happened, to divide communities, which would also have happened, and to involve the authority in considerable expense. It could run into hundreds of thousands of pounds for a significant-sized authority. The noble Lord, Lord True, expressed serious concerns on that basis. Therefore, we very much welcome the withdrawal of this proposition, which leaves three areas where referendums might occur, as we have heard. We shall come to one of those, namely the council tax referendum, shortly.

Under the circumstances, I am not sure that it is right at this point to raise some of the concerns of the Electoral Commission, with which some of your Lordships will be familiar, about how such referendums—now in only three categories—might be conducted. It raises a concern about expenditure in promoting referendums of that kind. Clearly, for local referendums that are being abandoned it will no longer apply. However, it will still be potentially applicable to other referendums—the three that have been referred to, on elected mayors, council tax and neighbourhood planning issues, which we will eventually come to. I raise it now so that Ministers might have an opportunity to think a little about the Electoral Commission’s concerns. They may of course have a response already; but if they have not, then those concerns will not disappear because these particular provisions are no longer to feature in the Bill.

I hope that in the course of further debate we will have an elucidation of the Government’s position in relation to what is a real concern in respect of how the remaining referendums might be conducted, and, more particularly, how they might be financed. Subject to that, I certainly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and I am pleased that the Government are, as the noble Baroness so gently puts it, minded to accept them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords we now move to that part of the Bill regarding right to challenge. The first set of Government amendments—there are eight amendments in the group—seek to improve the workability of the right and to clarify certain issues that arose in response to our recent consultation exercise and indeed at the Committee stage in your Lordships’ House. Our consultation on the community right to challenge showed there is a real appetite to extend the duty to consider challenges under the right to more public authorities, including central government departments. Seventy-three per cent of respondents on this issue supported this course of action and I believe it has the support of many in this House. During our deliberations in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, suggested several services provided by government departments to which the right could be extended.

Clause 69(2)(d) already gives the Secretary of State the power to add other persons or bodies carrying on functions of a public nature as relevant authorities. Amendment 197B ensures that these persons or bodies could include a Minister of the Crown or a government department. Amendment 197C ensures that if the duty is extended to a person or body that exercises functions outside England, the right to submit an expression of interest will apply only to services provided by that person or body in England.

Amendment 197D responds to a query raised by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, in Committee about whether a public or local authority could be a community body. This was never our intention. In line with the definition of a voluntary body in Clause 69(6), we are therefore amending Clause 69(8) to clarify that a public or local authority cannot be a community body.

Amendments 197E, 197F, 197G and 197H are about enabling relevant authorities to determine timescales. They make changes to the provisions on the timescales associated with the community right to challenge in response to concerns raised by many local authorities, and others, during our recent consultation. These concerns focused on the difficulty of setting timescales nationally that could take account of the wide variations in services and circumstances and did not interfere with timescales for existing commissioning cycles. We agree with these concerns and are therefore amending the provisions to remove the Secretary of State’s powers to set timescales in regulations and replace them with a requirement for relevant authorities to set these timescales instead. We intend to set out in guidance, to which authorities will need to have regard under Clause 73(2), the factors they should take account of in doing this.

We have outlined what we expect these factors to be in the policy statement on the community right to challenge which was recently made available to Peers. Chief among them is the need for authorities to set timescales that give relevant bodies sufficient time—whether that is to prepare and submit an expression of interest or organise themselves to bid effectively in a procurement exercise or ensure relevant bodies are notified of decisions within a reasonable time. Authorities will also be required to publish details of these timescales.

Amendment 197E therefore removes the Secretary of State’s powers to specify the minimum periods which authorities can specify for the submission of expressions of interest. Clause 70(2) already enables authorities to specify periods for the submission of expressions of interest and Clause 70(3) to publish details of these periods.

Amendment 197F removes the Secretary of State’s power to specify the minimum and maximum periods which must elapse between the acceptance of an expression of interest and the commencement of the procurement exercise. Instead authorities are required to specify and publish details of these periods, which can be different for different cases.

