Localism Bill
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(14 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I would like to respond to that briefly. London Councils has made it very clear from the beginning of this Bill that it has been unhappy with the extent to which the regional authority in London—namely, the mayor and the London Assembly—seems to have been more successful in securing powers and opportunities than have London boroughs. Maybe that is their fault, but the fact of the matter is that the point made by my noble friend Lord True is shared by London boroughs as a whole. There needs to be a better balance between the mayor and the boroughs on these sorts of matters. As I have said before, the boroughs are responsible elected authorities and deserve to have a proper consideration on these matters. I hope that the Minister will feel able to give further consideration to this point. Here is another case where the mayor’s lobbying seems to have been more effective than that of the London boroughs. I am not sure whether that is right or justified, but that seems to be what has happened.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, as we have heard, the government amendment requires consultation before there is any delegation or variation of a delegation of ministerial powers to the Mayor of London. This consultation must take place with each London borough, the Common Council of the City of London, and the Assembly. The noble Lord, Lord True, requires consultation on whether the function could be more appropriately conducted at borough level and, if a majority thinks so, an explanation has to be given to Parliament. We obviously support the consultation and the government amendment, but there is no specific guidance in the amendment as to what might result from such consultation. There is no specific requirement to publish the results, produce a response or indeed report to Parliament. Could the Minister give us some more details about these matters? If, for example, the consultation were to be overwhelmingly hostile to the concept, would it still proceed? Can he give us an idea of the type of eligible functions likely to be involved in the sort of delegation contemplated?
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord True, with which, like my noble friend Lord Beecham, I have some sympathy, raises an interesting point about the role of London boroughs and their equivalents under the so-called Core Cities amendments, which we will shortly come to. Should it be accepted at any stage that the boroughs—one or all of them—would be a better destination for such delegation, and what powers in the Bill would allow that to happen?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing all these points to bear on what is actually quite a difficult balancing act, and I think noble Lords will agree. I am not a London person, but I come from a two-tier authority. I live in a county council area and in a district council area, and the responsibilities between those two councils are usually clearly defined by statute. I think the governance of London is more involved. The Government’s policy intention is to try to keep an even balance between the democratic mandate which is vested in the mayor and the London Assembly and the democratic mandate which is vested in the London boroughs. I am sure all noble Lords will agree that keeping that balance right is not easy.
Much of the talk has been about how the consultation might go and the consequences of a consultation where perhaps the proposals do not meet with consensus. These are reasonable challenges. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked whether the joint council body for London would be consulted. It is a matter of fact that it would be consulted; I do not know it is a statutory body as such, but it is clearly a body that would be validly consulted. This would not, however, avoid proper consultation with the individual boroughs. It is very important to place on record that these government amendments seek to enshrine the role of the boroughs themselves. Indeed, they are coloured by the amendment of my noble friend Lord True, which seeks to go further in protecting the interests of the boroughs. I understand that.
I was asked how Parliament would be able to challenge any decisions that might be made in this area. In reality, Ministers are accountable to Parliament and I cannot imagine a decision considered by any noble Lord to be totally unfair or irrational to go unchallenged, either by question or even debate in this House, let alone down the other end where quite a large number of Members represent London constituencies.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
While I await the answer to that part of the process, perhaps I may continue with the process of consultation. It is important to get this on the record too. The consultation exercise will have to be appropriate to the matter in question. The problem with being too prescriptive about the nature of the consultation is that it does not have room for more flexible responses. Consultation should not be a tick-box exercise. It is a proper dialogue. It should not really be about whether it has majority support or not but about what is right, and consensus should be sought across the boroughs and London in the interests of the people of London. In the end, the governance of London is not for the benefit of the mayor, the Assembly or the London boroughs; it is for the people who live there.
In response to my noble friend’s challenging question, the process is outside the statutory instrument process. It is purely an administrative function. However, the decision is still capable of being challenged in Parliament, as I have said, if it is seen to be perverse. There are no immediate plans to use this power, but it is envisaged that it could be used to delegate the administration of some of the national programmes that may be produced on the horizon. That is why it is important to have this capacity and a process whereby there can be discussions across London as to where a national programme might be best delivered.
My noble friend Lord True castigated us, in the nicest possible way, as he would, for not recognising that the Localism Bill is the place where, by empowering local boroughs, we would enhance localism within London. The role of the boroughs is clearly laid down by statute, and they are a very important part of London’s governance. However, London is an exceptional place—it is the capital city of the country—and a number of services are effectively organised across London. The power to delegate arises only when the Secretary of State considers that the functions can be exercised appropriately by the mayor. We say that this provides the sort of comfort which my noble friend seeks. In effect, only a Minister exercising his powers under this clause can do this.
I hope that my noble friend will feel free to withdraw his amendment. I believe that the Government have got the balance on this issue just about right.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Should it be decided at some stage that a delegation of ministerial functions to a borough or a group of boroughs is a preferred route, does the structure of the Bill permit that?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I thought the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, was asking me whether, in future legislation, responsibilities could be delegated to boroughs.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I have obviously not been clear enough. I was asking whether, if at some point in the future it were decided to delegate responsibilities to a London borough, the Bill, or any other piece of existing legislation, provides authority for that. I think my question is the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin: does the Bill permit that delegation now or at some stage in the future?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Is the noble Lord asking whether this can work the other way around and that powers that are currently vested in the mayor should be delegated to the boroughs?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am sorry; we are getting into a Committee-type exchange. No, it was just that, as I understand it, the Bill permits ministerial functions to be delegated to the mayor, subject now to the consultation that the amendment is focused on. The noble Lord, Lord True, was asking about delegation not to the mayor but to London boroughs. I think the Minister responded that that was not being contemplated. My question is: if the decision were taken tomorrow that it would be more appropriate to delegate some functions from Ministers to London boroughs, does the Bill permit that? Is that in accordance with the Bill?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 108, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, is an interesting amendment, on which I look forward to the response of the noble Earl. As a Londoner, I always thought that the London Transport Users’ Committee did quite a good job standing up for Londoners and, as my noble friend Lord Whitty said, for people travelling through London who have no vote in the GLA or any other elections in London. Having proper GLA input into what goes on in London transport is obviously very important. It has not happened in the past and that is very regrettable. What worries me, though, is where people will go to have their voice heard if this body is abolished. I know that the body is appointed by the London authority. I have some concerns, as a south Londoner, that there is very little experience of south London on the board. That needs to be addressed in the next round of appointments. One member may have been to Putney once or twice, but there is very little involvement in south London.
Another thing that worries me is the performance of London Underground. Noble Lords may not be aware that since April this year performance statistics have ceased to be published, so we have no idea what is going on in London Underground. I think we all know that it is getting worse, for sure, and this is something that needs to be addressed by both the users committee and the London authority pressing the mayor to release those figures again and to say why they have been stopped.
In conclusion, I am not against reform at all, but we need to hear more about how this will improve the situation. We in London all find that things are getting much worse, so we need to hear more about improvements. This may be something for the future, but not now.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I should explain that our official Front Bench position is that we support the amendment, which means that, should it be put to a vote, I, at least, will be obliged to vote in favour. I am not sure how many of my colleagues behind me would follow me into the same Lobby. Our position was formulated because of strong support from the GLA, but I take it as implicit in my mandate that supporting the amendment would be conditional on the Government being able to answer a lot of the very robust challenges that have come, particularly, from this side of the House during this debate.
My noble friend Lord Whitty spoke about the importance of preserving a strong consumer interest. Points were also made by my noble friend Lord Faulkner about whether this will benefit passengers, some of whom do not live in London and are not London voters. Indeed, it covers rail travel from such places as Luton. If we were to separate rail from other modes of travel, how would that work? I understand the thrust of the movers of the amendment, but these are questions that need to be satisfied before it could proceed. Perhaps in responding the Government can confirm that there was overwhelming support for the proposition among transport operators and rail user groups. Will the Government let us know, for the record, whether any alternatives to transfer to the GLA have been considered and on what basis they were rejected?
The Government have acknowledged the considerable amount of casework undertaken by London TravelWatch and are presumably satisfied that this could be handled under the proposed new arrangements. The London Assembly review of TravelWatch, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, spoke, recommended that the reorganisation be folded into the assembly but with rail functions distributed between the assembly and the national independent passenger watchdog Passenger Focus. Have the Government undertaken an analysis and will they support that as an appropriate way forward?
I look forward to the Minister's reply and hope that he can dig me out of my dilemma on this issue. Powerful issues have been raised that need to be answered before the proposition can and should proceed, much as we love the thrust of it. In particular, there is a mood that the status quo should not necessarily be accepted. There may be ways in which it can be improved and cost savings may be generated. I would be interested in the Minister's views on that as well.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, Amendment 108 would abolish the London Transport Users’ Committee and transfer its functions to the London Assembly. My officials assured me that this would be an easy amendment to deal with—even I would be able to deal with it. The reality is that I find myself in the middle of a pretty vigorous debate. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, also finds himself in an interesting position.
I regret we did not have time to discuss this amendment in Committee when it was tabled by the noble Lords. As my noble friend Lady Hanham indicated in her subsequent letter, the Government believe that it is inappropriate—at this stage through this Bill—for the London Transport Users’ Committee, which is the independent transport users watchdog for London, to be transferred to the London Assembly.
Among other things, the committee undertakes an important and impartial complaints ombudsman role on behalf of London transport users in and around London, and it is vital that any change to the current arrangements ensures that complaints continue to be dealt with in a genuinely independent manner. In particular, there is an EU requirement which mandates the designation of an independent body for complaints for rail transport users. So there is an important question that needs to be resolved about how far the assembly can be sufficiently independent for the purposes of this EU legislation, given its party-political membership, its role in scrutinising the work of the mayor and TfL and its influence over the strategic direction of transport policy in London—especially when this Bill will allow it to reject the mayor’s transport strategy.
Indeed, if the Government had proposed such an amendment, there would have been concerns from many noble Lords about the lack of independent safeguards in the legislation. Therefore, as we have heard from our debate this evening, there are still some important questions that need to be resolved before we can consider legislating for any new arrangements. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, asked me a few more and I do not know the answers, which is why we cannot support the amendments.
However, as I am sure that noble Lords will agree, it is entirely right during a time of fiscal constraint for the London Assembly to consider ways to achieve best value for taxpayers’ money from the London Travel Users’ Committee that it oversees. The Department for Transport has already undertaken a review of Passenger Focus, the national rail passenger watchdog, which will deliver significant savings, and DfT will work with the committee, the assembly and other partners to explore ways to deliver an efficient and effective ombudsman function for London transport users.
On this basis, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
“CHAPTER 2ATransfer and delegation of functions to certain authoritiesPower to transfer local public functions to permitted authorities
(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision—
(a) transferring a local public function from the public authority whose function it is to a permitted authority;(b) about the discharge of local public functions that are transferred to permitted authorities under this section (including provision enabling the discharge of those functions to be delegated).(2) An order under this section may modify any enactment (whenever passed or made) for the purpose of making the provision mentioned in subsection (1).
(3) The power to modify an enactment in subsection (2) is a power—
(a) to apply that enactment with or without modifications,(b) to extend, disapply or amend that enactment, or(c) to repeal or revoke that enactment with or without savings.(4) An order under this section may disapply, or modify the application of, Chapter 4 of Part 1A of the Local Government Act 2000 (changing local authority governance arrangements) in relation to a county council or district council to which the order transfers a local public function.
(5) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this section unless the Secretary of State considers that it is likely that making the order would—
(a) promote economic development or wealth creation, or(b) increase local accountability in relation to each local public function transferred by the order.(6) For the purposes of subsection (5)(b), in relation to a local public function, local accountability is increased if the exercise of the function becomes more accountable to persons living or working in the area of the permitted authority to which it is transferred.
(7) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this section unless the Secretary of State considers that the local public function transferred by the order can appropriately be exercised by the permitted authority to which it is transferred.
(8) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this section transferring a local public function to a permitted authority unless the authority has consented to the transfer.
(9) Before making an order under this section, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 114, I shall speak to the other amendments in this group. Given that they each also bear the names of the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, I have some expectation that they may be acceptable to your Lordships. The Bill currently includes provisions which enable the Secretary of State by order to transfer a local public service function from any person to its elected mayor. In Committee, we sought to amend that by widening its application to local authorities that operated a leader and cabinet executive model of governance. That amendment was eventually withdrawn.
Additionally, in Committee, we tabled amendments which were prompted by the Core Cities group. These amendments sought equivalent opportunities for the transfer and delegation of functions as were provided to the Mayor of London under the Bill. It was suggested that this approach had cross-party support among the Core Cities group, growing support from the Members of Parliament of the core cities and support from Ministers. In the event, these amendments were not moved on the final day in Committee. Over the Recess, the Government have taken the issue forward with the Core Cities group, hence the amendments today. They also cover the original proposals for transfers to mayors which are replaced.
Amendment 114 provides for the transfer of local public functions from a public authority to a permitted authority. A public function is a function of a public authority. A permitted authority includes a county council in England, a district council and an economic prosperity board. The transfer is achieved by an order of the Secretary of State and may not be made unless it considered that the order would promote economic development or wealth creation, or increase local accountability in relation to each local public function. The Secretary of State must be satisfied that the permitted authority can exercise the function appropriately and has consented to the transfer.
Amendment 115 permits the delegation to a permitted authority of a Minister’s eligible functions, mirroring the provisions of Clause 210, which cover such delegation to the Mayor of London, and on which we touched on earlier amendments. Amendment 116 allows the Secretary of State to make a scheme for the transfer of property rights or liabilities to give effect to a transfer of functions and a delegation of a Minister’s eligible functions or their revocation.
Amendment 117 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to consider any proposals for the exercise of these powers which come from a permitted authority and to establish criteria by which they must be considered. Amendment 118 crucially sets out a robust super-affirmative procedure for any order which seeks to transfer functions to a permitted authority. Amendment 119 covers definitions. Amendments 151, 161, 163 and 241 are consequential.
Core Cities is a network of the local authorities of England’s eight largest city economies outside London. It includes Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield. The cities drive their local economic areas and make a significant contribution to the national economy. They work in partnership with government to influence policy and to develop new ideas based on knowledge of what works on the ground to improve economic performance and reduce dependency. The Core Cities group has a track record of more than 15 years led by city leaders across all parties.
The powers in this amendment could be available to anywhere that meets the criteria. However, England’s core cities are the main drivers of the country’s economy outside London and the south-east. Together, their primary urban areas deliver 27 per cent of the national economy, more than London, and contain 16 million residents. The role of cities is central to delivering national economic outcomes, reducing dependency on public spending, and in driving growth, productivity and tax revenues. Supporting growth in the core cities is vital to rebalance the UK economy.
With more decentralised arrangements for governance and public finance, these cities would be able to deliver greater economic outcomes for the UK. Recent independent economic forecasts commissioned by Core Cities have demonstrated that the local enterprise partnership areas, given greater control over the drives of growth, are capable of delivering an additional 1 million jobs and £44 billion economic output over the next decade.
The Bill offers an opportunity through these amendments to create a binding narrative around other localist and decentralising policy, enabling this Government to deliver a distinctive set of urban policies and a legacy of empowered cities driving private sector growth and jobs. The Bill proposes to transfer powers from the London Development Agency and the Homes and Communities Agency to the Mayor of London, and makes provision for further ministerial delegation. Other major economic areas need the same opportunity to be able to drive growth and prosperity for their business and residents, and for the wider economy. The country needs London to do well but, to create an equitable and multicentred national economic strategy, the same chance needs to be given to other areas that are capable of growing employment. England needs a London-plus national economic policy.
It is the intention of the Core Cities group to seek these powers for its members but it will not be restricted to the core cities and their urban areas. Any economic area that fulfils the eligibility criteria could be able to request these delegations. The overarching aim of the amendment is to drive economic growth and productivity, and reduce dependency. Now is a critical moment for economic recovery and we need to boost local investment and investor confidence. This amendment would support private sector growth and jobs; create new opportunities for efficiency, innovative finance and investment; enable distinctive urban policy and a legacy of empowered cities; ensure continued buying from private sector partners on LEPs; support the implementation of a local government resource review and further incentivise local authorities and their partners; support the implementation of enterprise zones; clarify existing routes of delegation; support double devolution to local communities; support the wider restructuring of subnational economic development architecture; create a route to delegate to further emerging governance structures; and be a significant—I suggest popular—and symbolic step towards decentralisation and localism. I beg to move.
Lord Tope
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for moving the amendment. As he rightly said, my noble friend Lord Shipley has added his name to it and was hoping and expecting to be here to speak in support of it. He has been in Manchester all day on government business. I have just heard that he has only just got on a train in Manchester, so I suspect that he will not be here in time to contribute to this debate. However, I have a fairly good idea of what he would have said had he been here, and I speak on his behalf. As someone who has been a London councillor all his adult life, I must say that I had not expected to be speaking on behalf of Core Cities. It is a rare privilege and something I do enthusiastically because I very much support these amendments.
Both this Government and the previous Administration have made firm commitments to devolution and decentralisation. The Bill now offers an opportunity to hand decision-making powers from central to local government, working in partnership with the private sector. The Government’s stated aim is to rebalance the economy, focusing on the whole of our national economic system as well as London and the south-east, enabling other places to develop their economies to boost national growth and productivity.
Devolution has happened at different speeds in different geographies. London will receive further powers through the Bill, and the devolved Assemblies already have powers that are not available directly to cities in England. Without further decentralisation there is a risk that England’s core cities, which generate 27 per cent of England’s GVA—my noble friend Lord Shipley points out that that is more than London—and other towns and cities will be unable to perform to their full potential and support nationwide growth and enterprise. Recent independent forecasts by Oxford Economics demonstrate that the core cities’ eight local enterprise partnership areas are capable of delivering an additional 1 million jobs and £44 billion GVA over the next decade, given the tools to do so.
This enabling amendment creates a route to these tools to ministerial delegation and the transfer of public service functions for economic development and wealth creation to single and combined authorities in England. Any such actions would be subject to competency tests, including strong local governance and private sector buy-in, evidence that growth can be delivered and sound arrangements to work across administrative boundaries.
The potential of the amendment would be open to any place, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has said, that can demonstrate that it can pass the competency tests that the Government will set out. It will ensure that local areas have the powers and financial autonomy to deliver local solutions to their challenges, and that further legislation will not be needed to pass these powers to cities’ civic and business leaders. Any major transfers will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
The amendment would support private sector growth and new opportunities for investment, ensure continued buy-in from private sector partners on LEPs, support the implementation of policy to incentivise places to deliver growth, support double devolution to local communities, and be a significant step towards decentralisation.
As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has said, these amendments enjoy support from at least three sides of the House and, I hope, passive support from the fourth. Therefore, I am very pleased to be able to support them.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for her reply and all the noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendments. It seems that we have unanimity, I think for the first time during our deliberations. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in particular. As he said, the climate has changed since he was Secretary of State. I remember some of those days with a district authority in Luton. If I except Newcastle, there was the odd Labour-controlled authority in those days to which we, even on these Benches, would not have been overly keen to transfer these sorts of powers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, asked about the superaffirmative procedure. Amendment 118 very clearly sets out that, as the Minister has described, these orders have to go through the superaffirmative process before they can proceed.
My noble friend Lord Beecham made the valid point that the Government have to play their part in all this, because Amendment 117 requires and places an onus on government to respond or to consider proposals that are made to it by core cities or whoever. I should reiterate that credit for this goes to the Core Cities Group. It originated it and raised it with us. I know that it raised it with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for speaking on his behalf today. It is good that the Government took it up over the Recess and knocked it into technical shape so that it works properly. I will not press my luck further. I beg to move.
Amendment 114 agreed.
Amendments 115 to 119 agreed.
Amendment 119A
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I very much endorse my noble friend’s observations but, like him, I also have one or two questions about how things might work. I come from an area that has been well served by a passenger transport authority and executive for many years. We have a pretty good bus system and a metro system, which was initiated by a Conservative Government in the 1970s—ad idem again across the Floor—and extended more recently. It is very successful but its powers in relation to private bus companies are circumscribed. That is a source of frustration, at least to that passenger transport executive, and I wonder whether the Bill will actually open the possibility of a different relationship between the authority and the bus companies. Incidentally, I suppose I ought to declare an interest as the holder of a bus pass and a concessionary metro pass.
I know from my own experiences as a ward councillor, but also from general issues arising from transport, that the feeling is that there is insufficient leverage in the hands of the executive in relation to private contractors. That is one question, and, again, if it is not possible to give an answer immediately, subsequently will be quite satisfactory.
The other issue relates to the Highways Agency. One can well envisage circumstances in which the role of the Highways Agency may be quite important to the transport plans of an executive, and, indeed, to the delivery of transport services. Again, in my experience, it is not always the most amenable government agency that one has to deal with. I know that the experience of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is different—we have had a conversation to that effect—but, certainly, there is at least some potential for a different relationship between an authority with the powers that will conferred on it by this Bill and the Highways Agency.