Finally, Amendments 197G and 197H remove the duty on authorities to make a decision on an expression of interest within a timescale specified by the Secretary of State in regulations. Instead the authority must specify and publish the maximum time this decision will take. In order to prevent delay, relevant authorities will also be required to inform the relevant body of this maximum period in writing, either within 30 days of the end of the period for receiving expressions of interest, or where none exists, within 30 days of receiving an expression of interest. It must then notify the relevant body of its decision within the timescale it has specified. I beg to move.

[Lord Lucas]

I should be very grateful if my noble friend could go into a little more detail about Amendment 197E. He has removed there the ability of the Secretary of State to set minimum timescales. I understand what he says about flexibility. But if a local authority wishes to discourage activity under this part of the Bill, then timescales are where it will squeeze most easily. As my noble friend says, community organisations will take time to get themselves organised, to get their bids in and get them up to the standard required for subsequent scrutiny and competition. It is not clear to me in all the liberalising—from the point of view of the local authority—which is going on in these amendments, how the community, or bits of the community, can effectively appeal against, or have some notice taken, of a local authority which is setting very short timescales, which make things impracticable. There is guidance there. If the local authority does not go along with guidance, there does not seem to be any set of teeth that can be sunk into the local authority.

My experience of this is mostly in terms of parking regulations. There, again, the Government issue guidance. If the local authority goes against that guidance, no one takes any action of any description at all. Here it seems to be rather more important that in order to encourage action under this part of the Bill, there is an effective policing of the actions of local authorities to make sure that they are opening themselves up to what must be in many cases an inconvenient and, in their view unnecessary, application of neighbourhood rights and interests, with a system which they have got running very nicely, thank you very much. I would very much like some comfort that there will be an effective substitute for the backstop provided by the Secretary of State in the Bill as we have it now, which is being removed by these amendments, in cases where a local authority is acting to make this part of the Bill unworkable. I hope my noble friend can give me some comfort on that.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

I do not know whether I can give the noble Lord any comfort. The problem is that, on the one hand, people are asking for localism and letting the locals decide and, on the other hand, the noble Lord is saying, “Let the Secretary of State be on their back”. We cannot have it both ways. We certainly hope that people will be reasonable. For example, to have an expression of interest that is open for five minutes would not be reasonable. I should have thought that there would be other ways in localities to put a stop to that. It is as a result of our earlier debates and concerns about the Secretary of State being too prescriptive in these matters that some of these amendments have been brought forward. I should have thought that that would be appreciated by the House. But we are seeing the other view, which I know exists from time to time, that there will be recalcitrant local authorities which will not get on with things as people hope they might. I think we have moved in the right direction and, if it goes wrong and the recalcitrant authorities become a multitude, clearly something would have to be done, but perhaps we ought to trust local people and local authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, this little group of amendments raises some important and fundamental issues relating to the community right to challenge. I shall speak also to Amendment 197DA. I think that there is also a Labour amendment in the group.

We are back in the Alice in Wonderland world of relevant bodies, relevant authorities and relevant services. Amendment 197CA would leave out the provision that two or more employees of a relevant authority—a local authority—can be specified as a relevant body, in other words, a body which can challenge to run a service. The Bill defines “relevant body” as,

“a voluntary or community body, … a body of persons or a trust which is established for charitable purposes only, … a parish council, … in relation to a relevant authority, two or more employees of that authority, or … such other person or body as may be specified by the Secretary of State”.

The term “two or more employees” of a relevant authority does not seem to fit in with that list of defined bodies. One assumes that the other bodies defined by the Secretary of State will be community bodies. Employees are different.

That is not to say that there are not circumstances in which employees can, and indeed ought to, take over responsibility for the running of services on behalf of the principal council. Many of us would like to see far more organisations such as mutuals and co-operatives, which provide what, in a long lifetime ago in the Young Liberals, we used to call worker control—my noble friend Lord Tope remembers all that. Employee bodies or groups of employees taking over the running of services in a co-operative way is a perfectly valid and desirable way in which, in appropriate circumstances, public services can be run. They may be arm’s-length or more than arm's-length bodies.