Going back to where we left the discussion on core cities, the same principle applies. Will there be buy-in not only from the Department for Transport but in particular from that executive agency, which is very influential and needs to co-operate with the body charged with the delivery of local transport? Of course, the Highways Agency does not deal, generally speaking, with the road network in towns and cities. Nevertheless, in a sub-regional area such as Tyne and Wear, Greater Manchester or elsewhere, there is a relationship between their activities and programmes and those of the executive. I wonder whether any enlightenment might be cast upon that issue. Again, I do not necessarily expect a reply off the cuff, and if it is more convenient I would be happy to receive a written communication in due course.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of these amendments, subject to any issues that come out of the very forensic questioning of my noble friends. Amendment 119BA seeks simply to ensure that the powers conferred can be pursued either alone or collectively with one or more ITA. I accept entirely the Minister’s confirmation that it can and that this amendment is not necessary. I am pleased that that is on the record. As the noble Earl said, we moved amendments in Committee to achieve a general power of competence for ITAs similar to that given to fire and rescue authorities in the Bill. These replicated amendments moved by my honourable friend Barbara Keeley in another place. The Minister there explained that these were matters for the Department for Transport and were under consideration. That, indeed, was the response when we debated the amendments in Committee here, but the Government committed to take matters further, which they have done. They have fulfilled their obligation to the House and we are happy to support these amendments.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome to these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked about extension of powers possibly covering rail franchising and Henry VIII powers in this amendment. Primary legislation would be required to allow the ITAs to be involved in franchising outside their area. If such changes are required, the Government will look for a legislative opportunity.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, mentioned the Highways Agency. He will understand that the Highways Agency is concerned with the strategic road network, but I am confident that it will work closely with local authorities. The noble Lord also asked about powers relating to local bus services in ITA areas. ITAs set a broad strategy for public transport, including buses. Most bus services in an ITA area are run on a commercial basis. ITAs are responsible, where they see fit, for topping up—in other words, adding extra services. There are some detailed questions and I will ensure that we get a full answer to all the questions. A copy will of course be placed in the Library. I beg to move.
Localism Bill
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(14 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has indicated, we are pleased to put our name to these amendments. We thank the Government for responding to at least one of the amendments, which means that the noble Lord will not have to introduce that one. The issues, as the noble Lord has explained, seem to be extremely straightforward and clear-cut. The consultation simply seeks for London boroughs parity with what happens to the London Assembly and for them not to have to go through the indirect route for the reasons that the noble Lord has explained and to make sure that there is fair representation. The Government have recognised that there should be representation for the boroughs on MDC boards. It seems a natural and reasonable extension to that that there should be representation on committees and sub-committees. Having said that, I fully support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, as regards the mayoral development areas, reference is made to consultation with a number of bodies, including the Greater London Authority or local councils. But consultation is different in the minds of different people. In local government, we have seen many consultations, the results of which have been ignored. It worries one that a London borough may be only one part of the decision-making process and may only be consulted.
In particular, the government amendment refers to local borough councils having a “relevant” interest if the mayoral development area in any way impinges on the area of that local borough. The boundaries of London boroughs do not fit neatly into developments. For example, the Brent Cross development, which was built more than 30 years ago, is expanding, with which I agree. It is right on the borders of the boroughs of Barnet, Camden, Brent and Harrow. It seems to me that when this situation arises in the future, “relevant” local authorities should be those that have an interest and are affected by the proposed mayoral development areas, and not only those where the mayoral development area would be situated within that local borough. I invite the Minister to consider whether the word “relevant” is correct in this case and whether adjoining local boroughs should also be in some way incorporated in this Bill.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, this is a very interesting pair of amendments. Proposed new paragraph (d) in Amendment 107 is about the London Transport Users’ Committee, which the Minister will be aware that Amendment 108 seeks to merge more closely into the GLA. If Amendment 108 is not carried—and I will certainly oppose it if I can be in the Chamber at the time—who decides whether these administrative sharing arrangements take place? If the London Transport Users’ Committee remains as it is, who decides whether it should merge its administration? Can they resist a request to share or is it a matter of negotiation?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, it seems to me that the concept of sharing back-office and administrative services is entirely reasonable and I can see the benefits that might flow from that. My noble friend raises an interesting question as to how it works and whether there is a discussion or an imposition when new bodies are brought in. I suppose I am a little surprised that there are not the general powers already available for the sharing of these functions but I support the thrust of this.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I assure the noble Lord that we would not be tabling amendments if the power were already in existence—no, it does not exist, which is perhaps surprising to noble Lords, but I hope that with the consent of the House it will in future. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his question and I reassure him that any decision on these fronts has to be mutually agreed. This is really designed to be of advantage to both parties and for the people of London.
Localism Bill
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(14 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Best
My Lords, this amendment is about community land trusts and enfranchisement. Community land trusts acquire land from benevolent landowners or public bodies with a social concern free of charge or at a much reduced price. They then build homes for renting and shared ownership using the cheap or free land as the subsidy that makes the homes affordable. This means that they can keep the homes as affordable to those on modest incomes for present and future generations. They are very local, although they may use a housing association to help them; they work with the planners, the parish council, the landowner and volunteers. Very often they are self-help organisations in which future residents play a major part.
The community land trusts are real big society stuff. However, they have a problem in relation to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, which entitles the occupier to acquire the freehold and remove thereby the opportunity for others in future to benefit from the initial gift or concession on the land price. Similarly, the right to acquire under the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 can remove the property from its original purpose. This amendment seeks to protect the homes built through community land trusts from legislation that can undermine the whole basis on which they are set up to operate. It is not a denial of rights of tenants or shared owners, because those moving in are very willingly, indeed enthusiastically, signing up to getting homes that they could not otherwise afford. They do so in the full knowledge that they will benefit from the excellent accommodation, but any capital gains that they might make will not include the appreciation of the land value.
The community land trust approach, which is being used in east London as part of the Olympic legacy measures, as well as in rural areas, where benevolent landlords are making land available on highly beneficial terms, deserves our support. Removal of the enfranchisement arrangements, which were never intended to cover circumstances of this kind, seems essential to secure their future. Homes developed under the community right to build, of which I am also very supportive, will have the benefit of an exemption from the leasehold enfranchisement arrangements. This amendment would give the same exemption to community land trusts. I understand that the National CLT Network Board, which seeks to promote local community land trusts, has been advised that the local projects could convert into community right to build organisations, which would solve their enfranchisement problem. The community right to build schemes require a majority of the governing body to be local residents. This might not be an insuperable problem for a community land trust, as they are often extremely local, but the community right to build route requires that the project must eventually go to a referendum before proceeding, even if the parish council and planning authority and everyone else is very happy with it. That can be very worrying for landowners, local volunteers, prospective residents and lenders to the project. It means uncertainty, delay and possible local conflict. It would seem far simpler, less bureaucratic and more likely to encourage gifts of land and engage those big society volunteers locally if community land trusts could be taken out of the enfranchisement legislation, as this amendment proposes.
I know that Ministers are supportive of the community land trust approach and I assure them that acceptance of an amendment along these lines would be enormously important and greatly appreciated by all the supporters of this excellent way of creating affordable housing and guaranteeing its affordability in perpetuity. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for introducing this amendment and for his description of the Community Land Trusts approach. We have a good deal of sympathy with the thrust of this because we have seen the benefit of the Government’s reply to the amendment in the document they issued in August. Of course, this was one of the amendments that was withdrawn at the last stages of Committee.
As we have heard, these powers seek to replicate provisions already in the Bill relating to community right to build orders. The amendment seeks to remove enfranchisement rights in respect of dwellings owned by CLTs, and enfranchisement rights give leaseholders the right to acquire freeholds in certain circumstances—legislation, as the noble Lord referred to, that was started by the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, but I think those opportunities have been greatly extended since.
As I understand it, the gist of the Government’s position appears to be that CLTs do not necessarily have the same level of community engagement as bodies do under the community right to build provisions, which are proposed by the community, supported by the community, subject to a community referendum. However, where the CLT does satisfy the level of community engagement, it will be able to apply for a community right to build order and thereby obtain the benefit of disapplication of enfranchisement rights. But I am bound say, therefore, that I am not sure why, where there are circumstances that permit this, they could not be described in the prescribed circumstances that the noble Lord is seeking in his amendment. Proposed subsection (1) says,
“regulations may make provisions for securing that in prescribed circumstances, an enfranchisement right”—
et cetera. So why could what the noble Lord describes not be encompassed in that way?
I think that the noble Lord makes a good point about referendums in relation to community right to build orders. In circumstances where there is clearly a very high degree of support for a project, why indeed put the project through the process, cost and challenges that this entails? It does appear that one way or another there is a route to the result that the noble Lord is seeking, which is all well and good, and I agree that we should not be seeking to remove enfranchisement rights lightly—these are important rights. I think that he has described fully why they should be removed in these sorts of circumstances.
I therefore support the thrust of the noble Lord’s amendment. I believe that they should not be forced through the community right to build process just to achieve the outcome here and that it could be dealt with by regulations that, as his amendment suggests, fully cover the situation.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, enfranchisement rights are an established and significant right, and removing them must not be undertaken lightly. We expect to use the community right to build powers to ensure that the enfranchisement rights are only removed where the proposal is by the community, for the community and has the backing of the community through a community referendum, as identified by the noble Lord, Lord Best.
I understand that the regulation-making power provided for by the amendment is expected to be used to disapply enfranchisement rights simply where a CLT is the landlord of the property. There is, however, no requirement for a CLT to be made up of members of the community and there is no requirement for a community referendum. This means that a CLT development may not be proposed or supported by the community. I am afraid that the removal of these significant rights cannot be justified. The design of the community right to build will allow the majority of CLTs to apply for a community right to build order. As such, they will be able to benefit from the disapplication of enfranchisement rights under a community right to build order, again as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Best. With these reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord is willing to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, perhaps I should start by declaring that I am a landlord of a property that is let through a letting agent in London, and it is in the register of interests. I shall take the amendments in reverse order.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the thrust of Amendment 93, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, although I feel that it is overly prescriptive. No doubt in the private rented sector in particular there is enormous pressure, and we all know that that pressure is going to build and be exacerbated by what his Government are doing on housing benefit. It will put pressure on homelessness in that sector in particular. Of course there is bad practice, and we should support propositions which look to protect vulnerable tenants. He also made the excellent point that the organisations to which tenants traditionally may have looked, such as Citizens Advice, are under pressure because of funding.
Again, I have great sympathy with Amendment 92, but I would like to read the technicalities a bit better. The thrust of it is that it would give the courts some added leeway before actual possession is obtained. In the current climate, if people are being thrown out of their properties, that must be something which should gain our support.
On Amendment 91, I believe that just before we left Government, we did have proposals coming forward to do just what the amendment is seeking. The noble Lord may say that we took too long to get it done, but again I support regulation. It is interesting to note that good providers in the field, the good letting agents, also support this. They know that their reputations can be tarnished by bad practice out there and that they can be undercut by unscrupulous letting agents. We need some proper regulation in this sector.
I am therefore broadly supportive of the thrust of all these amendments. However, given where we are with the Bill, at the Report stage and just about to move out of the housing environment, it will not be until Third Reading that we get to this. I do not know what the Minister will be able to say in winding up the debate that will give us any assurance about progress, but along with the proposers of these amendments, we would like to see progress on all three fronts.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor
I rise to speak very briefly. I suspect that for all sorts of reasons Ministers are going to be reluctant to go down the regulatory route and indeed that, while my memory may fail me on this, I had thought that the previous Government ultimately came to that conclusion as well, although they certainly investigated the possibility of taking it. However, I may be wrong. I just want to throw into the discussion that in the absence of regulation we must recognise the absolutely fundamental role the private sector will have in housing all sorts of vulnerable people because there are not enough houses in the social and affordable sectors. Furthermore, these people are often at the lowest end of the private sector market and, in those circumstances, they are very vulnerable. It seems that an opportunity has been consistently missed over the years to reward those landlords in the private sector who behave best and, indeed, to encourage landlords in the private sector to do some of the things associated with social housing.
For example, there is no recognition in the rents that are available through housing benefit if landlords are willing to give longer tenancies, and there is little likelihood of recognition of relative quality. I have never understood why we would allow payments through the state in terms of housing benefit to the worst landlords offering the meanest opportunities and yet do nothing to reward those who behave better. That reward could involve a voluntary system of signing up to charters. In particular there is an issue for tenants in this sector over lack of security. Tenants in the private sector may be elderly and have lived long periods in a house, or they may be people with young children, and yet they may not have any real security in the tenancy. It would encourage landlords to offer security if we were to reward longer periods of tenancy and if we were not to draw such a sharp line that says a brief tenancy gives the landlord the security of being able to get the property back or the tenants become secure and highly protected. Why cannot we have something in between and why cannot we reward landlords for such behaviour? I think the Minister is going to be averse to regulation but perhaps he will be a little bit more supportive of an approach that uses the carrot rather than the stick.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, this is the first time that I have addressed the House at the Report stage of this Bill. I have not taken part on the housing part of the Bill hitherto for one very good reason. It is exactly 50 years since I became the chairman of the housing committee of Hornsey Borough Council, and there has been an astonishing amount of change in that 50 years. Over the past two days I have learnt a very great deal about the current state of housing and the institutional framework in which housing in this country is currently run and managed. We all know that there is a huge shortage—perhaps more in London than in other parts of the country—and of course measures are in hand to deal with that.
I should immediately declare an interest, as I did in Committee. I am a president of London Councils and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has made the case for putting the housing and regeneration board for London on to a statutory basis. The question here is of the long-term security of the existence of an institution. As my noble friend said in response on this matter, and as was set out in the Government’s response to the amendments that were withdrawn at the end of Committee, the question is why you need to put this on a statutory basis when the Greater London Assembly, the mayor and London Councils have been able to agree it without a statutory basis. They say that putting it on a statutory basis would make it less flexible. However, the central point is that they asked for this. The mayor, the Assembly and London Councils all asked for it to be put on a statutory basis. Everything else that they asked for when they wrote to my right honourable friend last year—the end of the London Development Agency, the setting up of the Homes and Communities Agency and so on—has all happened; that is in the Bill. One thing that has not happened is putting this housing and regeneration board on to a statutory basis.
When really responsible democratic bodies such as the mayor, the Assembly and London Councils ask the Government to provide some stability and security for the arrangement that they have made, it is a little impertinent—if I may put it that way—for the Government to say, “No, we are not going to do this. We don’t think you should have it. You don’t know what you want”, or whatever it is. There is a strong case here for putting this on an effective statutory basis.
The amendment has been supported by Members of all parties in the House. All right, I am on record as having said that we must have much less bureaucracy etc. in the Bill. Happily, we are on the path to getting some of that. I had a nice birthday present of an e-mail from one of my noble friend’s officials this evening and I am extremely hopeful. This is not adding new bureaucracy. It makes an existing arrangement, set up voluntarily by democratic bodies, a statutory body and gives it and all those who will work with it the security that that would imply.
My noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill has made a strong case, supported by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and, from the government Back Benches, me. I hope that my noble friends will now be able to think again.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I can be extremely brief. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, indicated, we have put our name to the amendment and support it for the reasons that have been advanced by the noble Lords, Lord Palmer and Lord Jenkin. It is about getting long-term security of what has been agreed and what is seemingly in place into primary legislation. I am bound to say that we do not expect that Ken would overturn these arrangements any time soon. I can well understand that people may want security just in case it might cross his mind.
It is good to hear the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, again in our debates. His long-standing engagement with housing in Luton under the old system was seen as one of the more important committees. It was 10 years before I was allowed on it. He has a great deal more experience than I do. I support the amendments and urge the Government to take them forward. We do not need to be apart on this. There is agreement on what is happening. It is the right thing to do.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this. One of the most enlightening things that we have heard today is that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, took up the Housing Committee at the age of 35, as he has admitted that it was exactly 50 years ago and we know that today is his birthday. On behalf of the House we wish him a very happy birthday. Patrick, thank you for all that you do and the contribution that you make.
Localism Bill
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(14 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 43 and 45. Clause 155 introduces the concept of settlement payments to facilitate the self-financing system that will replace the housing subsidy system when it is abolished. A devolved system of council housing, whereby councils are able to manage their stock using their own rents, will be achieved by a one-off debt settlement. We discussed this on Monday. The amount of debt allocated to each authority will be calculated on the basis of what its business plan shows it is able to support. The 30-year cash flow of income and expenditure is converted to a capital valuation using standard discounting techniques. If the valuation is below the amount of housing debt for which an authority currently gets support through the subsidy system, the Government will make a settlement payment. If the valuation is higher, the local housing authority will make a settlement payment.
The cash flows for the 30-year business plan will require the forecasting of rental income and of costs for repairing and maintaining stock, as well as debt servicing costs. Clause 155 gives the Secretary of State the authority to make determinations for providing the basis of calculation of the settlement payments. It covers the right to make assumptions about receipts and payments. Any determination can include an assumption even if it is not borne out by events. Further, it can include an assumption whether or not it is likely to be borne out. The amendment seeks clarification of this phrase. Does that mean that at the point when the assumption is made, it does not matter whether it is likely to be borne out? This probe is not just nitpicking; it is important to be clear on the evidence and analysis that will be needed to underpin the assumptions that will be used. These are the sorts of issues on which my noble friend Lord Whitty sought clarification when we last debated this.
I will take one example of an unrealistic assumption. It is understood that the calculation assumes that the initial year’s income is available to offset the cost of the self-financing payment at the start of the year, whereas in practice it will accrue throughout the year. Similarly, the loss of rental income from right-to-buy sales is assumed to operate only from the end of each financial year. This is demonstrably unrealistic and operates against the interests of local housing authorities.
There are also, as I understand it, issues about demolitions. To the extent to which they are recognised, they obviously reduce income in the 30-year plan. However, it is understood that they are recognised only if a degree of actual planning for them has occurred or is under way. Clearly, over a 30-year period, this will not always be the case initially. What is the current position on this? I do not expect an answer to the technical points here and now; but, if correct, they support the proposition that some unrealistic assumptions are built into the calculations operating to the detriment of local housing authorities. What is the process of resolving these?
Amendment 43 focuses on Clause 157 and relates to settlement payments arising from the abolition of the housing revenue account subsidy scheme. Clause 157 covers certain aspects of settlement payments. In particular, it allows the Secretary of State to charge local housing authorities interest, if they pay late, an amount equal to any additional cost that the Government incur. This amendment simply provides for reciprocity should the Secretary of State not pay at the time determined. It may be considered that the Government will never default on a payment or, indeed, on a payment timetable, but we could be dealing with circumstances were there is administrative error or, indeed, an IT problem. As the sums involved could well be significant, it seems entirely reasonable that local housing authorities should be kept whole.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for speaking to his amendments, the first of which is Amendment 39. Clause 155 provides a power for central government to make determinations providing for the calculation of a settlement payment in relation to every council that retains its own housing stock. This payment is a mechanism for adjusting each council’s housing debt to a level which it can sustain after meeting the costs of managing and maintaining its stock. It will leave every council in a position to finance its own housing stock from its own rental income without need for subsidy. The clause sets out that these determinations may be calculated according to a formula, and that this formula may include variables relating to income, expenditure needs and levels of existing housing debt.
The methodology that we will use to calculate these settlement payments has been extensively tested and refined with local authorities through two public consultations. It has also been the product of joint working with local authorities and others working in the sector. Subsequent to these consultations, we have issued two detailed policy documents this year confirming our intentions to make full reforms based on the key principles set out in these consultations. These policy documents include the models we will use to value the stock and working drafts of the determinations that we will issue. We will publish a further consultation in November on the final proposals, when we have the latest data.
It is therefore fair to say that this policy has been subject to unusually high levels of public scrutiny and debate. In valuing the business, the expenditure needs are rooted in unit costs identified in independent research which was itself published for consultation. The income assumed is that set out in the Government’s national social rent policy. The settlement payments will reflect the difference between the value of each housing business and its existing housing debt. Where the debt is greater than the valuation, the Government will pay the difference to the council. Where the valuation is higher than the debt, the council will pay the difference to the Government.
The amendment which the noble Lord seeks would remove a degree of discretion available to the Secretary of State in setting the assumptions upon which the determinations will be based. This is unnecessary, as the assumptions will be based on the best information available at the time and have been extensively tested and consulted on. In addition, the determination setting out each settlement payment will be subject to a further consultation this autumn, during which councils will be able to correct any errors. Therefore I trust that this amendment will not be pressed.
On Amendment 43, Clause 157 sets out the practical provisions under which settlement payments should be made. It gives a reserve power to the Secretary of State to charge interest or recoup costs incurred if councils make their settlement payments after the time specified in the determination. I have described these as reserve powers as we do not expect to use them due to the excellent track records councils have in meeting their financial obligations. The noble Lord’s amendment would establish reciprocal arrangements whereby the Secretary of State would make additional payments where any sum payable by the Secretary of State to particular local authorities was not paid on time. I can assure you that the Government will make its payments to local authorities on time.