However, it is our view that if the Government are interested in that—they have given some indication that they may be—that should be addressed as a separate issue. It is not the same as allowing a couple or half a dozen employees to go off on their own initiative and to do their own thing regardless of what the rest of the staff think. The Labour amendment in this group suggests that any such initiative should have the support of at least half the employees. On the face of it, that seems sensible.

There is concern that a small number of employees could act as a proxy for commercial companies coming in on the back of the provision. In our discussion with Ministers and civil servants, we have been given many assurances that safeguards are set out in the Bill to avoid that happening. The Ministers we have talked to have been absolutely clear that they do not see that as desirable, that it ought not to happen and that it can be prevented. I am asking my noble friend today not just for a statement that the safeguards are there but for a clear explanation on the record of how local authorities will be able to prevent that possible abuse. It is possible, as Ministers have told us, that that is unlikely to happen very often, but that is not a reason for not taking action to prevent it.

As for the process in which the community right to challenge will take place, I am widening the debate slightly to avoid saying quite so much on the next group of amendments. The first process is that a relevant body has to be approved by the council. If it is a parish council, it is automatic. If it is a community or voluntary body, the principal council will have to approve it as being a relevant body. The second part of the process is that a relevant body may make an expression of interest to run a service and the principal council has to decide whether to accept that expression of interest. So long as it fits the rules and regulations, it will not be able to reasonably refuse it. The third part of the exercise is that, having accepted an expression of interest, the principal council has to carry out a procurement exercise.

The concern that a lot of us now have is not about the processes in this Bill for approving a relevant body, which are full of all kinds of safeguards, with the possible exception of the provision relating to employees. We are not too concerned about the process of accepting an expression of interest, which again seems to have a number of safeguards written into it. It is in the procurement exercise where the problems seem to lie. Once the expression of interest is accepted, the procurement exercise comes into effect automatically. It seems to us that safeguards against abuse of the process are crucial.

Amendment 197DA is a different amendment. In Clause 69(8), “community body” is defined as,

“a body that carries on activities primarily for the benefit of the community”.

This amendment would add on the end of that,

“and is actively engaged in doing so in the area in which the relevant service is being provided”.

The amendment restricts the definition of a community body to a body which is active in the community referred to. It restricts it to local bodies or to wider bodies which are already active in the area. Otherwise, it would be wide open, for example, to a large national charity that has no presence whatever in an area to move in and try to take over services. If it is about community bodies, surely it is about bodies which are already active in that community.

I look forward to the Minister’s comments on that and in particular to his explanation of how the safeguards will apply to prevent abuse, particularly of a small number of employees putting in a bid for a service. Also, in general, what safeguards will there be against large commercial companies using this operation to sweep up services, which is what Ministers are repeatedly telling us they do not intend to happen?

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I face in a slightly different direction from my noble friend Lord Greaves. I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench can give me some comfort that, when the regulations are set out for this, they will have in mind how desirable it is that we should encourage the creation of neighbourhood-based community organisations to take on services currently provided by the state. One of the difficulties that we face in cities is that people have become used to the comfort of state provision, although they are getting extremely grumpy in some cases with the way in which it is provided.

If a community in a city is to get together and go through the process of preparing to bid for a service which it values, it is going to need considerable comfort and assistance in the regulations to make sure that it is not going to get tripped up on technicalities and that the local council can offer advice rather than having to stand back and treat this strange creature as a competitor to any commercial interests which may come along to bid for it afterwards. We need to be equipping ourselves in this Bill to nurture local enterprises and communities in cities to give them a chance through the provision of services to generate a surplus for reinvestment in the community. That is what we are doing elsewhere in this Bill for rural communities, which will generate a comfortable surplus out of planning permission, but we are doing nothing for inner city communities. This is the bit of the Bill where we give relatively compact communities easy access to a diversity of resources. Cities exist because they have that advantage over rural communities.

We need to give the local elements of those communities a real chance to get involved in providing local services and in that way generate surpluses which they can reinvest in the community and do the things that they want to do. I should like my noble friend to give me comfort that the department has urban communities in particular in mind in this part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, introduced the debate and then strolled off into the area covered by my notes for the next section, so I will trespass into them and see whether that works.