That sounds grand, so I thought I would check it out a bit further. Presently housing revenue account subsidy is paid in 10 instalments in the year, and is paid on time. When councils receive regular revenue support grant, it is paid and it is paid on time. On the rare occasions, for some technical reason, it has not happened on time, the Government have voluntarily paid compensation. The determination setting out the payment date will be issued by the Government and detailed arrangements for the day have already been set out by the Department for Communities and Local Government in the policy document Self-financing: Planning the Transition, which was issued this July. Therefore, I do not believe that this amendment is necessary, and I trust it will not be pressed.
On Amendment 45, we had some discussion on these areas on Monday and we already debated the power we are taking to set a cap on housing debt as part of our reforms. As I noted previously, Clause 158 is not a minor or technical part of these reforms, it is integral to protecting the Government’s central fiscal priority—to bring public borrowing under control. I understand that many councils do not want a centrally imposed limit on their ability to borrow for housing, but our reforms must not risk undermining national fiscal policy on public debt. Self-financing will give local authorities direct control over a rent income stream of around £6 billion a year. This could potentially be used to finance a large increase in public sector debt. It is not possible to say confidently how many councils might choose to borrow more but we know that councils will start out under self-financing with much less debt per dwelling than housing associations with similar costs and incomes. It is just not possible to take the risk that this deal might drive a big increase in public sector debt.
Noble Lords have asked why the prudential borrowing rules are not sufficient to protect against this. The prudential borrowing rules have worked very well but, as I said previously, our concern is not that local authorities will act in ways that are imprudent locally, it is that in aggregate these borrowing decisions may be unaffordable nationally. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord would remove this specific cap on housing borrowing and replace it with a power for the Secretary of State to issue guidance or regulations under the Local Government Act 2003. The Act does include powers to cap the debt of individual local authorities, but these are,
“for the purpose of ensuring that the authority does not borrow more than it can afford”.
As I have said, our concern is not that a council would borrow more than it can afford, it is that in aggregate councils may borrow more than the country can afford. The bespoke powers we are taking ensure that this cap will apply only to housing debt and not to any other borrowing by local authorities. Indeed, I have some sympathy with the intentions but I have to resist the amendment and I trust that it will not be pressed.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very detailed, if predictable, reply. In relation to Amendment 45, I honestly do not think that he has reasonably addressed that point about the power that already exists with the Secretary of State being able, for national economic reasons—which is why he wants it in this clause—to set limits in relation to the borrowing of money by local authorities. That power is there. Why is an additional power needed? I do not think that the noble Lord has dealt sufficiently with that point.
As regards Amendment 43, as I understand it the proposition is that should the Government be late with their payments for technical or any other reasons, as has happened albeit infrequently in the past, they will make a voluntary payment. Is that on the record and what we are dealing with here? The amendment simply seeks to enshrine that formally in legislation. But, as I have said, I will not push that point if the noble Lord is putting on the record that in those circumstances the Government anticipate keeping local authorities whole.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
That would be the anticipation but the idea is that the Government pay on the dot at the appropriate time.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Of course it is. One would hope that they do and I accept that overwhelmingly they have, under the current subsidy system. But it is good to have that clearly on the record.
As to Amendment 39, I recognise and understand that there has been extensive consultation around these important provisions and that there is more to come. I was seeking to get a better view on the extent to which there may still be disagreement challenges over the technical aspects of how the settlements are proposed. What is the process for settling that? Consultation is all very well but it is a question of how the Government respond to that if there are at least residual challenges about those calculations. As I have said, I do not propose to press Amendment 39. We will see where those future consultations and discussions lead us. I made my point in relation to Amendment 43 and we have something on the record.
I am inclined not to push Amendment 45 today, although I urge the Minister to give us a better explanation of why proposed new subsection (4) is not sufficient to cover what the Government seek to achieve. Without that, I give no guarantee that I will not seek to bring that point back at Third Reading.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have put our name to this amendment and support it thoroughly for the reasons that have been advanced by all noble Lords who have spoken in favour of it. I want to pick up the point my noble friend Lord Whitty made about how it all pans out in the Government’s accounts. It seems to me that the Government’s arguments on deficit reduction have not been entirely logical. They recognise the loss of rental income that arises with local authorities because the proceeds are snaffled by Government to the extent of 75 per cent. Therefore, debt that is imposed on local authorities is reduced by £862 million.
Correspondingly, the government debt is higher. If local authorities retained the proceeds, the government debt would be lower, presumably by £862 million, and local authority debt correspondingly higher. That seems to be a net nil. Local authorities would then have the proceeds either to pay down their debt or, as we would all urge and my noble friend Lord Beecham in particular urged, to reinvest in new stock. So I think the Government are entirely in the wrong place on this.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I thank the five noble Lords who have spoken and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Best, and his work in housing over many years. The business of the amount gained when houses are sold and how the money is used is a subject that many of us have been debating for most of our years in public life.
What we have here is a total, and there are trade-offs in this element of the Bill. Although I understand the intention behind proposed new Clause 51, which is to end the surrender to central government of 75 per cent of receipts from the sale of right-to-buy and similar houses, and although I appreciate councils’ disappointment that we have not been able to end the policy, its continuation is necessary to help with the country’s huge fiscal deficit. The Government have ensured that the viability of the self-financing settlement is not affected by the decision. We are compensating local authorities for loss of rental income from future right-to-buy sales. To do this, we have included a forecast of right-to-buy sales in our valuation. The level of debt that authorities will take on has consequently been reduced in our latest estimate, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, indicated, by £862 million. In addition, all councils will still retain 25 per cent of receipts. They will also be able to retain 100 per cent of receipts from other sales to spend locally on affordable housing or regeneration. It is worth noting that receipts generated from right-to-buy sales have rapidly declined, sales being now about 5 per cent of what they were at their peak.
I hope the noble Lord will draw some comfort from the fact that we issued a consultation on 25 August, which set out proposed amendments to the regulations governing the use of receipts arising from the disposal of council housing assets. We have proposed to amend the regulations to make it clear that the requirement to surrender 75 per cent of receipts to central government shall apply only to receipts arising from right-to-buy sales or sales that are right-to-buy in all but name: that is, sales to existing council tenants. Sales at market value to other purchasers could then be retained, provided they were spent on affordable housing, regeneration projects or paying off housing debt. I trust that that is helpful and, bearing it in mind, that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
The Minister said that the Government were reducing the level of debt that local authorities would otherwise take on because of this policy by some £860 million. Does it follow that central government debt is correspondingly £860 million higher than it would otherwise have been, and how does that help deficit reduction?
Lord Shutt of Greetland
I might have to think that one through, because I see the contra. On the other hand, there is only one central Government. The problem that we have all along is that some 170 local government entities are involved in housing. At least you know where you are with central government and that £862 million. The position can be entirely different in local government.
I would like to think that there will be a time when this policy is not in place. However, as I indicated, it is no longer the big deal that it was, given that so many former council houses have been sold and the amounts coming in are nothing like they were at their peak, when this Government were not in business.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
We are grateful to the Government for responding to the earlier amendment. I acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Best, will not move his amendment, but are classes 4 and 5 specified in that amendment classes that the Government would support and take forward under the process that they have set down?
Amendment 63 refers to,
“modifying or removing a permitted class added by order under this subsection”.
Do the Government have anything in mind concerning modifying or removing a particular class?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, those are exceptionally good questions, but unfortunately I will have to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Greaves
I think that that was an acceptable answer. I understand that we cannot bring back the amendment that was defeated in the vote, but there are plenty of things in these amendments that we can talk about in relation to what the Bill states. That gives us sufficient leeway to talk about what we want to talk about. Whether the Government will extend their offer of discussions to the Opposition, who rudely threw it back in their face on the previous group of amendments, I do not know. I would welcome their participation, but that is up to the Government.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Perhaps I may make it clear that we voted on the original proposition because we believed that it would secure the best outcome. As that did not succeed, it is not inconsistent to want to see a lesser position that nevertheless improves on what is in the Bill. That is entirely sensible and reasonable. Whether we will be involved in those discussions is up to the Government. If they are going to bring something back—and I believe that that is the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—we will have an opportunity in this Chamber to join in the debate.
Lord Newton of Braintree
Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, as I presume he will, I will express the hope that the House will go along with this. We got into a mess earlier over the vote because of the separation of these issues, which could have been linked. We now have an opportunity to take up the Minister's offer of discussion. I think that we should, and I hope that neither she nor we will dig in out of purism, and that the Clerks will have their ears open.
Localism Bill
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(14 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have added our name to the clause stand part debate that was spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, in particular. Along with the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord Reay, and, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, we stand by the long-standing and fundamental principle that planning permission may not be bought or sold—a principle that was reinforced by, I think, the Nolan committee in 1997.
I can see that the amendment was an attempt to be helpful and potentially addresses one area of the concern that primacy has been given to financial considerations. However, it still raises the issue of why it is specifically mentioned and highlighted, even with the qualification, when other material considerations are not. Why does it not stand or fall like any other material consideration, subject to whatever case law produces and to guidance? I would support that proposition as well. I was very struck by the force of the arguments that came to us when this clause was introduced, as it was introduced very late in the day in the other place and there was no opportunity to debate it extensively. My understanding is that the test for planning obligations includes that it must be,
“relevant to planning … necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms … directly related to the proposed development … fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development … reasonable in all other respects”.
I take the opportunity to refer to some correspondence from the Permanent Secretary at CLG—in this case with Nick Raynsford MP, although I think other MPs had a similar exchange. In relation to what was then new Clause 15, the Permanent Secretary stated:
“The Department’s policy position is that local finance considerations should be taken into account in the determination of planning applications, but only where they are material to the decision in hand. That is, where they relate to the use and development of land, and to the planning merits of the application in question. The Minister does not agree that the clause would cut across the fundamental role of planning in protecting the public interest, and it is not our intention to indicate that local finance considerations will always be material, that any specific weight should be given to them, or that they are any more important than other material considerations”.
This begs the question: why do we need this clause? What is it doing in relation to the new homes bonus that is so important to the Government, particularly given all the anger and concern that it has raised?
I am not sure that I would share in its entirety the encouragement of the noble Lord, Lord Best, for the new homes bonus. One can see that it is an important part of government policy, but after year 1 it will be funded by scraping off the top of the grants that local authorities get. The redistribution of those moneys is not particularly helpful. It also acts against regeneration because it is done on a net basis. Therefore, if you knock down existing properties to build new ones, nothing will flow from it.
Perhaps the Minister could give us an example of when receipt of a new homes bonus would not be a material consideration. The new homes bonus is always computed by reference to the development; that is how it is generated. Because it is calculated in this way, will the Minister give us some instances, to support the Government’s proposition, of when it would not be a material consideration? That would help us. It would be good to hear from the Minister why the Government feel that it is so important that this must be included in a new clause. What is it about the new homes bonus that would otherwise be a problem if the clause were removed?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. My first and pleasant duty is to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, to the opposition Front Bench. We did business the other day on his interesting question about Thameslink. Because it was topical, it required me to work pretty fast.
The Government are committed to increasing housing supply to meet housing needs and to supporting growth to boost recovery. Along with planning system reforms, we need better incentives for communities to support and accept new development. The noble Lord, Lord Best, touched on that in his valuable contribution. However, it is vital that we provide clarity on how such incentives relate to the statutory planning system. This is not a new phenomenon, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee pointed out. Voluntary agreements between landowners and local planning authorities to provide things needed as a result of development have been in use since 1932. Nowadays, Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 makes provisions for planning obligations. The use of planning obligations is regulated by statutory and policy tests. A developer cannot be made to sign up to a planning obligation, but planning permission can be refused if, without one, a particular development would be unacceptable in planning terms.
Community infrastructure levy powers introduced in 2010 allow local planning authorities to collect and pool mandatory developer contributions, based on charges per square metre of new buildings. While planning obligations must relate to the planning merits of the specific development that they relate to, community infrastructure levy funds can be used to support development across a wider area. The new homes bonus is even more flexible, as local authorities can spend it as they see fit. The Government’s hope is that the community infrastructure levy and the new homes bonus will encourage and support more ambitious development planning, by increasing the resources available for local authorities to spend in their areas over and above what they can reasonably seek as planning obligations.
However, they are both new on the scene and questions have been raised over how such measures relate to the statutory planning application system; in particular, can they ever legitimately be taken into account in decisions on planning applications? The Government are therefore keen to clarify the legal position on this. Clause 124 provides this clarity by amending Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act to clarify that such considerations should be taken into account in relation to planning applications but only where they are material to the particular application being considered.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I think we have now had “imminently”, “soon”, and “very soon”. Can the Minister perhaps rank those concepts for us and be a trifle more specific?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, when I originally drafted my response to my noble friend, I put down the word “shortly”, but the note came from the Box that it should be “imminently”. Once I was told that something would happen “shortly” and we got the statutory instrument 10 years later. However, I can assure noble Lords that the NPPF will come much more rapidly.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked me for some illustrations and I have a few matters to draw to your Lordships’ attention. The first is the test for whether a consideration is material. Case law has established that to be material to the determination of a planning application, any consideration must relate to the development and use of the land, and to the planning merits of that application.
These are long-established principles. For example, back in 1970, in Stringer v Minister of Housing and Local Government, the classic statement was made that,
“any consideration which relates to the use and development of land is capable of being a planning consideration. Whether a particular consideration falling within that broad class is material in any given case will depend upon the circumstances”.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked for examples of where NHB or CIL is or is not material. Take a scenario where NHB and CIL funds pooled by an authority will help fund a new parkway station on the local commuter route. In determining an application for a major housing development on a site within the catchment of the proposed station, it would be perfectly reasonable for the local planning authority to have regard to—as a material consideration—the fact that the development would generate revenues which would contribute to the new parkway station that would serve that development.
Of course, matters relating to NHB and CIL will not be material in relation to every development. Using the same example, what if the new development was particularly aimed at the retirement market? The development would, as with executive homes, result in NHB and CIL funds which would contribute to providing the station. This would still be a reasonable use of the funds. However, the provision of the station would not be material to the determination of this application, because it would not relate to the planning merits of the development proposed. Equally, the provision of this station would not be material to the determination of an application for a similar sized executive housing development which would be in the same local planning authority’s area, but on a site far removed from the station, and whose occupants would not use that new facility—so it would not be relevant to the application. What I hope I am illustrating here is that local planning authorities will only be able to take matters relating to NHB and CIL into account where they fairly and reasonably relate to the planning issues that are relevant to the particular application they are considering.
These are, of course, only very simple examples. For most planning applications there will be a wide range of matters that might be material: local planning authorities will need to judge, with the law as their guide, which matters are material to the case in hand. They will then need to decide how to apportion weight between all of those matters that are material. Just because something is or is not material does not mean that it will always have a decisive bearing on the decision to be made.
Turning to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Greaves, ably moved by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I thank the noble Lords most genuinely for this helpful suggestion. Despite its humble purpose, Clause 124 has clearly caused some to worry that it might in some way oblige decision-makers to give more weight to local finance considerations—but only where material—than to other material considerations, such as amenity or the environment. My noble friend’s suggestion is without doubt intended to provide reassurance on this point and it fully reflects the Government’s intention to leave the apportioning of weight to the discretion of the decision-maker. The Government are confident that the current clause achieves this on its own. However, there is merit in looking again at the wording to ensure that it does not inadvertently place local finance matters in any particular place in the pecking order of material considerations. My noble friend’s suggestion will be of great assistance as we continue to reflect on whether this clause best reflects our intentions. In the light of this, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, before the noble Baroness does so, may I just draw out the Minister a bit on one example? A local development plan has provision for 5,000 houses but is strapped for cash. It sees the opportunity for a cash incentive—which is what the new homes bonus is—because it needs to use some resources elsewhere in its provision of services. It therefore grants planning permission for 8,000 units, motivated by that cash incentive. Would that, all other things being equal, be a non-material consideration? Would it put in jeopardy the approval, because of the difference between that and the development plan?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord poses a good question that will help to illustrate the situation. He describes a situation where the planning application is for more houses than are provided for in the local development plan. The extra money arising from the NHB and the CIL from those houses can be taken into consideration if it is used in relation to those extra houses. If the money is going to enhance a railway station that would support those extra houses, it can be taken into consideration, but if it is to support perhaps a swimming pool on the other side of town, it cannot be taken into consideration because it is not relevant to the application.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful for that remark and I look forward to further discussions with the noble Lord.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I think it is a bit unfair to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was going to weary the Committee. I say to noble Lords that if the issue is a big one and they have other routes for having a debate, why put down an amendment? When amendments go down, we all spend time trying to get our minds around what the issues are so that we can respond. It wastes our time as well.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
We had every intention of debating it and, as noble Lords will know, I complained about having to wait day after day in the hope of getting to this amendment. Yesterday it was quite clear that we were running out of time. This Bill is terribly important and it is important that we get to Report stage. It was because of the degree of importance that we decided to take action and seek an assurance from the Minister that we would be guaranteed sufficient time to debate it on Report. It will be debated then.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, with respect, I find myself more in agreement with my noble friend Lord Whitty than with my noble friend Lord Judd. I am bound to say that that is unusual. My advice is that the normal arrangement is that parties bear their own costs in an appeal. I have heard nothing which suggests that we should disrupt that arrangement whether in respect of wind farms or anything else. If we go down that path, we shall have a two-tier system whereby in some circumstances people will bear their own costs whereas in others, because they happen to be wealthier, they will have different arrangements. That seems a rather odd proposition. However, I particularly wanted to—
Lord Marlesford
The noble Lord misunderstood me; of course, I am aware of that. The point is that the costs likely to fall on the local authority in a prolonged planning appeal have to be a consideration. In plenty of cases there has been a threat that if it is felt, or can be shown, that the local authority was wrong to deny the planning consent in the first instance, damages for the delay can be claimed by the applicant. That is the point I was making.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I understand that point but it seems to be being proposed that the outcome of an appeal is somehow prejudged, and that some will have satisfactory outcomes with which we are happy but others will not. I pick up the proposition that the planning inspectorate colludes to try to achieve government policy in respect of renewables. As I have said before, I was a Minister in CLG for a very short period. All Ministers get the opportunity—if that is the right word—to deal with inspectors’ reports. Certainly, my experience of probably no more than half a dozen such reports is that they were very thorough and very balanced. Some recommended that an appeal should be accepted, others did not. My experience is that a professional approach was taken to the matter. I certainly did not detect any perceived pressure on the inspectorate to achieve one outcome rather than another, so it is rather unfortunate to suggest that the opposite is the case. I am very well aware that supermarkets push their luck through the planning system but they get knocked back. That seems to me to validate the process that we have.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and other noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion on this amendment. It is accepted practice that all parties to an appeal should normally meet their own costs, but cost awards may be made by the planning inspectorate if a party behaves unreasonably. There are no special circumstances that apply to onshore wind farm appeals compared with appeals against other forms of development, nor is it clear why there should be. This proposal to require appellants to pay all parties’ costs for onshore wind farm appeals will treat wind farms differently from any other types of development. It would create pressure to extend the provision to other types of development. What will it achieve? Is it meant to encourage more proposals for wind farms to be refused, irrespective of their merits? Local planning authorities will already consider whether a proposed wind farm is acceptable in terms of their development plan and other considerations. These can include national planning policy and relevant planning issues raised by local communities.
I appreciate that wind farms can be controversial, but that in itself is not a reason to refuse them. Wind farm developers, like local communities, should expect a level playing field. Local planning authorities should be confident in refusing development that is clearly contrary to an up-to-date development plan, and defending their decision at appeal. It is our intention that local plans will become more prominent in decision- making, and there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development at the heart of the planning system.
I have just been handed a note that the Minister is to revise the costs awards circular—circular 03/09—to make sure that it is clear that where a local planning authority refuses a development proposal on the grounds that it is contrary to an up-to-date development plan and there is no issue of conflict with national planning policy, there should be no grounds for an award of costs against the local planning authority.
I trust that with these remarks the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I have a deal of sympathy with the position of the noble Lord, but I am constrained by our Front Bench position. A proposition which gives more power to the Secretary of State to dictate is something we would draw back from. The noble Lord made some crucial points, however. We are already concerned about what the withdrawal of regional spatial strategies has done to strategic planning and affordable housing. Until the noble Lord spoke I had probably not focused sufficiently on its impact on Gypsy and Traveller families. It will be interesting to see if the duty for authorities to co-operate produces anything like a solution. I suspect that it will not.
The Government are focused on financial incentives as part of their approach to housing. I do not think the new homes bonus would bite directly but perhaps it is interesting to pursue whether financial incentives for local authorities would encourage them to do what they should be doing, which is to take and make available their share of provision for this disadvantaged section of our community.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, it would be impossible to respond to my noble friend's amendment without paying tribute to his lifetime's support to Gypsies, Travellers and those in housing need.
The previous Government's model of top-down pitch targets has not delivered. Between 2000 and 2010, the number of caravans on unauthorised developments increased from 728 to 2,395. That is the caravan count published by DCLG. Local authorities are best placed to assess the needs of their communities, including Travellers. Our proposed planning policy asks local authorities to set targets for Traveller sites that are underpinned by a strong evidence base. The policy set out clear consequences for those authorities which do not make available land to meet the need that they have identified. The duty to co-operate will ensure that local authorities continue to work together on strategic issues. It will require local planning authorities, county councils and other public bodies to engage constructively, actively, and on an ongoing basis in the planning process. Local authorities will be required to demonstrate compliance with the duty as part of the public examination of local plans. If an authority cannot demonstrate that it has complied with the duty, its plan will not pass the independent examination.
A policy-led approach is a more appropriate one through which to address provision of sites through the planning system. The national, regional and local need for accommodation for Travellers would be a relevant material consideration for the decision-maker in any event. The planning, compulsory purchase and town and country planning Acts require that planning decisions are made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Any consideration which relates to the use or development of land is capable of being a material consideration.
On Amendment 182, which is linked with Amendments 170B and 170C in the Marshalled List, the majority of new Traveller sites are small, private ones provided by Travellers themselves, not local authorities. That meets community aspirations on tenure, and their small size can aid integration with the settled community. A duty for local authorities to provide sites would therefore not be appropriate.
That was the finding of a recent Equality and Human Rights Commission report, entitled Assessing Local Authorities’ Progress in Meeting the Accommodation Needs of Gypsy and Traveller Communities in England and Wales: 2010 Update. The DCLG-chaired, cross-government ministerial working group on Gypsy and Traveller inequality includes a work stream to encourage new development of small, private sites and better publicity of the success of existing small private sites. That work was included following consultation with members and representatives of the Travelling community, among whom there is a consensus that such site accommodation is preferable to public sites provision.
The planning system is therefore the key place to deliver the provision. The Government published our proposed new planning policy for Traveller sites on 13 April. It tells local authorities to use a robust evidence base of local need, to set targets for sites and identify land to meet those targets. The draft policy is out to consultation. When I got the notes, they said until 6 July, but it has been pushed on to 3 August, so if noble Lords want to give their views, they are welcome to do so and have until 3 August. Local authorities are subject to a statutory duty under Section 225 of the Housing Act 2004 to carry out an assessment of the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers residing in or resorting to their district when they are undertaking a review of housing need in their district under Section 8 of the Housing Act 1985. All local authorities prepare Gypsy and Traveller accommodation assessments under that duty, and some, such as Somerset County Council, have begun undertaking new assessments of need for Travellers residing in or resorting to their areas.
Given my response, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Judd
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Reay, is nothing if not challenging intellectually. I find myself very much in support of some of the issues which he raises in his amendment, but I do not support one of them. On one point, I strongly disagree with him. The profession of the planning officer is a very honourable and demanding one, and with all the subjective pressures which operate in society—sometimes very crudely with very considerable amounts of money and innuendo about possibilities and non-possibilities—it is very important to have the objectivity of a professional in the middle who can look at the law and at the overall social challenges and get matters right. It seems to me that, if a person has put his profession on the line and made a particular recommendation, that is very important in deciding whether an appeal is appropriate. I am afraid that on that issue I strongly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Reay.
I certainly do not see my role in this House as helping to put the Conservative or Liberal Democrat policy back on course, but we have a responsibility to try to be objective and to see valid points that are made and, when they are made, to support them. In the middle of this, there are some very important and valid points. I referred to some of them in an intervention on a previous amendment. I am deeply concerned about the trend towards putting commercial economic interests above social, environmental and scenic issues. I strongly support anything that can be done to increase the well-being and dynamism of our economy—of course I want that—but my thinking does not totally coincide with that of the noble Lord, Lord Reay, as I also believe very strongly that wind power has a contribution to make. I put it to the noble Lord that if you have alternative energy, it will always be an aggregate of less dramatic quantities of energy than we have had from some of the methods with which we are familiar.
Therefore, I do not think it is an issue of being on the side of wind power or against it. I am very worried by those who turn anti-wind power positions into a kind of ideological cornerstone. The issue is where you put the wind farms; and the issue is how you take into account the social challenges and social needs, so that you do not end up with the least articulate members of society becoming the waste bin for all projects because everyone else has been able to fight them off. There is a huge social planning job to be done, but planning will succeed only if it carries the sympathy and understanding of the population as a whole. There is of course a great deal to take seriously in the Government’s position, about making democracy as meaningful and relevant as it possibly can be, and as near to the people as possible. Therefore, the position of the communities is crucially significant.
I believe that, if one looks at the Bill as a whole—not just on this issue, but on a lot of the issues that have been so painstakingly debated by colleagues in the course of the Bill—there is a very strange underlying paradox. The name of the Bill, and the cause of the Bill, is localism and enhancing local democracy; the effect of the Bill is an unprecedented concentration of central power. That has to be countered. It seems to me that from that standpoint the noble Lord is right. It is of course a great temptation to have increased authority for the Secretary of State at the centre, and all his civil servants working with him. If I was a civil servant with responsibilities in this area, I would get terribly vexed and frustrated at all this local democracy that was getting in the way of absolute logic; but if we are to have such increased authority at the centre, then it is very important that we make sure that there are firm rules about how that frustration is brought into play.
I think that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Reay, does something helpful: it in a sense takes the whole theoretical purpose of the Bill, and says, “Right, if we really mean what we say here, we must have codes by which the Minister is operating in his decisions which override local wishes, and we must make sure that those are limited, and that they are clear, explicit, and understood”. As for the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, she is absolutely right: it is a charade, a nonsense and a provocation to talk about a Localism Bill and then deny the community the right to appeal. Of course the community should have that right.
I conclude by making one point again—and I know that the Minister, who has not himself been participating in this debate, has been very good on this issue, and very sympathetic and understanding, as have some of his colleagues. If we talk about the importance of generating a vigorous economy, and giving priority to the measures that are necessary to make our economy strong, why do we want this? It is because we want a decent, civilised place in which to live. We want to have a society worth living in, and such a society needs a strong economy underpinning it. That is the whole point about the issue of balance: how do we ensure that we have strong policies, but at the same time that they are not so unduly, at the price of the quality of the wider dimensions of our society? That is why I repeatedly come back to the point of how previous generations ruined the countryside unnecessarily: we can now see with hindsight that it could all have been done much better. I think that the noble Lord is right, again, to be vigilant on these issues, although I profoundly disagree with him on some of his observations. I hope that the Government will take seriously what he and the noble Baroness have been arguing in their amendments.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we are fundamentally in listening mode on this issue. I would particularly like to listen to the Minister’s explanation as to why his party seems to have reversed its view on third party rights of appeal. If that is not the case, then we would be interested to know. I would also be interested to hear his views on the comments of my noble friend Lord Judd and of the noble Lord, Lord Reay. Each of them in a different way raises concerns about the planning system being bent to issues of growth and commercial development and that balance going astray. The Minister will be aware, if he can think back that far, that right at the start of our deliberations we had debates about getting the issues of the purpose of planning in the Bill, definitions of sustainable development, and the embedding of sustainable development at NPPF level, at local development framework level and at neighbourhood level, as one way of trying to make sure that the concerns that are increasingly being raised could be dealt with effectively.
At the end of the day, that issue comes back to the NPPF—for as long we do not have that and cannot debate it, we are always going to be left with this uncertainty. I think it is an opportune moment to hear directly from the Government as to whether they accept that charge or whether they maintain that the more traditional approach to sustainable development and a balanced approach, as my noble friend Lord Judd enunciated, is still their position.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, before speaking to Amendment 170CD, perhaps I may express my extreme disappointment with the usual channels at their arrangements, which effectively prevented me from carrying out the job of scrutinising legislation here and speaking to Amendments 170B, 170C and 182, to which I added my name, because I was moving an amendment tabled in my name alone in the Education Bill Committee in the Moses Room. I hope that there will be no repetition of such a ridiculous arrangement in September so that noble Lords can carry out the work for which they were appointed.
I turn to Amendment 170CD. The noble Lord, Lord Best, explained clearly what it is about. I will add that the Housing Minister Greg Clark's awareness of the importance of good design is well known and appreciated. This new proposal is almost a tautologous requirement. One might say that there would not be much point in sending off an application to an independent panel and then paying no attention to its recommendations. This is the lightest of light touches. It is a gentle nudge in the direction of trying to make sure that, in the words of Greg Clark,
“the built environment is better than it otherwise would be, and that it is beautiful and functional for people to live in”.—[Official Report, Commons, Localism Bill Committee, 1/3/11; col.718.]
I hope the Minister will understand that. I am sure she will and that she will agree to accept the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
We had a canter round this yesterday—at least it seems like it was yesterday. We are very supportive of these amendments.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we did indeed discuss this yesterday and we had a bit of discussion on the subjective nature of design decisions. I think we all agree that design is an enormously important part of planning, as indeed it is an important part of developing and ensuring how a community looks and what an area is like.
I have great admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Best, but I think this amendment is unnecessary. As he has already pointed out, planning authorities get independent expert advice from the Design Council, and local planning authorities are already able and indeed encouraged to submit applications to design review panels and to heed their impartial, expert advice. I am not sure that putting any more legislation forward on this will do anything. However, we will undertake to give encouragement to local authorities to make sure that they understand that design review panels are a good thing. So there really is no reason for this. We need to keep it out of legislation. I understand the purpose behind it but there are already proper ways of dealing with this. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Can the noble Baroness please explain to me this: if we are going to forbear and not move our amendments today on the basis that they could all come back at Report, why does not the same run for the government amendments?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, there have been discussions about this. There are circumstances in which that happens, and it was a possibility. As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, will know, it is a procedure that is happily adopted in Grand Committee, whereby if there is agreement, a government amendment may go in; later on, if the Opposition find that they have not had time for proper thought, and find the amendment totally objectionable, it is possible for an amendment to be brought at Report, by agreement within the usual channels. If a government amendment is accepted and thereby inserted it into the Bill, but this subsequently appears to have been done in a way that the Opposition did not quite expect—if they have found out information later on and, had they known it then, the amendment would have been objectionable to them—then the assurance that I can give both to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, who was a distinguished Minister himself so I know he has been through this, and to the House is that they can bring an amendment at Report. There have been thorough-going discussions about how we may properly address issues at Report. I hope that satisfies the noble Lord.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
One further point: is the noble Baroness going to guarantee that we will have sufficient time at Report to bring back the amendments which we are forbearing to move? We have a lot to get through at Report in any event, quite apart from this. I would not want to feel that we were precluded, and end up in the same position as we have ended up in tonight, which has, frankly, mostly been a waste of time in terms of our chance to focus on the detail of these amendments.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The usual channels have taken those issues into consideration, and have come to an agreement which I hope will accommodate proper scrutiny at Report.
Localism Bill
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(14 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I remind the House of the interest that I declared at the beginning of the Committee stage. I am vice-president of the Open Spaces Society, which is the expert voluntary organisation on village and town greens and spends a lot of its time advising people who wish to register greens. It strongly advises people not to do so purely to resist development and not to proceed if the evidence appears to be poor. Not everyone takes that advice, unfortunately.
The amendments attempt to tackle this perceived problem—it is indeed a problem in some areas—by amending this legislation and thereby amending the Commons Act 2006. I suggest that this is probably the wrong time and the wrong legislation to do that. Town and village green legislation, as noble Lords who took part in the discussions of the Commons Act in 2006 will know, is extremely complex and somewhat difficult. Section 15 of that Act laid down a new system for the registration of greens, but that was based upon much older commons legislation, going back to the past, describing what is and is not a green.
I have some questions. Is there an identified problem? Yes. Is it hugely widespread? No, but it is serious where people are abusing the system. Some instances of that have been identified here today and I could provide some more. Does it need sorting out? Yes. Does it need new primary legislation and is this the right Bill to do it? No. As the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has identified, what is required is an overhaul of the Commons Registration (England) Regulations 2008, which result in a system of greens registration that, in my view and that of the Open Spaces Society, is overly bureaucratic, takes far too long and can be far too costly.
I was involved on the other side, as it were, in an application for a green in Lancashire where Lancashire County Council wanted to build a new secondary school, which I was in support of, and a group of people tried to suggest that the land on which it was being built was a green. I met them, advised them and told them that it was not, but fortunately Lancashire County Council, perhaps because it was a project of its own that was potentially being blocked, was very expeditious in sorting it out. Quite correctly, it rejected the application.
We have a 10-point programme that would greatly improve the green registration system. It could be done simply by secondary legislation by amending the 2008 regulations. I am not suggesting that that is the whole answer and I am not going to tell your Lordships today what all the 10 points are, but we are happy to discuss this with Ministers. They will be Defra Ministers, though, as this is not a CLG matter. Defra is already looking into the problem; it has commissioned research, it is having discussions and it is considering its responses. I hope that on that basis we can let the department get on with it.
There is an understanding on all sides that this is urgent. It is important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and not destroy the system of registration of town and village greens, which is a very useful process, but to stop people abusing it.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we should thank the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Lucas, for identifying and raising this issue this evening. Clearly, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, we must cherish and support the legislation which enables the identification, reclamation and maintenance of town and village greens. However, there is clearly a problem here. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asks: is there a problem? Yes. Does it need sorting out? Yes, it does.
I am not sure that we necessarily have the way forward encapsulated within the amendments before us. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has made some interesting suggestions and I will be interested in the Minister’s response. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, offers the prospect of being able to identify and establish a town or village green only through a neighbourhood plan. That seems potentially too restrictive: if you do not have a neighbourhood plan in place, what happens? They will not necessarily be universal.
I side with those who say that a misuse of this legislation is taking place. I accept that it may not be widespread, but it does need sorting out. I look to the Minister to see what solutions he offers.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to respond to these amendments and the balanced way in which the arguments have been presented to the Committee. Of course, I speak for Her Majesty’s Government and not one particular department.
I know that the system for registering new town or village greens is a matter of rising significance to those of us interested in development sites, as well as to local authorities in their role as commons registration authorities. As I shall explain, it is also a matter of considerable interest to this Government.
We recognise the value of the town or village green registration system in safeguarding traditional open spaces in local communities. Government surveys show an increasing trend in applications during the past decade, although not all of these applications are granted. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, suggested that problems were not widespread, although he agreed that they could be serious. Around 200 applications are made every year to register land in England as greens. The volume of applications, the character of application sites, the controversy which such applications often attract, the cost of the determination process on parties affected and the impact of a successful registration on the landowner are all matters of serious and increasing concern. We are well aware of the difficulties that some registration applications can cause where an application is made in response to advance plans for the development of a site. However, we also appreciate the importance that local communities can place on an open space as well as new development. We understand that there must be confidence that the relevant decision-making processes are working coherently in the interests of the community as a whole and not just in those of a minority.
The natural environment White Paper announced that we will consult on proposals for a new green areas designation that will give local people an opportunity to protect green spaces which have significant importance to their local communities. We are considering what changes to the greens registration system are required in connection with the new designation as a response to the Penfold review, which recommended changes to the registration system to ease non-planning impediments to development.
Amendment 148ZZBB in the name of my noble friend Lady Byford would give the Government powers to achieve a sharper focus in the criteria for registering greens. I have some sympathy with the purpose of the amendment, which could help to address some of the cases where applications have been used as a last resort only to delay development, such as my noble friend has described to us. The noble Lord, Lord Best, asked a question about rural housing. We share the concerns of my noble friend Lady Byford and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that the green registration applications can have an unfortunate deterrent effect on the provision of land for rural affordable housing. We are actively looking at whether amendments to the registration criteria are needed. We shall want to hold discussions with those with an interest in our proposals before concluding on the nature of any legislative changes. Legislative changes may be necessary. My noble friend Lord Greaves is right: the registration of a green is indeed a matter of fact. The criteria against which registrations are considered are set in law. There is no discretion. Local communities have no say in whether registering land as a green is desirable or not.
Lord Greaves
There is a great deal of sense in that. Some of the difficulty is the muddle between Section 106 agreements and the community infrastructure levy, but it is the clear intention—it was the clear intention of the previous Government and I assume that that has not changed—to phase out Section 106 and replace it with CIL. The difficulty with that is that it brings levies and what they might be used for down to a quite small-scale local level. Large infrastructure projects are one thing, and I agree with many of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about that, but there are big projects, small projects and projects in-between. The amount of CIL that would be levied on many local development projects is quite small. Unless it can be seen as a replacement for Section 106 for the kind of things that Section 106 is spent on, and perhaps some further flexibility, a great deal will be lost. It is difficult to find ways of spending those relatively small amounts of money on things that might be classified as infrastructure.
One large-scale thing that Section 106 has been important in subsidising and helping to develop is affordable housing. We have had a debate about that and the Government have said that they are looking seriously at allowing CIL to be used for affordable housing. Affordable housing is not really infrastructure, apart from for the people living in a particular house. It is development that needs infrastructure around it. Classic cases of Section 106 funding include subsidising local bus services, whether it is a service to a new supermarket or a new estate. It is not infrastructure. Lots of local amenity areas, playgrounds, and so on, have been paid for out of Section 106. Are they infrastructure? A common-sense use of the word would suggest that they are not. Unless the levies can be used from local developments on this kind of thing, local authorities will find it much more difficult to provide them. Often new housing is developed by converting a mill into flats and then improving some of the areas around, which are pretty run down, by turning them into nice amenity areas and playgrounds, which is very important and linked to the development.
We have a new supermarket, which released £390,000 under Section 106 to spend on the local town centre. A lot of the spending on that town centre could not be described as infrastructure. It is about improving the appearance, relaying flags and grassed areas, improving shop fronts, and so on, which is all very important in helping the town centre compete with the new supermarket and hold its own, but is it infrastructure? My right honourable friend Simon Hughes suggested that double glazing might be an appropriate use of CIL from local projects. That is not infrastructure, but it is the kind of area in which we hope for some flexibility. I am not sure that we are that far apart. Clearly if a project is big enough to pay for a bypass, that is certainly infrastructure. However, we need flexibility.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, we support the thrust of these amendments. Certainly I agree that CIL must not be used to fill revenue holes in the budgets of local authorities. A specific assurance on that from the Minister would be entirely appropriate.
When we debated this last week, our concern was about the interaction of CIL, Section 106 and affordable housing. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, the Minister indicated possible flexibility in future after consultation. We welcome that. We also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that if part of CIL is to be paid to a neighbourhood forum, for example, it must be linked to infrastructure. We would prefer the decision to be made by the local authority rather than dictated according to an arrangement of the Secretary of State.
The definition of infrastructure for these purposes in paragraph 12 of the CLG book, Community Infrastructure Levy: an Overview, published in May this year, states, surprisingly:
“The Planning Act 2008 provides a wide definition of the infrastructure which can be funded by the levy, including transport, flood defences, schools, hospitals, and other health and social care facilities. This definition allows the levy to be used to fund a very broad range of facilities such as play areas, parks and green spaces, cultural and sports facilities, district heating schemes and police stations and other community safety facilities. This gives local communities flexibility to choose what infrastructure they need to deliver their development plan”.
There is already quite wide discretion in the rules.
I particularly support the point about potential double charging when a development has already entered into Section 106 obligations, some of which may be very long-term. Like my noble friend Lord Berkeley, we had discussions with Gatwick. However, this is not just an airport or a Gatwick issue.
I am not sure how best to resolve this issue. Part of the solution may relate to how and at what point CIL is charged. I understand that what triggers it is the commencement of development that has been the subject of some form of planning permission. Therefore, in a situation in which Section 106 obligations are already in place from prior development, I do not see how under the rules that could trigger a new CIL charge. However, any new development might, so Section 106 and CIL could still be paid at the same time. The potential for double charging is an issue, and I look forward to the Minister's response on that. However, the thrust of this is exactly right and we support it.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, Amendment 148ZZBBBA, moved by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, seeks to limit spending on the ongoing costs of providing infrastructure to those items that were originally funded by the levy. New developments may create additional demands on existing infrastructure as well as demands for new infrastructure. The amendment would prevent local authorities from using levy receipts to address the intensification of demand on existing infrastructure, despite the fact that this could be exactly what is needed to support a new development.
My noble friend’s Amendment 148ZZC seeks an exemption from the levy for any development that makes a contribution to existing infrastructure through Section 106 planning obligations. This is not appropriate as the two instruments are concerned with different aspects of development. Through the levy, most new development would contribute towards the cost of meeting the cumulative demands that development of an area places on infrastructure. Conversely, planning obligations are concerned only with the site-specific matters necessary to make a particular development acceptable in planning terms.
Local infrastructure may or may not be part of the planning obligation. Where it is any part of a planning obligation, it must satisfy the statutory tests that ensure that they are necessary to make the development acceptable, are directly related to the development and are fairly related in scale and kind. We do not believe that it is appropriate to exempt development that is subject to a planning obligation from making a contribution to the more general infrastructure demands that it places on the area. In addition, the existing legislation already prevents developers being charged twice for the same item of infrastructure through both instruments. That answers the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I will check to make sure that it also answers the concern of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. I am not absolutely certain that it does, but I will check, and I am sure we will return to this at a later stage.