Before I respond in general I will deal with the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, because I am aware that he was not particularly comforted on the last occasion that I responded to him. I hope that he will be now, because if he looks at Clause 74, he will see that it is headed, “Provision of advice and assistance”. I will not say that it is littered with the words “Secretary of State”, but they are there half a dozen times, which suggests that the Secretary of State may well give advice and assistance to those who want to be involved in the challenge. I understand that the department’s view is that the clause would be used to give help and advice to various organisations that may be far better able to tackle the challenge.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords will my noble friend clarify whether that would be the case when the Secretary of State was being challenged under the amendments made earlier by my noble friend?

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

That is a little further down the road, is it not? If the clause states that that advice is being given, then that advice is being given. Therefore, if the Secretary of State is directly giving a service that is ultimately challenged, I would have thought that that had to be, quite frankly. However, that is a little further down the road and it will not happen tomorrow. Nevertheless, it is there that advice can be given and I hope that that will be helpful to my noble friend.

I will look at these notes and respond accordingly. Amendment 197CA would remove relevant authority employees as a relevant body, meaning that they would be unable to express an interest in running a relevant service. The coalition programme for government committed to empowering public sector staff to take control of their own services in new enterprises such as mutuals. That was reinforced in the recent publication of the Open Public Services White Paper. The Cabinet Office is leading on implementing this commitment by introducing a new right to provide. The inclusion of employees of the relevant authority as relevant bodies under the right to challenge will implement the right to provide in relation to local authority services.

To accept this amendment would be a great shame. Employees are often best placed to see how services could be improved and their ideas could make a huge difference in delivering more efficient, effective and responsive services. The amendment could prevent those good ideas from seeing the light of day by forcing employees to organise themselves as a charity, voluntary or community body simply in order to express an interest. Employees may not be prepared to be in a position to undertake such a process before an expression of interest has even been accepted, although of course they will have to comply with the requirements for what must be in an expression of interest.

In addition, this could create a parallel process with employees putting their ideas to local authorities outside the procedure set out in the right. This would risk jeopardising the transparency of the process: proposals should be evaluated consistently whether they originate from existing employees, a parish council or a voluntary or community body.

It is worth noting that in the policy statement, the Community Right to Challenge, which was made available in the House Library on 8 September, we make it clear that safeguards will be in place to prevent the kind of abuse of the right that is concerning some noble Lords. For example, the policy statement states our intention to provide that expressions of interest will have to set out the relevant body’s case that they are capable of providing the service and of competing in a procurement exercise. That will work to ensure that only employees serious about running a service express an interest in running it and should discourage any abuse of the right. In addition, employees submitting an expression of interest will need to set out how they propose to engage with staff affected by the expression of interest in the development of their proposal.

Amendment 197CB, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, deals with employee support for challenges. I understand that the intention behind the amendment is to apply a condition to Clause 69(5)(e) that employees must first obtain the support of a majority of employees affected by their expression of interest before they can be considered a relevant body. The policy statement I referred to previously also set out our intention to require employees to set out in their expression of interest their proposals for staff engagement. However, we do not want to be prescriptive about how this is to be achieved. It is best decided locally rather than centrally. The experience of the way the right to request has worked in the National Health Service shows that existing, well established communication channels are likely to play an important part in engaging staff. There is no requirement for a ballot to demonstrate staff support for a proposal under the right to request. However, the face-to-face meetings, intranet updates and staff clinics undertaken when some 1,200 staff from the Hull primary care trust used the right to transfer to a social enterprise show that good communication between the staff involved is likely to be at the heart of any successful challenge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

My Lords, I must intervene. Obviously the noble Lord has not developed his arguments at the same length as in Committee but I am afraid I am as unconvinced by them now as I was then. It is certainly a worthy thing to pay lip service to freedom of information but one has to think about the practical impact of what is proposed. Although the noble Lord says that in Amendment 199 he places a limit on the extent of the burden by specifying contracts for any sum over £1 million, this is vitiated by the fact that his amendment goes on to say:

“Where such a contract is to any extent performed by means of a sub-contract, that sub-contract shall be deemed to include a freedom of information provision”,

and so on. It is like unwrapping a Russian doll. As we discussed in Committee, many of these large contracts may relate to construction, for example, where many small businesses will be involved. This may be onerous for small businesses and those businesses may well find themselves caught by the way that this amendment is drafted. The only people exempted are legal advisers to those bodies. Indeed, any other person acting on behalf of a sub-contractor, such as the bookkeeper of a small business, may be brought in to the scope of that amendment, as I read it. I should like the Minister to reflect carefully before going in that direction.

I argued that the new clause proposed by Amendment 201 could be absurdly onerous on local authorities. The noble Lord’s amendment uses “relevant authority”, which means that any parish council or community council in this country would have to publish annual reports on the Freedom of Information Act, environmental regulations and information on the number of requests that it had received. All the provisions here would apply to every authority in the country. My own council is very willing to comply with the Act—anybody can ask a question about it at council; we had a question on it answered two council meetings ago and this information was given—but the cost of doing so is already more than £100,000 a year. With the greatest respect, I do not think that extending this degree of reporting responsibility down to the level of the merest parish council and community council in this country, let alone larger authorities, is appropriate or necessary.

While respecting the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Wills, I hope that my noble friend will resist his amendment for the reasons that I and others have given and that we can proceed with the rest of the Bill.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wills, is quite right that enthusiasm for freedom of information seems to wane the longer a party is in power. He is perhaps sitting there, safely in the far corner of the Back Benches, so that he does not get too heavily stamped on by his own Front Bench. The Labour Party quite clearly lost enthusiasm for the Freedom of Information Bill in the course of taking it through Parliament. It was by the narrowest of squeaks that it survived at all, and that was only six months into government. If it has developed a new affection for it now, I am delighted, but I do not expect it to last.

However, on our Front Bench, we have Mr Freedom of Information himself. My noble friend has been dedicated to this cause for a long time, so I hope that he will take a constructive view of what we might do. I share many of the concerns of my noble friend Lord True and do not think that this amendment does the trick. However, more openness in local government and more consideration of which of the larger contracts in local government should be open to freedom of information would be consistent with the way in which the Government are going; for instance, in considering whether examination boards should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act or putting UCAS on the list of bodies subject to it, as we have a draft regulation to do at the moment. If the processes of the Health and Social Care Bill lead to a substantial transfer of what is currently public activity away from the public gaze, I shall propose that we make sure that it is brought back swiftly through the Freedom of Information Act. I do not see this Bill as leading to large-scale transfers of activity away from the public gaze into obscurity, but there should be some protection in case there is. I hope that we get a constructive answer from my noble friend.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I shall resist the temptation to stamp on my noble friend; it is a highly resistible proposition. I support the thrust of his amendments. Indeed, I detect certain sympathy on the detail of Amendment 199 from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. There are matters in it that are worthy of further consideration by government and I hope that they will not simply reject the topic out of hand even if they cannot quite accept the wording of the amendments for reasons which have been advanced tonight and perhaps others.

On the new clause that would be inserted by Amendment 201, it is not an extraordinary demand to make of a public body that it should keep a record of, or at least do a report on, requests for freedom of information. I should have thought that this was a reasonably appropriate matter for a council audit committee—I serve on such a committee—to have before it as it is information about the governance of the authority. It does not seem to me that the amendment seeks to impose an inherently onerous obligation. It is one that should be within the knowledge of members of that authority. I think that routing it through the audit committees, or possibly standards committees, of councils would be a good way to ensure that elected members do not lose sight of the council’s obligations and that they ensure that their officers actually comply with them. I hope that the Minister will accede to my noble friend’s request to think about this and to perhaps bring something back at Third Reading. It is an important issue and although sometimes, obviously, there are difficulties in complying with requests, there is no reason why these issues should not be examined and, in the interest of good governance, improvements made to the local regime.