Localism Bill
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(14 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have Amendments 148ZZA and 148ZZZBA in this group, but they are consistent with the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, which we support. They have been proposed to us jointly by Shelter, the TCPA and the National Housing Federation. These amendments would help to ensure that local authorities produce a robust and public assessment of housing needs to inform local plans. Amendment 148ZZA requires housing needs to be addressed in the local development scheme, while under Amendment 148ZZZBA the LPAs must regularly survey their areas and publicise the results.
Local plans must integrate land use planning, housing strategies and delivery. While the national planning policy framework, when it appears, may help to promote this objective, we think that this issue is too important to leave to regulations and guidance. All local authorities should be required to undertake a strategic assessment of housing need and demand to provide the necessary evidence to inform the development of housing strategies and planning policies for their areas—the points raised by the noble Baroness cover this—and the needs of an elderly population that is growing older.
The information should be key to determining the amount of housing required, including affordable housing and housing specifically designed for people with care and support needs and in allocating a sufficient amount of land to meet and identify housing requirements. Bodies such as Shelter, the TCPA and the National Housing Federation have welcomed a more localised approach to planning and see the reforms to the planning system as an opportunity to allow local people to play a more active role in shaping development in their area by helping to shape local plans and hold their local authority to account.
In order to enable local people to play a more active role, it is vital that they have access to data that give them as full a picture as possible of the housing situation in their area and enable them to assess their local authority’s performance. Through local authorities setting out clearly in the local plans how they plan to address housing need, local people will be far better placed to hold their local authority to account on the success that they have achieved. Without clear aspirations being set, local people are likely to find it difficult to assess how well their local authority is performing.
The importance of providing access to good local data was outlined in the Conservative Party’s Open Source Planning paper, which sets out that in developing their local plans, councils will be expected to ensure as a minimum,
“the provision of good data by the local planning authority to the electors in the neighbourhoods, so that they can develop their vision for their community on a well-informed basis … this will need to include analysis by the council of the likely need for housing and for affordable housing for local people in each neighbourhood”.
The introduction of more consistent data sets will also allow local authorities greater opportunities to increase integrated working across areas such as sharing back office staff. That would be particularly useful in some areas of local housing planning, but varying data sets would make the practicalities of joint working more difficult. This will help to deliver the aims of a more localised system by ensuring that local people are able to play an effective role in shaping local plans and holding their local authority to account while enabling local authorities to work together more efficiently.
In Committee in the other place, the Minister stated that the Government would require from local authorities,
“an absolutely clear, transparent, robust numerical assessment of housing need”.—[Official Report, Commons, Localism Bill Committee, 17/2/11; col. 637.]
However, he argued that Section 13 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 already outlined the necessary duty. In fact, with respect, Section 13 does not consider a critical element of housing need, or other needs, which is a forward projection of future need and demand. In the absence of such a clear duty, it would be easy for some local authorities to look narrowly to immediately presenting housing need and to avoid responsibilities, especially to the next generation and to the wider housing market. It is on that basis that I propose these amendments and support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross.
Earl Cathcart
My Lords, forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought that all councils were already required to make a housing needs assessment under the existing PPS3. If that is the case, I am not sure what the amendments will add other than to make councils do their job better.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Would the Minister repeat what has been placed in the Library this week? Was this today or yesterday? What notification has been given of that?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am sorry, my Lords, my notes here say that it was placed in the House Library this week for information. Indeed, I think that I referred earlier to draft regulations that have been placed in the Library this week for the information of noble Lords. I hope that that will inform this debate. We are going on to debate housing, though probably not this evening, so noble Lords will have an opportunity to swot up on those.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, mentioned neighbourhood planning. She wanted to know how it would protect minority groups. Neighbourhood plans will be tested at an independent examination and must have regard to the national policy and be in line with strategic elements of the local plan. Everyone has the right to be heard at the examination, and human rights issues can be considered.
I come to the point made before we broke by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, about two authorities with some tension trying to deal with an issue that was affecting their neighbourhoods. Compliance with the duty to co-operate is assessed through the independent examination of draft local plans, and failure to demonstrate satisfactory compliance risks the local plan failing the examination. Having no local plan means that councils lose control of how their area will develop. This disfranchises their constituents, who will hold them to account, as I said in my previous comments.
I would like to correct something that I said. When I said that the draft regulations had been put in the Library this week, I meant last week. Unfortunately, we are all suffering from a slight sense of jet lag as the Bill is moving with such rapidity through the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, mentioned the low housing build. I am sure that noble Lords opposite will reflect on the fact that this extends back into the period of the previous Administration. We must remember that the market for housing has suffered for reasons entirely unconnected with planning. However, the experience is that numbers in regional plans did not provide a reliable indication of the number of homes actually being built. We know that indicative planning at the regional level for housing need caused huge stress within the system.
We will shortly be publishing the new national planning policy framework, which reviews all national planning policy. I know that my ministerial colleagues understand and take seriously ensuring that the new policy framework makes clear the need for local authorities to understand the housing needs of all people in their area and to monitor the effectiveness of their policies. We will shortly be consulting on the draft of the framework, and will listen to all the views on this and other areas to ensure that the policy is as strong as it can be. I hope that that encourages the noble Baroness and that she will feel free to withdraw her amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Before the noble Baroness answers, can I thank the Minister for alerting us to the regulations which have been posted in the Library? It is very difficult to keep abreast of what is going on in this Bill. We had some government amendments tabled yesterday of which we had no prior notice and it does not help an expeditious focus on the Bill.
Those, together with the NPPF, as soon as we get it, will reassure us on some of these points, although we would like to see this obligation embodied in primary legislation on the face of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Whitty encapsulated a debate which we will have more intensely in due course about the problems and challenges in respect of housing in the UK at the moment. Regional spatial strategies are not necessarily flavour of the month but, if you look at the record, there were years when they were beginning to deliver. If you look at 2007-08, we had the highest levels of house building for something like 20 years, just as that process was beginning to get under way.
I am grateful for the support of other noble Lords who have spoken and I am still unclear about the central issue of when you have a dispute between neighbouring authorities over housing provision and how, in terms of the examination of the plan and whether that plan is sound, those judgments will be made. I reiterate the point so that the noble Lord might reflect on it and possibly write in due course, certainly before Report. If you have two authorities which are at odds and take a different view, does the examination of the plan have to take a view as to which of those two authorities might be the most reasonable in their approach and therefore influence the outcome, or is that process in terms of co-operation just looking at whether each party played the game?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
One of the things the Bill provides for, as we have just discussed in Clause 95, is the duty to co-operate. It is not a light thing; it is a duty. I mentioned in the précis I gave in response to the noble Lord that there are sanctions against authorities whereby they run the risk of their local plan failing the examiner’s test. If the noble Lord would like me to write to him specifically on that I will do so. I apologise if communications have been such that he has not had the usual courtesies extended in terms of being informed about government amendments.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have tabled Amendment 153AKA in this group. It requires the local authority to prepare and maintain a retail diversity scheme as part of the local development scheme. It calls for a sequential approach to the development of a hierarchy, putting existing centres first, followed by edge-of-centre locations and then out-of-centre sites. This is very much consistent with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cotter. I was interested to hear about his Retail Development Bill, which I must confess I have not studied in detail, although it seems that neither has his colleague who is sitting in front of him. Perhaps he has. Maybe I could borrow a copy during the Recess.
The amendment will be familiar in that it is a rerun of what was proposed in the other place. On reflection, we should have deleted the proposed power of direction for the Secretary of State. We have brought it back because it was spoken to warmly by the Minister, Greg Clark, who said:
“Policy on town centres has always been part of national planning policy … I wish to signal clearly the importance of having robust policy, including the sequential test that is currently in planning policy statement 4. That will absolutely be in place, and it will be clear in the new national planning policy framework”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/5/11; col. 270.]
It is difficult for us to test that issue because we still do not have the new NPPF, but we live in hope.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, which he has not yet spoken to, requires there to be an assessment of,
“the vitality and diversity of the shopping areas”,
and makes it necessary,
“to include appropriate policies to promote the vitality and diversity”.
The noble Lord’s amendment states that there must be a consultation, including with the traders. So far as it goes, we can and will support that amendment, but it is vital that there is clarity on the sequential approach. The existing vitality and diversity of shopping centres can dramatically be undermined by inappropriate out-of-town development.
I should recall that I spent a brief time as a Minister in CLG at the tail end of the previous Government, as well as trying to cope with DWP issues. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, will know, you are allocated planning issues to look at when they come forward, one of which stuck in my mind. There was a proposal for a significant retail development in an area, which would have been fantastic for that area in terms of jobs and the retail offering but would have destroyed three or more shopping centres in close proximity. There is an issue about how the duty to co-operate will work in such situations where there is a retail opportunity in one local planning area, which is substantially in the interests of that area, but could be of real detriment to other areas. We will follow with interest these issues around what the NPPF says and the extent to which that overlays local development plans.
The noble Lord, Lord Cotter, referred to the current situation on the high street. It is in a pretty dire state. Some 12,000 shops closed their doors in UK high streets last year, and 85 per cent of people feel less optimistic about the prospects for economic recovery when they see boarded-up shops in their local high street. In the past fortnight, Jane Norman went into administration, Carpetright shut 75 stores, and Habitat put 30 premises outside London into administration. Retailers Homeform, HMV, Comet, Mothercare, JJB Sports and Thorntons have recently been hit. Local Data Company states that 14.6 per cent of retail premises are now vacant. This indicates that approximately 50,000 units are not currently open to business on the UK high street, which shows just how challenging the situation is on the ground.
This matter is particularly relevant at this point for the economy of our country, and demonstrates that we need to do whatever we can through the planning process, as well as through other means, to preserve, protect, encourage and promote development on the high street. That is the purpose of these amendments, and I hope that the Minister will support and accept them.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said, I and my noble friend Lord Tope, have tabled Amendment 153AKC, which proposes a new clause, entitled,
“Health and diversity of town centres and high streets”.
Before speaking directly to that amendment, I should first acknowledge the work of my noble friend Lord Cotter in this area over the years. He has been determined and diligent in pursuing these matters and is to be congratulated on bringing the amendment. It is true to say that the three amendments in the group are all rather different but address the same basic problem. I am sure that if the three of us sat around a table, we might well have been able to come up with an amendment with which we all agreed and which would combine the best of all three amendments.
The amendment that I am proposing is slightly different because, unlike the others, it concentrates not so much on town centres but on town centres and high streets. That is not to say that town centres are not important—they are vital—but the shopping streets that we are talking about are not just in town centres. My amendment, which internally we are calling the “Cambridge amendment”, comes from campaigners in a part of Cambridge called Mill Road—a shopping street that is not part of the town centre but is a district shopping street of great variety that is under threat. It was the suggestion of the campaigners that resulted in us putting this amendment together. It clearly overlaps with the other amendment.
I want to speak to Amendment 153AKC, which relates to Section 19 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 about preparation of local development documents. I want to include an extra section in that, saying, first, that the duties in putting together the development documents should include,
“a requirement to assess the vitality and diversity of the shopping areas in the area”.
Secondly, that:
“When preparing local development documents and other local planning documents the local planning authority must consider the results of that assessment and consider whether to include appropriate policies to promote the vitality and diversity of those shopping areas”.
Thirdly, that:
“The local planning authority may prepare a scheme for retail vitality and diversity which may be a local development document or other local planning document”.
The policies that we set out are similar to those in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, but a little different.
The local planning authority may,
“define a network of retail centres in the area … assess the existing character and vitality of those centres … designate the desired retail mix for each of these retail centres … promote sustainability and diversity in the retail mix that is desired in each case”.
In doing this, it must consult with the local community, which includes the traders in each shopping centre, and a shopping area means an area of town centre or high street where the substantial use is retail. So sustainability and diversity, which we are suggesting should be foremost in these policies, means that there is an appropriate balance of independent and multiple traders, of unit sizes, and balances of classes of use.
We are putting the emphasis on what is there now. The Labour Party amendment, if I can put it that way, talks about the importance of maintaining the existing policy of the sequential test. If there is a proposal for a new supermarket, can it be fitted in the town centre, can it be at the edge of the town centre, can it be at the edge of town, or does it have to be in the countryside? It is very important that that is maintained, but it is not the only important thing. If you are having a new supermarket, or even a new relatively small Tesco- or Sainsbury’s-type store, like a Tesco Express, the issue is not just where it is, but the effect it will have on the balance of shopping in its area.
In some areas, it might do more damage if it is in the high street than if it is 10 miles away in the countryside. According to a campaign there, Mill Road in Cambridge is described as having an eclectic range of small, specialist independent retailers; as the most ethnically diverse part of the city; and as Cambridge’s Brick Lane. A Tesco Express opened some time ago to widespread concern, and now a Sainsbury’s express wants to open on the other side of the bridge. The fear is that this will seriously undermine the independent local shops, which are a combination of ordinary food shops and specialist shops. If the food element comes under intense competition, those shops might then become unviable. It is suggested that policy and guidance is changed so that the local planning authority can take much more vigorous action to take these issues into account and, if necessary, turn down planning applications if they are thought to be detrimental to the diversity and vitality of a particular high street, whether in the town centre or elsewhere.
This is not just a Cambridge issue. We all saw on television the remarkable scenes in Bristol, where there were riots at night that apparently were connected with the opening of a similar type of convenience store in a street there. For those who live in relatively small towns, as I do, the vitality of our town centres is a very similar issue. In my own town of Colne, there are a lot of small independent shops, and maintaining that vitality and diversity means that we need the policy handles to be able to resist developments that, even if they are in the town centre and high streets, could be detrimental to their future.
Again, that is a very localist view, because it will put more power in the hands of the local authority and local people. There is no magic answer. Keeping the shopping centre and the high street going requires hard work not just by the traders but by the whole community, but it can be done. There are examples around the country where it is being done, and we need to do what we can to stop that being undermined.
“( ) In section 23 (adoption of local development documents) after subsection (3) insert—
“(4) Subject to subsection (5), if a development plan document has not been adopted by the date that this subsection is brought into force, it cannot constitute a reason for refusing planning permission.
(5) Subsection (4) does not apply in relation to a replacement or revision of an adopted development plan document that is sustainable.””
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this is a probing amendment, prompted by the National Housing Federation. It specifically focuses on an authority that has not adopted its local plan document and provides that this cannot constitute a reason for refusing planning permission. In a sense, this picks up just part of the federation’s proposition, which sets this in the context of a statutory definition of sustainable development and the presumption in favour of sustainable development. We have already discussed definitions of sustainable development and whether they should be enshrined in primary legislation, and we touched on the Government’s draft presumption in favour of sustainable development. We will doubtless return to these points on Report.
In the mean time, we have the demise of regional spatial strategies, no agreement—as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said last week—to preserve for at least a limited period related policies that are not directly incorporated into LDPs, and no draft official NPPF. Perhaps the Minister could spell out for us how things will work when local planning authorities have not yet adopted a local development plan. It must be right that the absence of a plan cannot automatically be used to deny an application for planning permission. However, is the Minister’s position that, where a local plan is not yet complete, it is necessary to look just at the NPPF, given that the Government have heralded this as a framework that sets out government priorities only to the extent that it is relevant, proportionate and necessary to do so? Do they not envisage distinctive local and indeed neighbourhood issues that are clearly outwith the NPPF?
Clearly the answer to all this is for local authorities to get on and approve their LDPs. However, we should acknowledge that they are faced with challenges on resources—challenges faced generally by local authorities—that are not made easier by the requirement to support neighbourhood planning and not helped by the hiatus caused by the actions of the Secretary of State when coming into office. Nevertheless, I stress that this is a probing amendment, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to this issue.
Lord True
My Lords, I am conscious of the need to make haste and I am perhaps making too much. There are a lot of “nots” in this amendment. Obviously where local development frameworks are in place, local authorities are consistently working on development plan documents. In any clarification that may be being made, we would not want to arrive at a situation in which an emerging policy of an authority, which is traditionally given some weight by planning committees and often by the inspector, is disallowed because the final plan has not yet been formally adopted after the hearing by the inspector. I do not expect my noble friend to respond in detail on that point, but it is an extremely important point because emerging DPDs are very often the reflection of the latest thinking of local people and a response to localist pressure.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is quite right in moving this probing amendment to emphasise that the preparation of plans is a great challenge for local authorities. It is central to the Localism Bill and is certainly very important for them. We believe in a timely plan-led system, free from unnecessary targets imposed by central government. We trust local councils and their communities to choose to prepare plans where they feel that they need to shape development in their areas as quickly as they can. This is why we have been careful to retain the basic process of developing local plans, including public examination, and we are trying to make them work better in the interests of transparency and accountability.
The noble Lord’s amendment, which I accept is probing, would penalise councils without adopted plans in place by the time the Bill is enacted. I think we would all accept that this would not achieve good, responsible local planning. Perhaps I can help the noble Lord, because we agree that councils should get on with their plans. Our presumption in favour of sustainable development would be the right tool to ensure that planning applications are considered. We are clear that the presumption should be that councils should say yes to development if their plans are out of date. While we share the previous Government’s ambition that the plans should not be delayed, we know that their approach of top-down deadlines imposed in the 2004 Act just did not work.
In addition, the amendment also comes across as an unnecessarily centralising measure. Instead we want to use positive incentives, such as the new homes bonus and the community infrastructure levy, to encourage councils to plan properly. We are clear that councils will be expected to say yes to development where their plans are out of date. There is a steady flow of plans coming through and we do not believe that legislating for deadlines is the right approach. The aforementioned NPPF and a policy presumption in favour of sustainable development are the right tools. Together they are more immediate and effective levers that will incentivise the same behaviour.
The amendment would also undermine a fundamental part of the system by removing the discretion from the decision-maker to determine what issues should be material considerations to an individual case. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is in a position to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the Minister. I will certainly withdraw the amendment, but I am still a little unclear about the situation in which the local planning authority has not yet gone through the processes and got its local development plan in place. What will determine the acceptability of planning permissions that are sought in the interim? Very soon there will be the NPPF but I understand that it will be written at a fairly generic level—necessarily, as this is the virtue that has been made of it by the Government—so it will not pick up a lot of detail. How will those issues be settled, with the lacuna of no current plan? On what criteria will planning applications be made?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think I gave the noble Lord the answer to this when I said that the presumption would be that the planning should be in accordance with the NPPF and any other material considerations. Outside that, the presumption must be that approval is given, so there is an incentive for local authorities to get these plans in place.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, there is an incentive for local authorities to get these plans in place—I think I have made that point throughout our discussions on these amendments—and all other material considerations have to be met, so it does not happen totally in the void. Local authorities must have regard to their own circumstances when taking other matters into account, which is all the more reason for them to be working on these plans at the present time.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister again. I think that my noble friend Lord Berkeley has articulated the issue more effectively than I did. I would like to read the record on this. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) In section 205 (the levy), at the end of subsection (2) insert “without prejudicing the provision of affordable housing in accordance with the development plan”.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, in moving Amendment 148ZZZBB, I will also speak to the other amendments in my name, namely 148ZZZBC, 148ZZZBD and 148ZZBAA. I will comment on the other amendments in this group after they have been spoken to.
Amendments 148ZZZBB, 148ZZZBC and 148ZZZBD deal with the community infrastructure levy and its consequences for the provision of affordable housing. The amendments, which were prompted by the National Housing Federation, seek to ensure, first, that the need for affordable housing is taken into account when setting the CIL and, secondly, that the CIL charging schedules contain a provision that allows for the CIL to be waived if securing the entire amount would prejudice the provision of affordable housing.
The NHF says that the community infrastructure levy will be in most cases mandatory on new developments. With 40 per cent of social housing having traditionally been delivered through Section 106 agreements, it is vital that the CIL is set at a level that does not prejudice the delivery of levels of affordable housing in accordance with local plan policy. It is also important that, where the combination of the CIL and affordable housing makes development not viable, there is a clear mechanism that allows the CIL to be waived in whole or in part so that levels of affordable housing do not fall automatically.
In the debate in the other place, all parties agreed that the CIL should not prejudice the provision of affordable housing. The Minister was explicit about this and said that the present arrangements in the Planning Act 2008 and the CIL regulations offered sufficient protection, though he did commit to return to the issue. The Minister suggested that the requirement in Section 211 of the 2008 Act to have regard to the economic viability of development meant that proper scrutiny would be given to the effect on affordable housing.
Regulation 14, which gives practical effect to Section 211, requires a balance to be drawn between the desirability of securing funding from the CIL and the effect on the economic viability of development across the area. However, this type of balancing exercise does not protect affordable housing and it cannot do so if, as is often the case, there is no clear numerical target for additional affordable housing units. It would be far better to legislate to make the position explicit that the CIL is not meant to lead to a reduction in levels of affordable housing or land for affordable housing. There is no evidence that affordable housing requirements have genuinely been taken into account in the emerging CIL charging schedules to date.
The document Community Infrastructure Levy—An Overview, which was published by DCLG in May of this year, appears to make two things clear. First, it states:
“The regulations rule out the application of the levy for providing affordable housing”.
In relation to planning obligations, the document says:
“The levy is intended to provide infrastructure to support the development of an area rather than to make individual planning applications acceptable in planning terms. As a result, there may still be some site specific impact mitigation requirements without which a development should not be granted planning permission. Some of these needs may be provided for through the levy but others may not, particularly if they are very local in their impact. Therefore, the Government considers there is still a legitimate role for development specific planning obligations to enable a local planning authority to be confident that the specific consequences of development can be mitigated”.
However, the document then goes on to say in a sense that the planning obligations proposals had been drawn tightly by circular 5/05 and that is now enshrined on a statutory basis in the regulations.
Therefore, I have a fundamental question for the Minister. Given that the CIL cannot be used for affordable housing and the Section 106 agreements cause its focus to be narrowed, what will happen to the vital source of funding for affordable housing that came from the Section 106 stream? I stress that this is not a trick question. There is a genuine inquiry here; I am trying to understand how this should work and what the Government’s intentions are. Funding generally for affordable housing has been heavily restricted. I know that the Government are looking at so-called affordable rents or intermediate rents as a means of generating resources for affordable housing. However, if that Section 106 stream is to be reduced, and potentially overshadowed by the CIL, how will that all work? How will it help the delivery of affordable housing? I beg to move.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I have some amendments in this group, which I shall try to rattle through as quickly as possible. I start by saying that we support the broad thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has just said.
Amendment 148ZZBBB is a kite-flying amendment that would include building improvement and renovation of housing. The noble Lord has spoken more eloquently than I would have done, so I shall say no more about that. However, this is a very serious problem with the new system.
Amendments 148ZZBBA and 148ZZCA, are very similar to amendments that were tabled in the House of Commons by my right honourable friend Simon Hughes. He asked us to table them again here, since he was given a fairly sympathetic response by the Minister when he talked to him about the amendments—they were tabled in the Commons but they were not debated there. They would widen the possible use of the CIL. Amendment 148ZZBBA leaves out the words “providing infrastructure to support” and inserts the word “supporting”. The proposed provision refers to the development of an area. In other words, the amendment would allow the CIL to be spent on projects that support the development of an area, and not just what might be narrowly defined as infrastructure. The amendment would amend Section 205 of the Planning Act 2008.
Amendment 148ZZCA makes a similar amendment to Section 216 of that Act, which at the moment—ignoring the preamble—reads:
“CIL regulations must require the authority that charges CIL to apply it, or cause it to be applied, to funding infrastructure”.
Amendment 148ZZCA would add “or any other matter”. That means that CIL could be used to fund things that are desirable in the area but not necessarily described as infrastructure.
Many areas, particularly big cities, do not necessarily require extra investment in their infrastructure, but that does not mean that local residents are not inconvenienced by development. They might be inconvenienced by noise, dirt or dust, or there may be nuisance from the operation of the development. A supermarket could have people coming in and out all the time, and making noise around closing time. This could be mitigated by investment in, for example, double glazing. However, this is not currently allowed under the legislation; it is not regarded as infrastructure. In reality, councillors with the opportunity of getting CIL will always levy it and will always find ways of spending it. However, they will not necessarily spend it on the best and most useful thing that they could spend it on if they have to stay within the narrow definition of infrastructure.
Amendments 148ZZBBC and 148ZZCC just propose replacing “ongoing” with “continuous”. I regard “ongoing” as being an unpleasant American word that came in probably several decades ago—I do not know—but the English word is, in my view, “continuous”, which would be better and more elegant.
Amendment 148ZZCD refers to regulation-making powers in the Bill that refer to passing CIL,
“to a person other than that authority”.
I am not trying to remove that provision, and I should say that this is a probing amendment to find out what that phrase means and who these other persons might be that the authority would or might have to pass the CIL to.
Amendment 148ZZBAZA relates to the same argument about authorities being able to make up their own minds after a charging scheme has been examined by an examiner and to obtaining their recommendations. It is the same argument that was made two groups ago, and I will not say any more about it. I do not imagine that the Government will agree with me about that, but it is important. The next amendment in the group is about the same matter, so I shall not speak to it any further.
Finally, I speak to Amendment 148ZZZBE. On page 77 of the Bill, proposed new subsection (7A) to Section 211 states:
“A charging authority must use appropriate available evidence to inform the charging authority’s preparation of a charging schedule”.
That seems to be garbage. Why does that have to be in legislation? There are then eight indications of what CIL regulations may make provision for. I shall not read them all out, but only a couple of them to provide a flavour, including,
“provision as to evidence that is to be taken to be not appropriate”,
and,
“provision as to how evidence is, and as to how evidence is not, to be used”.
They are all like this. Finally there is,
“provision as to how the use of evidence is to inform the preparation of a charging schedule”.
They are the kind of quite extraordinary provisions that ought not to be in legislation.
It is insulting that local authorities cannot make sensible decisions on their own without being given such minute and detailed instructions on exactly what to do. If the Government are to respond to all the criticisms made in this Committee about the detailed regulations that are being imposed, I hope that they might look at this provision as being at best redundant and at worst quite ridiculous.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I would certainly like to take up my noble friend’s offer of conversations between now and Report. I think I heard three different answers to the question posed by my amendment, and I hope that I will end up with one answer by the time we get there.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for a full and indeed very positive, or broadly positive, reply. Certainly at this hour, I should like to read the record and perhaps revert to those who pressed this particular amendment on us to talk it through with them in detail. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for the thrust of his support. These issues around who else the levy should be paid to are certainly important ones, and I would be happy to be included in that correspondence if I may. It is also important that it is done by diktat of the Secretary of State rather than being the local authorities’ decision.
Can I just check: did I hear the Minister correctly when he said that he thinks it is right that the legislation provides for affordable housing to be included within infrastructure—the regulations currently preclude that? Did the Minister say that he was looking to consult on that later this year to change that rule, so affordable housing could be included? Was that what he said?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I think the noble Lord will have to read the Hansard, but what I said was quite clear and the words in my speech will make that clear. The short answer is yes.
Localism Bill
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(14 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Lytton
In response to the very wise comments of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, it may well be a cumbersome way of doing it but the point is that we do not yet know what the precise trigger is going to be, or the subject matter. The provisions of the Bill cover a very large spectrum of possibilities and we are effectively empowering the Secretary of State to make orders. It is legitimate to lay down a marker as to what the parameters might be—I suspect that is all the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is doing at the moment—and just to sound a word of warning. It is timely in that context.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am going to speak in support of what my noble friend Lord Beecham said. It is the mention of airports that I cannot resist, of course, because we have one in Luton. I know how important it is to the local community and what a generator of jobs it is. In many ways, airports are the organisations least likely to need the measure that the noble Lord proposes because they have consultative committees anyway so there is automatically a wide engagement with the community. The principle of somebody who is potentially on the receiving end of a referendum or a petition knowing about that and the local authority having to make a decision to engage with them seems to be entirely reasonable. What we are balking at is that the specific amendment is a little too prescriptive and takes us too far down an unfortunate path. However, we are all well aware of the challenges that airports in particular face.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend but tempted again I have been—on this occasion just to show how even-handed I am—to join in a little bit with the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord McKenzie, with due apologies to my noble friend Lord Jenkin. It is the third arm of this that worries me most. It says,
“any other person whom the authority considers to have an interest which is likely to be affected by any steps that the authority may take to give effect to the result of the referendum”.
It is not just airports. Major commercial developments, for example, have effects over a wide area. Leaving aside Stansted, about which I know a good deal, and which would certainly be said to have effects over 30, 40, 50 or 100 or more miles, Lakeside at Thurrock has had effects on shopping centres all over Essex. It is unimaginable that the local authority would really have to consult the people of Thurrock, Chelmsford, Colchester, Braintree and Brentwood—to name the Secretary of State’s constituency and indeed that of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. We need some caution before going down the path scripted in this amendment. That is all I would say. There may be merit in the purpose but the wording needs very careful consideration.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
My Lords, I hope that you will forgive me for intervening as I did not speak on Second Reading. Under this heading, I wonder whether the Minister can clarify whether there is an exemption on petitioning and on moving to have a referendum on car-parking charges. I discovered that my area in London recently increased car-parking fines to £130—a phenomenal increase. I gather that many of these increases are taking place in different locations on similar scales around the country. I wonder whether this will provide the opportunity for the citizen to petition against those, or indeed move for a referendum.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to the amendments, and say that we are with the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Lucas, on this. It is an opportunity for the Government to set out quite broadly their view on the exclusion, not only for particular planning applications but for the broader role of planning briefs and everything that goes with the planning process. Like the noble Lord, Lord Best, I think that we should congratulate the Government on their earlier concessions. That has helped our deliberations to move on a lot.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that of course it must be right that people have the opportunity to engage and influence their neighbourhood and place. That is just what the neighbourhood planning provisions in the Bill are designed to do, with a referendum attached to that. We have some amendments coming now suggesting that there should be earlier consultation in the process of those engaged in developing plans, so we are with you on that. That is within the structure of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Best, made an important point about LDFs. We need to get on with that as so many of them are not yet completed. We have a lacuna, with regional spatial strategies going before many of these plans were in place, and the data associated with all of those are in danger of disappearing. We propose to deal with that by transition arrangements but that is a debate for another day, if not another week at the rate we are going. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to clarify, as far as they are able, the scope of the exemption around planning as that is hugely important.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity as it was a key area and the decision to table the amendments has helped to move the Bill forward. I am, however, in a less than satisfactory situation in the sense that we can see that a number of factors now come into play. The definition of planning appeals, an appeal process, and the rest of it means that it will require some further thought to see what the implications are. It is clear that a referendum on planning applications can be ruled out, but indicative planning and the like with consultative processes are a matter that we need to consider, as well as how exactly they might be brought into this process. My noble friend Lord True carefully articulated the importance of making sure that the public voice in these matters is not stifled. We accept that, but on the other hand we do not want the whole referendum process to be totally absorbed on planning matters.
I promised my noble friend Lord True that I would write to him. Indeed, I will write to all noble Lords and place a copy in the Library of our position on this issue, so that it is quite clear. However, I do not from this Dispatch Box want to give an on-the-hoof answer which may mislead noble Lords in this regard; I do not think that helps to take the debate forward and I apologise.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
We appreciate what the Minister has said because we are likely to get into planning issues next week—maybe on Tuesday at some stage, or maybe not even till Thursday. It would really help our deliberations if by then the Government had been able to focus more specifically on these issues, and perhaps we could have some reassurance on that.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I thank the noble Lord for assisting me. Knitting it into the neighbourhood planning proposals is clearly going to be important as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, was worried not so much about his car-parking charges as the fines when he did not pay them, if I heard him correctly. At any rate, perhaps one may lead to the other. Our amendments put in place a framework for councils to decide to refuse a referendum in certain cases. The issues raised by noble Lords clearly illustrate how difficult it would be to compile a list. This is why we have adopted our approach in our recommendations generally about how councils may determine particular referendum petitions.
Lord Greaves
I am grateful to noble Lords for the discussion. It is an indication of the complexity of the issue that I have agreed with most of the things that most noble Lords have said on all sides; it is in no circumstances straightforward. As I hope I said, I moved the amendment to probe and, in order to probe, I proposed something quite different from what was in the Bill. There are good arguments on both sides. I firmly believe that local authorities, faced with what they might think of as a hostile referendum question, should be able to put their point of view forward and, if it is a complex question, should be able to explain it.
It is quite possible, of course, that the local authority will be in favour of the referendum question, in which case it is not clear why they should spend any money at all. Perhaps they think that the people organising it are incompetent and will not do it very well. Who knows? One can imagine lots of different circumstances.
I am firmly of the countervailing view that local authorities ought not to be able to get involved in promoting referendum campaigns which are effectively being put forward by parties or party-political candidates—or any candidate in local elections—for political purposes. That would be quite wrong and quite contrary to the present code of publicity. It is difficult to see how to draw up regulations which cater for both the extreme circumstances of a hostile referendum which the authority thinks would seriously wreck its strategy and policies in key areas and, on the other hand—
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Does the noble Lord have a view on whether local authorities should be able to campaign on council tax referendums, which are in a sense political because the policy is effectively decided by elected councillors? Would he support the right of councils to be able to campaign in those?
Lord Greaves
Yes, I would. Although it is important that local authorities should not get involved in party-political campaigning, the present code of conduct on local authority publicity is too restrictive. Local authorities ought to be able to campaign in a general way more easily and widely than they can at the moment if they believe that what they are campaigning for is in the interests of the people that they serve and represent. However, that is a wider issue. We have the code as it is and I do not think that there is any prospect of it being changed much in the near future. However, it will be very difficult to find satisfactory wording that stops local authorities intervening in elections and political matters, but allows them to defend their well thought-out and agreed policies and strategies against hostile attack. This matter has to be further discussed and considered and the various organisations involved, including the LGA and the Electoral Commission, have to be involved in that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I will speak to this clause on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and will address some of the principles that stand behind it. In practice, the clause continues a capping regime. Councils will not want to risk losing a referendum because there will be a significant rebilling cost. Clause 59, and Schedules 5 and 6, create a duty for a billing authority to determine, in line with principles set out by the Secretary of State, whether a proposed council tax increase is excessive. Authorities will be required to hold a local referendum on the proposed rise if it is deemed to be excessive.
The difficulty is that it should be for local people to determine whether they find a proposed council tax increase excessive rather than for the Secretary of State to decide what constitutes excessive. Local people should trigger the referendum, not the Secretary of State. Therefore, there is a strong case for saying that amendments to the Bill should be introduced that would limit the Secretary of State's power to determine what constitutes an excessive rate of council tax and would give that power instead to local people under proposals elsewhere in the Bill for holding local referendums so that they can decide what constitutes an excessive rate of council tax.
Secondly, councils, rather than the Secretary of State, ought to be able to decide when a referendum will be held and to decide the arrangements for it. We should also delete powers for the Secretary of State to make non-specific regulations on matters such as the question to be asked in the referendum, the allowable publicity accompanying that referendum and how votes are to be counted. We have already discussed the percentage levels required to trigger a referendum and it seems to me that this is an example of where we do not need to have the Secretary of State interfering with what local people could perfectly well handle for themselves.
There are two issues that I feel concerned about and I have raised them at previous stages of the Bill. When a billing authority is determining whether a council tax proposal is excessive it might be appropriate for a referendum to be held on whether the council tax level and increase proposed is deemed by some to be too small. True localism should mean that local people have the right to hold a referendum on whether the council tax might be raised higher than the level that the Secretary of State deems to be excessive. I do not propose that one should have a higher rate—simply that if you really want to implement localism it should lie within the power of local people to make that decision.
There is a further complication to this. Under the Bill, referendums can be held within electoral areas within a council area. It is inevitable that referendums will be held on issues that might require additional expenditure to be made within that area. It might be unreasonable to expect the whole of the council area to fund the additional increase. The increase could be for a specific local facility that might otherwise close down, such as a swimming pool that people would like to preserve that requires additional cash. At the moment parish councils have certain powers to raise additional money. We could see referendums being held to save local facilities such as the swimming pool where local people might be willing to pay for the facility and would wish a referendum to be held on generating the necessary resource.
This seems to strike at the very heart of localism. Ultimately, if we permit referendums to be held within one or more electoral areas of a council, logically those people should be allowed, as those who have a parish council are allowed, to vote to spend additional money. I speak from my perspective as a member of Newcastle City Council. Half of my ward has a parish council, which has the power to raise additional money, and the other half does not and is not able to raise additional money. That is a complication that will become very important.
The broader issue in terms of Clause 59 is whether it is for the Secretary of State to decide to hold a referendum or whether it is for local people to use the facilities that exist to generate that referendum.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we should thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for introducing this clause stand part debate and for his very clear exposition of localism and what it means in terms of council tax. I agree with him that the provisions in the Bill amount to a capping regime. I am sure the Government will argue that local people do determine what is excessive if they support a referendum. That is a very narrow interpretation of the Bill. This is capping by another name.
We also have to acknowledge that successive Governments have reserved the right to limit increases in domestic taxation when they have been judged to be excessive. We certainly did as a Government, and I believe that the Conservative Government did. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is culpable as well. There are arguments about whether that is important for the overall management of the economy.
When the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, introduced his first amendment in our proceedings, he talked about localism being decisions being taken at the lowest possible level, but he acknowledged that there is a wider dimension that has to be taken into account in some instances. The impact assessment for the Bill—
Lord Greaves
I think I said “underpinning a minimum level of service”. I certainly would not apply it to council tax.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Indeed. I was not suggesting that the noble Lord would have judged council tax to be one of those things, but I think there is an argument that it is. The impact assessment reminds us that some 36 authorities have been capped under legislation that this Bill will replace—I think that is since the power was first used in 2004-05—and 16 of those were subject to in-year designation and had to redo their calculations. Indeed, the architecture of the Secretary of State setting principles with the opportunity to look at different categories of authorities has been imported from the existing capping regime.
We feel constrained in denying the Government powers which effectively amount to capping powers and their right to influence levels of taxation in the broader interests of the management of the economy, anti-poverty strategies, et cetera because the reality is that each year the Secretary of State will set the benchmark for council tax increases and it is probably right that few councils will run the gauntlet of a referendum, given the costs and consequences of an adverse outcome. The impact assessment estimates the cost of a council tax referendum to be between £85,000 and £300,000. Should a referendum not be successful, the administrative consequences could be convoluted, with year-end refunds or credits against future liabilities and the possibility for people to ask for an in-year refund, so the systems and costs involved in those choices could be significant.
We are coming on to discuss the powers that the Secretary of State has taken for himself in framing how the referendum question is to be put and the constraints around expenditure. According to the impact assessment, the authority will not be able to campaign for its proposed council tax level. Given the debate we have just had about the authority’s role in referendums, perhaps the Minister will confirm that an authority cannot campaign for the council tax increase that it thinks is appropriate. Of course, we might expect the cards to be stacked against those proposing the increase. Councils are facing unprecedented dilemmas at present with budgets severely constrained and with front-end loading because the coalition Government’s approach to the deficit is to cut too far and too fast. The system will have to cope with the challenges of the localisation of non-domestic rates. If this is to happen, will not local councils be forced to look to that as a source of extra income before running the risks of referendums that would increase council tax? I am not sure that that would be good news for the business community, but perhaps the Minister will tell us—I know these things are embryonic at the moment—whether there will be equivalent capping-type regimes for a localised, non-domestic rate and, if not, what the likely impact of having these effective capping powers on council tax increases might be for the NNDR.
One of the other issues that arise from this in making an assessment about whether council tax levels are fair is how council tax rebate is going to work in the future. The Government are localising council tax rebate. Not only are they cutting 10 per cent off it in aggregate, but it seems as if it is going to be left to local authorities to make individual judgments about the scheme that they want to introduce and maintain. That runs contrary to giving powers to government to manage these things centrally, and is an added complication.
For the present, we will focus our efforts on trying to improve the provisions in the Bill rather than to do away with them, but we are mindful of the strong localist argument for not having these powers at all.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Shipley for giving me the opportunity to promote the principle of council tax referendums. We have several interesting amendments to debate later on, including some government ones.
Clause 59 gives effect to Schedule 5, which inserts a new Chapter 4ZA into the Local Government Finance Act 1992. This enables local electors to approve or veto excessive council tax increases in a referendum. It also gives effect to Schedule 6, which removes the Secretary of State’s powers to cap council tax in England and makes consequential amendments to various Acts as a result of the provisions for council tax referendums. The clause will ensure that excessive council tax increases occur only where they have a clear mandate from local people. This is in contrast to capping, where Ministers take the decisions and local people have no say at all. It will strengthen local democracy and ensure councils are more accountable to their electorates, but it will allow the electorate to vote for increased expenditure if they want it.
A set of principles defined by the Secretary of State will be used by authorities to determine whether their council tax increases are excessive. These principles must be submitted in a report to the House of Commons for its approval. A comparison of basic amounts of council tax could be the only principle, but the Secretary of State can include other principles as he sees fit. It is necessary for the excessiveness principles to be determined by the Secretary of State with the approval of the House of Commons.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, touched upon the wider economic issues of council tax expenditure. It would be impractical and excessive to require a referendum for every single council tax increase. The flexibility allows for different sets of principles for different categories of local authorities. For example, principles relating specifically to town and parish councils could ensure that the great majority of councils—indeed, all but large, high-spending parish councils—would not be required to hold referendums. The report for the House of Commons must be laid before the date on which the local government finance report for the year is approved. Authorities will therefore know, when setting their council tax, whether or not they have exceeded the principles, so they will go into this process with their eyes open.
Where an authority determines that its council tax is excessive, it will normally hold a referendum no later than the first Thursday in May—the usual date of local elections. However, the Secretary of State can specify a different date by order, such as to allow the referendum to be held on the same day as local government elections if this date is not the first Thursday in May. Entitlement to vote in the referendum is based on the register of local government electors and entitlement to vote in local government elections for a particular area.
Where an authority sets an excessive council tax increase, it must also make substitute calculations to determine a basic amount of council tax which does not exceed the excessiveness principles. The substitute calculations would take effect in the event that the authority’s increase is rejected in a referendum or the authority fails to hold a referendum by the required date. The Secretary of State may make regulations concerning the conduct of referendums, which would include such matters as the wording of the question to be asked in the referendum, the publicity to be given and expenditure limits. There are obvious reasons why this may be necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked whether authorities can campaign for the proposed increase in council tax. No, it is intended that they cannot. They must put the facts to the electorate and leave them to decide but individual councillors will be free to campaign.
The Secretary of State will have the power to direct that the council tax referendum provisions should not apply. The power could be exercised only where it appears to the Secretary of State that unless the authority is allowed to increase its tax excessively, the authority will be unable to discharge its functions in an effective manner or be unable to meet its financial obligations. This is a reserve power and the expectation is that this would be used only in exceptional circumstances, such as where the High Court has exercised its powers to appoint a receiver where an authority has failed to service its debt within a set time period.
This clause is long and detailed but it is not as complicated as capping legislation, which has such concepts as budget requirement, designation, nomination, designation after nomination and vice versa, notional budget capping as well as actual capping and so on. And I have not got the foggiest clue what that is about. It replaces all that with a simple concept; namely, that local people and not Ministers should take the decision to approve or veto excessive council tax increases.
Sadly, council tax has more than doubled since 1997. If councils want to set excessive council tax increases—that is, those that exceed the norm—in future they will have to prove their case to the electorate. I urge that Clause 59 should stand part of the Bill.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I touched on non-domestic rates and localisation, and how that regime would sit alongside the regime proposed in the Bill. In particular, I should like to know whether there would be equivalent capping powers on the business rate because that has ramifications for council tax levels as well.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, that is a weensy bit technical for me. Some amendments deal with non-domestic rates. If the noble Lord’s point does not get covered, I will of course write to him.
Localism Bill
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(14 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
My Lords, Amendment 109A, which is on its own, is a long and apparently complex amendment, but it need not take us too long. It is about open space and what happens when open space is disposed of by local authorities. The amendment seeks to amend the Local Government Act 1972 to return it to something like its original form before it was amended in 1980.
The substance of this amendment comes from concerns raised by the Open Spaces Society, which argues that protections are insufficient, particularly around publicity, consultations and the requirement to consider objections. It is about urban open space in particular, which is precious and increasingly recognised as vital to life in towns and cities. The coalition agreement and government promises have made proposals for new designations and protections for green spaces in urban areas, although we have not yet seen the details. It would be a good time to strengthen protections for existing open space in these areas.
When we discussed a related amendment, Amendment 24, the Minister suggested that we might have a meeting to discuss the technicalities and see what substance the Government thought there might be in these proposals. Does she agree that perhaps we can discuss this amendment at the same time? On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving this amendment. We were not quite clear what was behind it but he has been very clear about the thrust of the amendment. We support its general direction, which is about protecting open space, particularly urban open space. I do question the use of the phrase “equally advantageous to the public”. I do not know if that is an existing term used in other legislation, but one of the requirements of the amendment is that it must be “not less in area”—understood; that is quite easy to determine—and is “equally advantageous to the public”. There will not necessarily be a single approach by the public as to the advantage of a particular piece of open space: it might be the tranquillity of the view or the opportunity for some recreation pursuits or indeed somewhere to walk the dog, whereas an alternative piece of open space may not be able to satisfy people in the same proportion or mix. I am sure that that issue could be overcome but I would be grateful if the noble Lord, when responding to the Minister, might expand a little on that test; the Minister may also have some views on that. However, I do see the thrust and the benefit of this amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for those short contributions—short, I suspect, because I have indicated that I would be happy to have discussions with the noble Lord about this. This amendment has appeared quite late on in proceedings. I do not quite understand its place in the Bill. I think it has found its way in by a devious route. It would be more helpful for the House to see exactly what lies behind the anxiety of the Open Spaces Society about this.
In acceding to speaking to the noble Lord about it, I have to say that we have particular reservations about paragraph (c). As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has just pointed out, that requires a council to provide land in exchange for that appropriated or disposed of unless they can provide reasons under subsection (2) of the proposed new section. This is a difficult area. In order to provide an alternative piece of land, it is possible that the local authority would have to compulsorily purchase another bit of land in order to fulfil this obligation. So we would have considerable doubts and that is one area that I would expect to have a sharp discussion on. Having said that, I am happy to talk about this and come back to it at a later stage if the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment for the moment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 117ZA and 117ZB, to Amendments 110A and 114A, to which we have added our name, and to the other amendments in this group. This has been a fascinating debate but there seems to be one very clear strand that I think that pretty much everyone who has spoken has signed up to, which is that, if these provisions proceed, the Secretary of State cannot be the final decision-maker in respect of these fines. I am on the side of those who hope that these provisions go in their entirety. I will just touch upon the point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Wigley, Lord Empey and Lord Newton. According to the Notes to the Bill, my understanding is that these provisions relate to England only, so it seems to me entirely reasonable to ask the Minister whether there is going to be any proposition that will extend them somehow to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. If the answer is no, then I say good luck to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Nevertheless, how do you address the point that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, made, that you could have an EU penalty that, you might argue, is the responsibility of a number of local authorities, some in England, some not, so that under these provisions an English authority would be forced to cough up and authorities in Wales and Northern Ireland would not have to? If that is the proposition, that is simply a nonsense and cannot be right.
If I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, I think this issue around gold-plating of EU directives is, frankly, a myth. Every time an exercise is done to try to identify where that happens, the answer pretty much always comes back that it is very difficult to identify. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that this is not about laying blame at the feet of Brussels. As I said a moment ago, I am on the side of those who believe that we should remove these provisions from the Bill in their entirety, along with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and others, for the reasons that the LGA touched upon; namely, that they are,
“unfair, unworkable, dangerous for local economies, and unconstitutional”.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, spoke to that, and other noble Lords made the point that it is the UK Government who have EU obligations, not local authorities. If there is an issue about recalcitrant local authorities, surely it has to be addressed by more effective regulation by powers of intervention that central government could take, not by this nonsense of trying to apportion fines on some basis with all the complexities and problems that noble Lords have identified today.
My understanding is—and the LGA briefing touches upon this—that the concerns are particularly around air quality, public procurement, services and waste. As a start, can the Minister confirm that those are the particular areas that the Government are concerned with? Can he also tell us at what stage potential infraction proceedings have reached over these various areas or others that might be under way? My noble friend Lord Berkeley gives instances of several hundred in relation to transport. If we cannot get these clauses out of the Bill, and if we are to try to work out the best process to deal with this, it is worth reflecting on what I understand to be the process leading to infraction proceedings and the raising of a penalty.
Looking at the more formal arrangements in Articles 258 and 260, it has to start with an informal letter of inquiry from the Commission, then a formal letter presenting an opportunity to respond to an alleged breach of Community law, followed by reasoned opinion, which is the 41 notice from the Commission advising a member state that it is in breach of its obligations, followed, if there is no satisfactory response, by an application of the Commission to the ECJ for a formal ruling.
Following that, if there is a determination that there is a breach, there will be a letter requesting information on the steps taken to put an end to the infringement. If there is failure to comply, there will be formal notice that the member state has failed to comply, following by a reasoned opinion, which is the formal determination by the Commission that the member state has failed to comply with the ECJ judgment, followed by a financial penalty.
Therefore, the process is extensive, and there are a number of occasions when member states can challenge the existence of a breach or attempt to rectify it. Indeed, is it not the case that, even before these processes occur, there will in practice be opportunities to discuss with officials any suggested breaches of the treaty, with an iterative process to try to reconcile matters? This can extend over many months, if not years. Is it not the case that they are not clear-cut issues and that compromises may have to be reached along the way? That is why it seems fundamentally unacceptable that under the Government’s proposals an authority will be formally engaged with an EU financial sanction only when it has become a reality.
I shall run through some of the amendments in a moment. I do not think that any of them separately encompasses what we now consider to be a robust fallback position in removing these provisions, but I believe that in aggregate they present a cocktail of suggestions which I hope the Minister will digest, as he has time to do between now and Report.
In our view, any retention of these provisions—our preference is for them to be removed and we will not give up on that yet—must include safeguards which make it clear that the consequences of a failure of transposition of directives into UK law can never be visited on local authorities. There must be a requirement for the Government to use all the powers at their disposal to ensure compliance with ECJ rulings, whether they are powers relating to regulation or powers of intervention. Perhaps on that latter point the Minister would write to me setting out what powers the Government have over the various areas of concern and the extent to which they have been deployed to date or are planned to be deployed to avoid or mitigate any EU breach.
There must be a statutory opportunity for authorities whose actions or inactions are considered by Ministers to have potentially contributed to a breach to be notified at an early point, and certainly before the start of the processes set out in Article 258, with a right for such authorities to be kept up to date with developments and negotiations, and to be able to make representations to government about the conduct of such negotiations and to be given an opportunity to rectify any contributory breaches. There must be protections for authorities which do not wilfully and deliberately set aside a power or responsibility and where they have taken all reasonable steps to bring about compliance. There must also be a right for authorities affected to have access to some form of independent review, judicial or otherwise—and there seems to be strong support for that—which assesses not only whether the proposed levying of the fine received by the UK is fair but whether the processes and engagement leading up to the end result have been appropriate and consistent with the principles that I have set out.
The collection of amendments before us covers much of that ground and, as I said, provides some of the key ingredients for a fallback position. While we will continue to argue for the removal of these clauses, we will consider supporting a fallback position if it is sufficiently robust. The onus is now on the Minister and his colleagues to take note of the mind of the Committee, although I suggest that it is pretty clear. I believe that he has a decent time to do that before Report and I urge him to do so.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I entirely endorse the observations made by my noble friend Lord McKenzie. I was happy to ascribe my name to the amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, and indeed I congratulate her on tabling them. I think the Committee would wish to join me in congratulating her on her tenure of office, which ends this week, as chairman of the Local Government Association. She has been a very distinguished representative of local government. She has been quite unafraid to express the views of the local government family to Governments of all three political colours over the past few years, and we look forward to her playing an even greater role in your Lordships House than she has felt able to pursue so far because of a slight feeling of a conflicted position.
My noble friend Lord McKenzie referred to the position of Wales and Northern Ireland, and he seems to be absolutely right. I obviously have every sympathy with the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Empey. One would not wish to see these fines imposed on either Wales or Northern Ireland, or indeed on Scotland. However, it would be ridiculous if they were excluded from and England were included in certain situations. For example, if the Tweed or the Severn were polluted from the north or the west of the relevant borders, the Welsh or Scottish authority involved might be exempt and an English authority held liable. That would seem quite absurd.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, asked about the number of potential breaches. Noble Lords may recall—although probably not—that at Second Reading I referred to a Written Question and Answer in relation to this matter. The Question was what estimate the Government have made,
“of the potential liability of the United Kingdom to pay fines to the European Union; and what proportion they anticipate would fall to be paid by local authorities under the provisions of the Localism Bill”.
The Answer from the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, was:
“The United Kingdom has never incurred a financial penalty under Article 260 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union”—
or under the former articles—
“and no such fines are anticipated”.
I suggested at Second Reading that it was a little curious that in that case there should be provision in the Bill at all. However, the Answer went on:
“In the event of such a financial penalty, it is not possible to anticipate what proportion would fall to local authorities under powers proposed in the Localism Bill”.—[Official Report, 24/5/11; col. WA 419.]
Therefore, it could be a very large or a very small sum. In that context, I ask the Minister to indicate whether it is correct, as the Local Government Association believes, that the Government are considering fines relating to four specific EU laws so that councils could be forced to pay up to £1.2 billion in fines. It is alleged that the UK is facing a potential £300 million EU fine for breaches of air-quality targets. Is that correct?
Furthermore, a slightly worrying feature of the fines proposal is the reference to the breach being “caused or contributed to” by a local authority. A contribution can go from a small proportion to a very large one. What is the Government’s thinking about the situation that would arise if it were not wholly the responsibility of an individual local authority or a number of local authorities? In those circumstances, how would the fine be apportioned and who would determine it? Presumably, on the basis of the Bill as it stands, it would be the Secretary of State.
I recall money being lost to the United Kingdom, and particularly to the region from which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and I come, not through the fault of local authorities but through the negligence of civil servants who failed, for example—this was in the days of the previous Government—to transmit bids for EU funding in sufficient time for the money to be allocated and received. The money went missing but unfortunately there was no question of the local authorities fining the Government for that negligence. It seems that this is a one-way street. When it comes to money being lost to the UK, only local authorities seem to be scheduled to be in the firing line.
There are real problems here with the processes. The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, talked about Ministers signing up successive Governments to regulations, and he was right to say that. In particular, Governments have signed up to these regulations without consulting local government, upon which under the Bill and indeed perhaps more generally responsibilities would lie. The position now seems to be that if the Bill goes through unamended local authorities will be faced with decisions made on the basis of targets, deadlines and laws dating back more than 10 years—again without any consultation along the way.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I thank the Committee for the time, effort and thought that has been put into the amendments on these clauses. I particularly welcome some of the sensible comments of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, after he gave me his fairly firm strictures. We welcome such constructive contributions. I have taken on board the strictures of the Committee and I accept that there is much more that we need to do on these clauses. I also believe that the House is well placed to find a solution. Given the significance of these provisions, I intend to give a full reply. However, I will avoid getting involved in a debate about the EU or the desirability of any particular directive. On any relevant points that I do not answer, I will write in due course.
The basic principle is, I think, sound. The aim is to encourage authorities not to incur fines for the UK in the first place and, in the unprecedented circumstances that the UK is fined for an infraction, to achieve compliance quickly. We do not want to pay escalating fines to Europe. As many noble Lords have pointed out, we have never incurred fines for an infraction and do not see these provisions as a prelude to being more relaxed about infraction proceedings or fines. My noble friend Lord Tope, in his speech, accepts that it is very unlikely that EU fines will be incurred. The whole point of the policy is to avoid the fines in the first place.
My noble friends Lady Gardner of Parkes and Lady Scott of Needham Market, the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, and others raised the issue of the air quality directive and the difficulty of apportioning liability to certain types of directive. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Tope deals with this problem in conjunction with the amendment of my noble friend Lady Gardner, although I have to caution that it may have unintended consequences in this respect, so further consideration is required. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked whether these clauses are aimed at just a few specific EU directives. I go back to my point that that is not the case; they are about avoiding problems in the first place.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I understand that point. My specific question was whether those four areas that I identified are of particular concern at the moment, and in respect of those areas, how far, if at all, the early stages of infraction proceedings have got.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I think I will be able to give the noble Lord some comfort later in my speech. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, rather exaggerated the spectre and size of related fines. He will recognise that most EU states are experiencing difficulties with the air quality directive, particularly in respect of NOx, but I will not weary the Committee with the technical reasons for that.
We should focus much more on preventing fines. I am therefore very interested in the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Tope and by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, on the Benches opposite. Taken together, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, suggested, these would target and give a very clear warning only to authorities that are putting us at risk of a fine from Europe and just for the specific breach in question. That also deals with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about the potentially very large numbers. Actually, the numbers directed would be very small. This would involve a parliamentary process. The issues or any culpability could be clearly debated here and in the other place. In considering the merits of these amendments, we need to ask whether naming specific authorities could result in a greater desire on their part to comply and avoid any fine. This, as the Committee is aware, is the Government’s overriding aim.
Listening to the debate it seems to me that noble Lords believe that a particular advantage of the amendments is that prior to a directive being designated, all concerned can concentrate on solving the problem rather than taking legal advice and protecting their position. That deals with the point raised by my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market. In other words, the meter is not running until the designation order has been approved. As such, noble Lords may consider that these amendments deal with the issue of retrospectivity raised by my noble friends Lord Cathcart and Lord Newton of Braintree and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. However, I make it clear that the Bill’s clauses would have to apply to existing directives, not just new ones.
We must also ensure that the mechanism used as a last resort to recoup any fines works, otherwise there will be no incentive to avoid a fine.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am very happy to enter into detailed discussions with any noble Lord.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Noble Lords will be grateful for the response that the Minister has made because he has indicated that this is very much open and there is scope for a lot of further detailed discussion. Can I be clear that included in that discussion will be issues around the point at which local authorities will be notified of possible infraction proceedings and the opportunity to engage in the iterative, informal discussions and negotiations that go on before we get to an Article 258 situation? Any review and assessment of the outcome would cover that early engagement and its legitimacy as well as just looking at the divvying up of the fine that may result at the end of the day. Can we have the opportunity to engage with the Minister along the way so that we will have no surprises when we come to Report?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord will know that infraction proceedings are a very long process, even after the Lisbon process, which, I understand, makes it a little shorter. The designation procedure suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, would provide a very clear signal. One of the questions that my noble friend would have to answer—and we can do this offline—is: at what point would you designate a local authority? I would suggest that it would be after you get to a difficult stage in negotiations with the EU. I would be very happy to discuss that point with the noble Lord.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I know the Minister has gone through a lot this evening on this. It is not just a question of designating so that you know that you are potentially in the frame; it is an opportunity for a local authority to engage with the Government, who are obviously responsible for the negotiations. Since it is a negotiation, and a deal is often struck at the end of the day, where that deal is struck could affect a particular local authority or group of local authorities in ways that are different from the way others are affected. Therefore, that chance to impact on that process early seems vital if people are going to be assured that there is a reasonable process going forward. It is not just being designated; it is being designated at a point where you can engage with the ongoing pre-formal process of the infraction proceedings.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, we have just been through a very important debate that has taken a good two hours. I sense that the House is absolutely exhausted, so I will try to be very brief in moving Amendment 118. I will speak also to Amendment 118ZA. Since the latter is the smaller, I will address it very quickly now.
This arose because my colleague and expert lawyer, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, looked at the Bill and realised that there was a serious question in the wording of Clause 38(7), which refers to business rate supplements and makes various amendments. It says:
“The amendments made by this section do not apply in relation to a BRS imposed before the date this section comes into force”.
That is an important date because on one side of the date of raising a business rate supplement there is in many cases no requirement for a ballot, and various other conditions are different, and on the other side of that benchmark the conditions are entirely different. It is absolutely necessary that any authority affected by business rate supplement rules knows when that date occurs. I apologise if we have made a mistake, but neither the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, nor I can find any definition to determine when “this section comes into force”. This is an attempt to do that by replacing those words with the word “enacted”. It seems that if this clause should pass and become part of the Bill in its final form there has to be some clarity from the Government. This is a technical issue but it could lead to an awful lot of confusion and litigation if it is not clarified.
Amendment 118 covers the issue of tax increment financing. I will take a moment or two to explain what tax increment financing is. I am sure many Members of this House are very aware of it but there might be one or two who are not. I will then explain why I have raised this in this Bill and at this point. Tax increment financing was first used in the 1950s by California and is now part of the framework statutes of every state of the United States bar Arkansas, as well as of various continental countries, in various forms. Essentially it is a mechanism that recognises that where regeneration takes place or where there is new infrastructure, land values consequently rise. Therefore, business rates associated with that increase in land values are attributable to the existence of the project. In effect, it allows the relevant local authority or other body to borrow against that predicted increase in the business rates that results from the construction and existence of the project.
In this country we have a great problem in building infrastructure. People often use the example of the London Tube system and the Jubilee line. We get the cost upfront—in the case of the Jubilee line, about £3.5 billion—but there is a huge benefit at the far end when the project is complete. The increase in benefit to landowners around the various stations on the Jubilee line is estimated at about £13 billion. In other words, huge value is created, but we rarely find any mechanism to let us capture that value in order to get the financing to build the project in the first place. This happens on a small scale as well as a large scale. Knowing the cash that is coming out at the end, are we going to take the steps to allow us to find a mechanism to tap that in order to get the project built?
In the United States, this is not often used on large-scale projects. It is used typically on small, local regeneration projects in blighted areas, but it need not be limited to that application. The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, announced in September 2010 that the coalition would at some point allow local authorities to use tax increment financing to finance infrastructure projects. In a sense, this is a probing amendment to find out where on earth we are in this process. I speak partly as a Londoner because I know that so many infrastructure projects are necessary in this city, but it has to apply to the whole of the country.
This issue is relevant because of the various new clauses in the Bill that apply to the business rate supplement. I am conscious that a review is under way of local government revenue-raising powers and that tax increment financing is likely to be discussed as part of that. However, a problem arises from Clause 38 because of the new constraints that are applied to local authorities in raising business rate supplements— notably that a ballot is now necessary for every business rate supplement. Under the existing rules, no ballot is necessary if the business rate supplement provides less than one-third of the total cost of the project.
Crossrail was passed through a special hybrid Bill but the business rate supplement plays a significant part in the financing for it. Had all the businesses in London that are covered by this rate been balloted, they would not have passed the business rate supplement because many of them do not benefit from the existence of Crossrail. I am sure that this will be true on a small scale as well. It will become very difficult to achieve a business rate supplement when many businesses will look at the project that is very beneficial to the community but say that it does not benefit them directly. The joy about tax increment financing, if that were to be the basis on which businesses were balloted, is that you pay it only if you have benefited. You will pay a tax increment levy only if you have seen the increase in property values that comes because the project has been created. That, presumably, is something that businesses capture through rent or through the sale of property or in various other ways, but it is in their interest to make sure that the project happens.
That is why I have raised the matter in this context, although there is a more general Bill to come. It seemed to me that if we were going to see in this Bill new difficulties for using business rate supplements, we at least ought to have some discussion of mechanisms that would be put in place to give confidence to local authorities that they could proceed with infrastructure projects, regeneration and other necessary developments. They would then have some assurance that mechanisms would be coming their way that would allow them to achieve that. At a time when we talk about the importance of economic growth, infrastructure is perhaps more important than ever, so there is an urgency in clarifying this issue. That is why I have brought forward the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we understand why the smaller of the amendments has been introduced tonight. Doubtless the Minister will be able to give satisfaction on the date that these provisions enter into force for the reasons the noble Baroness has outlined. We also understand better now why she has attached tax increment financing to these provisions. As she said, a ballot is now required in all circumstances, whatever the level of funding, and there may be difficulties in securing that in the future.
Tax increment financing is about raising more money upfront by committing revenues which would not have arisen but for the project going ahead. We accept and support the importance of focusing at this time on tax increment financing when capital resources for local authorities are especially tight and the private-sector nervousness about the state of the economy means fund raising is extremely difficult. The noble Baroness will be aware that the previous Government set up a working party to examine this and an enlarged group has been working with the coalition Government. What I am not sure about is the grafting of these provisions on to the Business Rate Supplements Act 2009, which is about levying a supplement on the NNDR. It involves consultation arrangements and a ballot of those existing ratepayers affected. In concept, TIF is about ring-fencing additional business rates and almost hypothecating those to fund a borrowing arrangement. The current position is set out in the local growth document which the Government issued recently. That talks about introducing new borrowing powers to allow tax increment financing. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister what the mechanism is for those borrowing powers to be introduced to facilitate tax increment financing. I do not think grafting it on to the Business Rate Supplements Act provisions will be the right way to achieve it. It looks as though the Government already are focused on changes to borrowing arrangements which will facilitate it and obviously, subject to the detail of that, it is a principle and a project which we would support because it is important to get this source of funding under way at the current time.
Localism Bill
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(14 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I think that we should thank my noble friend Lord Wills for giving us the opportunity to debate this issue. He had a distinguished ministerial career and responsibility for this area, which very much showed in his contribution today.
We are living in an era of transparency, which has already been very much the byword of many of our debates on this Bill. We are also living in an era in which there will be increasing partnership working, outsourcing and joint working, very much along the lines on which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, focused when he talked about scrutiny functions in our debate on a previous group of amendments. The focus of FOI in the current era is therefore entirely appropriate.
My noble friend’s Amendment 52A very much chimes with the group of amendments that we have just discussed in its presumption that meetings should be held in public. On Amendments 133A and 133B, he acknowledged—and the noble Lord, Lord True, touched on this—that we need to focus on the practical ramifications of driving freedom of information through a contractor, a subcontractor and then perhaps a sub-subcontractor chain. I am thinking particularly of the construction industry and how diverse and complex some of its contractual arrangements are.
In a sense, my noble friend offered the route to a solution when he said that there should be some sort of de minimis or cut-off point in the application of this. His focus, as he acknowledged, was partly on the business left over from when he was a Minister, but he also dealt with some practical examples, such as Swindon, and cited the Islington Council situation, which is not theoretical but actual.
The noble Lord, Lord True, said on the one hand that he was an enthusiast for freedom of information, but on the other urged his noble friend to be sceptical about it. I am not sure that those two concepts sit very comfortably together.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I do not disagree, but I thought that the noble Lord said that he was also an enthusiast for freedom of information. Maybe I misunderstand him and he is not, but if he is I do not think that that sits with his urging his noble friend to be sceptical.
As I said, my noble friend has given us an opportunity to have an interesting debate on an important subject. In particular, he has done us a service by focusing on particular issues relating to the Housing Ombudsman, and I am keen to hear the Minister’s response specifically to those. His request is not for the Minister to give a detailed response to his quite extensive and detailed amendment but for her to say whether the Government agree with the principle behind it. That is a very important ask, particularly, as he pointed out, because the coalition agreement has a commitment to freedom of information and to extending its scope. This area is worthy of further analysis and I hope that the Minister can give us some comfort on that matter.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I move the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and speak to Amendments 71 and 72.
The Bill will enable local authorities to return to a committee structure and, indeed, to be more free than they have been for some time to determine what governance structure they wish to have, and which best suits their particular circumstances. That is wholly to be welcomed. It is clear that the Government rightly believe that that should be a matter for the local authority in a local area rather than central government.
A number of local authorities are already working in anticipation to improve, in their eyes, their decision-making structure, particularly to enable all councillors to play a more effective part in decision making than many of us feel has been possible with the executive/scrutiny split. Indeed, I have for the past couple of months been chairing a working party for my own local authority, looking at exactly that. It proved rather more difficult than I had expected because most of my colleagues in my local authority do not remember the old committee system. They have grown up believing —rather mistakenly, in my view—that the executive/scrutiny split was the natural and normal way of doing things; whereas the old dinosaurs like me believe that there was once a rather better way that would leave them less frustrated than many of them are in their role on the local committees.
All of that is to be welcomed. On Monday evening, I will present these proposals to my council group in the hope that they will be acclaimed. However, I think that they will initially be met with some puzzlement: “Are we really there to make decisions?”. “Well, yes, there were another 44 of you elected who ought to have a part in the decision-making process, because that is what you were elected for”. Hopefully all of that will happen but, as things stand, I then have to break the news to them that, desirable though all this is, and much as though the Government are happy for all of this to happen, none of it can happen for another three years. The Bill says that none of this can be introduced until after the next elections. In the case of London boroughs, that is 2014. For those authorities that have only this year had whole-council elections it will be a further four years.
If the Government believe it is right for these things to happen, I can see no reason why, once an authority, through the proper process, has agreed what it wants to do, it should not implement that now. I hope that we shall have a sympathetic response from the Government. I shall not challenge the Minister to explain why she feels that in London—in her own authority perhaps—there needs to be a three-year gestation period, or in other areas a four-year period, while we all wait.
Some authorities, some quite well known to the Minister and some certainly known to me—it will possibly happen more so in my own authority—have de facto set up a committee system already. The committees meet and de facto make recommendations, but in fact the executive, as it is legally required to do, meets immediately afterwards for no more than five minutes simply to rubber-stamp decisions made by the committees. That must be a nonsense. At the moment, it is a necessary nonsense, as that is what the law requires, but for us to continue in that ridiculous state for another three or four years makes no sense at all.
I hope that the Minister will be able to accept our amendments—it would be an unusual victory for me to achieve—or at least be able to express sympathy with them and say that she will come back on Report with something to give effect to them. It is quite important that we get an indication that this will happen on Report, or that it will not happen, because many of us will be looking to implement the changes from the next annual council meeting in May. It so happens that my authority is well advanced with this but others may perhaps only just be starting to think about it or may not even yet have realised that they can think about the changes. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have sympathy with these amendments and look forward to the Minister's reply about why there should be this proposed three-year wait. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, talked with some affection about the committee structure. I was leader of Luton Borough Council at the time when we went from a committee structure to a leader and executive structure. My experience was that when you are in control, the leader and executive arrangement is particularly helpful. In 2003, we ended up with a hung council and, although we were the largest party, there was a Lib Dem-Conservative coalition which appointed Lib Dems to the executive. Being on the receiving end of that, we were somewhat less enthusiastic, but I still remain committed to it. I think that the best route is to have a leader and an executive.
One thing that was lost with the committee structure was the opportunity for new councillors, particularly younger councillors, to get involved with the cut and thrust of political debate because the structure and role of scrutiny committees are different. I think an opportunity to learn through that route and to have that debate was missed. We support the right for councils to choose and to revert to a committee structure, if that is what they want. On that basis, it seems that there is no great justification in waiting three years, but the Minister may be able to convince us. Subject to that, we support the amendments.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, speaking as yet another dinosaur who remembers the old system and who was a councillor and is still a councillor in the London Borough of Barnet, I think that the proposal to allow local authorities to choose whether they return to the committee system is very welcome. The only thing I disagree with, and my noble friend Lord Tope obviously disagrees with, is that one has to wait three years before a local authority can make that decision. I cannot see the logic of that.
I have had the benefit of being a cabinet member, as they are called, in a joint administration in the London Borough of Barnet and I am currently an opposition member in that borough. When I was a cabinet member, one of 10 people exercising full executive power in the London Borough of Barnet, I enjoyed the power wonderfully. I used to give little speeches saying that democracy was not being exercised as 10 people had executive power but 53 people in the ruling parties and in the opposition had no real role to play and roles were found for them rather than their playing a constructive part, as they did under the committee system. Therefore, I have experience of being in power and in opposition and I still believe that the committee system is the right one. Under the system we are discussing, back-bench members in the ruling parties and in the opposition feel that they do not have much of a role to play.
Lord Newton of Braintree
I am made nervous by the intervention of the noble Lord because he knows much more about local government than I do, except in the indirect way that I have described. However, these are decisions of the local authority. I think I am right in saying that ultimately planning decisions could go to the whole council, although they are normally dealt with by the planning committee. Am I wrong on that? Some real issues arose towards the end of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, concerning decisions delegated to officers by the planning committee.
However, I find it very odd. I know about the worries that underlie this sort of thing, but I make the point that planning decisions are often very, very important to local communities—I am thinking of things like supermarket applications and the like. It cannot be right that a councillor representing an area should not be allowed to express a view to his constituents that he then reflects in what he does on the council, or indeed the planning committee. If there is corruption involved, that is a different issue; but if it is a genuine view, formed on the basis of what constituents have put to him on the effects of that application on the neighbourhood, he should have the same right as a Member of Parliament in respect, for example, of an airport application, which is to express his views to his constituent and to reflect those views in his votes in the House.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I rise to speak to our amendment in this group, Amendment 96ZA, which calls for a review and report on the operation of the section and is framed really as a probing amendment. I support the probing that has been undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, because we are seeking to understand how much difference this provision will make to the status quo. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, that his exposition of what he believes the current arrangement to be is not the full position, as I understand it. That is my understanding from a non-legal background, but I will try to come on to it and explain that point.
Views have been expressed to me that this clause provides a slippery slope that will potentially undermine the integrity of decision-making, especially on planning decisions, and will be a charter to allow bias. Others welcome the clause, as we have heard today, and consider that perhaps it does not go far enough, with some confusion around the term “closed mind”. In order to understand it, I have tried to set down a baseline to judge whether it has moved us on from the current position. Perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity to explain what this intended change will mean in practice.
As I understand it, the courts currently recognise two types of predetermination: actual predetermination and apparent predetermination—the latter is why the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is pursuing the point about “to have appeared to have had”. Actual predetermination is where,
“a person has closed their mind to all considerations other than an already held view”.
That means that the exercise of a discretionary power where one or more of the decision-makers does not in fact exercise the discretion at all is unlawful as an abuse of that discretion. Apparent predetermination is where,
“the fair minded and well-informed observer, looking objectively at all the circumstances, considers that there is a real risk that one or more of the decision makers has refused even to consider a relevant argument or would refuse to consider a new argument”.
However, predetermination of course has to be distinguished from predisposition, where a councillor may hold a view for or against a particular development, say, but has an open mind as to the merits of an argument before making a final decision. There is a difference between predetermination and predisposition. The courts, as I understand it, have moved towards a more pragmatic approach in recent years. The Standards Board of England summarised the position in a rather helpful way—I think we will miss that body—so perhaps I can just read what it says are the practicalities of local government from the case law and what has happened to date. The Standards Board says:
“The courts have accepted that these practicalities mean that the fair minded and informed observer accepts that … Manifesto commitments and policy statements which are consistent with a preparedness to consider and weigh relevant factors when reaching the final decision, are examples of legitimate predisposition not predetermination … The fact that the member concerned has received relevant training and has agreed to be bound by a Code of Conduct is a consideration to which some weight can properly be attached when determining an issue of apparent predetermination … Previously expressed views on matters which arise for decision in the ordinary run of events are routine and councillors can be trusted, whatever their previously expressed views, to approach decision making with an open mind … To suspect predetermination because all members of a single political group have voted for it is an unwarranted interference with the democratic process … Councillors are likely to have and are entitled to have, a disposition in favour of particular decisions. An open mind is not an empty mind but it is ajar”.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am pleased that we have been able to have this interesting debate. As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has said, both case law and the Standards Boards have moved on this issue, but there has been a considerable degree of anxiety about it in local government service areas, as my noble friend Lord Newton said. I think the Committee will agree that that has not been in the interests of local democracy. That is why Clause 14 forms such an important part of this Bill and why we are bringing it forward, so I welcome the opportunity provided by this debate. My noble friend Lord Greaves has produced, if I may say so, a typical set of House of Lords probes, and I accept totally what he is seeking to do. I think it is the wish of the Committee that I should go through the amendments that he has tabled and make it clear what the particular wording means and why we consider it important that these little nuances are brought in.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, that nothing in this clause stops proper decision-making. Indeed, nothing in the provisions means that decisions are not going to be taken properly, having regard to all relevant considerations. On Gypsy and Traveller sites and the issues to which she referred specifically, I assure her that local authorities operate under fairly firm statutory guidance on provision for these matters. Any debate about this matter would have to be conducted in a proper fashion. In the end, councillors make decisions within that framework. We know that some people hold quite strong views on such issues. We accept that. In a democracy, we have to accept that people come with strong views. Whether they come with a closed mind is a different issue altogether.
I will come back to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, but it might help if I first go through the amendments. Amendment 88 removes “(to any extent)”. We believe that by putting in “to any extent” we bring clarity to the issue. We are seeking to give councillors clarity that they should be fully entitled to the freedom to campaign on issues that are important to their local communities. There should be no suggestion in the drafting of this provision that there are degrees of having a closed mind that need to be taken into account when deciding whether this provision applies. That is why that phrase is in the clause. It is to make it absolutely clear that there is no degree of a closed mind that might be the subject of predetermination. If this amendment were accepted, the position on predetermination would be less clear for elected members and the public, which would defeat the whole purpose of this clause, which is to provide clarification on the current position.
Amendment 89 is an unnecessary drafting change. The phrase we are using here is taken from previous case law and provides clarity that a councillor is not to appear to have had a closed mind if they had previously campaigned on an issue. The fact that they may have campaigned on an issue does not necessarily mean that they are providing evidence that they appear to have a closed mind. This drafting seeks to provide clarity for councillors—we want them to be sure that they are doing the right thing, and we would all agree that councillors want to do the right thing—as well as judges and the courts. Indeed, the reason this is in the Bill is to provide some statutory law where so much has been dependent on case law.
On Amendment 90, the word “just” in this sentence indicates more clearly the function the provision is performing, which is excluding certain conditions from the judgment to be made about whether someone had a closed mind. Read literally, without the word “just” the sentence could mean that any decision-maker doing something that indicates the view that they will take is automatically considered not to have a closed mind, so the inclusion of the word “just” avoids the potential for this misinterpretation, which would lead to a result that we do not want. The word “just” therefore defines the matter more clearly.
Amendment 91 would narrow the range of councillors’ activities that we are seeking to ensure cannot lead to accusations of a councillor having a closed mind. Our current drafting makes it clear that if a decision-maker had previously “done anything” that indicated what view they took on an issue, they would not as a result be considered to have a closed mind. I reassure my noble friend that we fully intend the phrase “done anything” to include anything that a member may have said, written, or perhaps even held aloft on a placard. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
On Amendments 92, 95 and 96, the legislation has been written to apply to elected, co-opted and other members of councils. There is no need for the provisions to be extended to paid officers in local councils. I assure my noble friend that separate rules are in place for dealing with officer bias in decision-making. This clause is not designed to address officer bias. The definition referred to in Amendments 95 and 96 of the type of decisions covered by these provisions does, however, need to include this reference to functions of an officer of the authority, because certain officer decisions are exercised by elected or co-opted members of the council for technical reasons; some of the functions carried out by elected mayors, the chairman of an authority, and leader of an executive are regarded as functions of officers of the authority.
On Amendment 94, we do not accept that this distinction should be made between the role of a co-opted member on a committee of the authority and the role of a co-opted member on a joint committee. Co-opted members of a committee of an authority would be free to express a view or campaign on an issue without being at risk of being unfairly accused of predetermination, but co-opted members of a joint committee would not. There are certainly instances in which co-opted members can sit on joint committees, and there is no reason to suppose that they will be any less capable of reaching a fair decision—something that lies at the heart of all of this—when sitting on a single-authority committee.
Amendment 96ZA makes a perfectly reasonable suggestion, but I refer noble Lords to our published impact assessment of these clauses. The impact assessment states that there will be a full policy-implementation review of the whole Localism Bill, including the policies on predetermination. That will provide all the information that I believe the noble Lord is looking for in this amendment, so I hope that when the time comes the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked whether, if as a matter of fact a councillor had a closed mind, the councillor could participate in a decision, what evidence would be used to determine that he had a closed mind and how this would be affected by the proposal in Clause 14. If a councillor is actually biased, he cannot participate in a decision; evidence of a closed mind could be that he has declared that he has a closed mind or that he refuses to listen to any new arguments. In reality, if a councillor says that he is not prepared to listen to any arguments and is self-evidently not prepared to do his duty by doing so, as we would all expect local government to do in a democracy, he would self-evidently be saying that he had a closed mind.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I understand and take that point. But if you had someone who declared that they had a closed mind, is not the import of subsection (2) that, if they declared that at any point up to the time when the decision was made, it would be ignored? That is what the provision says. If that is right, how do you adduce the fact that someone has a closed mind? That is what I am struggling with. We accept that, if you have got a closed mind, you should not be involved and that decisions could be unlawful. If people have room to review the facts, that is fine. But my concern is what evidence you would now get. Prior to this, if someone had said, “I have got a closed mind” and there was surrounding evidence to that effect, it would be clear where we are. But under this proposal, you have to ignore what someone has done. What someone has done is what they have said, what they have written and the banners that they may hold aloft. How does the Minister square that issue?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, the situation, as I understand it, is that statements made prior to a decision being made in the period in which a campaign or a discussion is being held should be evidence that a councillor may have a strong opinion, but that does not necessarily prejudice the decision that they are going to make. But if they say at the time that they are making a decision that they have a closed mind, they should not participate in that decision. The practicalities of this are to put pressure on all councillors, however passionate they are about an issue, to consider their position before they vote as to whether they have genuinely considered alternatives that are presented to them. In which case, as long as they have done that, this clause means that in no way can they be considered to have had a closed mind if they have done that in all conscience. This is designed to provide a framework of behaviour in local government, which I am sure that the noble Lord would seek to encourage.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
It is important that we get to the core of this. From what the noble Lord is saying, is it the case that if someone said every day of the week for two months leading up to the decision that they have a closed mind, that would be ignored under these provisions and that if they did not say, “I have a closed mind” on the day on which the decision is made, there is no difficulty?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
It is fair to say that anyone who did not say that they were considering the matter with a fair consideration of the argument might well be in some difficulty. But what is disregarded by this clause is that evidence of the view that a person takes of a matter is not evidence of their state of mind when they are making that decision. It is important to understand that this is designed to enforce an openness of mind at the point of decision-making, which, after all, was always the purpose of predetermination.
The problem with predetermination was that it excluded people who had campaigned and, as my noble friend Lord Newton in his helpful contribution pointed out, the difficulty that a lot of local councillors had was knowing to what extent they could participate in the decision-making process if they had campaigned strongly on an issue. All this now does is say to a local councillor, “However hard you have campaigned on an issue, you should still make decisions without a closed mind or not participate in that decision”. But that is for the councillor himself to determine, rather than be determined by this clause.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and I am sorry to have interrupted him on two or three occasions, but this is a very important issue. We accept the anxiety in local government about what councillors can and cannot do, and the importance, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, of the democratic component of this so that people are not precluded from campaigning on issues they feel strongly about. But that is the position at the moment, for as long as their minds are ajar.
Sometimes very cautious advice is given and therefore people tend to be more restricted than the law may otherwise allow, but notwithstanding all that—I think we have common cause in what we see as a proper outcome in this, so that if you have a closed mind or you are going to be involved in a decision, you should be able to judge the facts objectively and not predetermine the matter—I still see a difficulty in this provision. That is because I cannot see how you would ever get evidence of someone having a closed mind on the basis of this provision. It seems that you would have to ignore what they had said and done and campaigned around right up to the point when they make the decision. That seems to me to be an anomaly and I am still not sure where it leaves us.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, I am so encouraged and enthused by being described as helpful by my noble friend on the Front Bench—for the first time in a long time, perhaps even uniquely—that I feel the need to intervene again. I agree to some extent with what the noble Lord has just said, but my concern is that, in all honesty, I feel as though I have strayed into wonderland or into a bit of my philosophy course when I read PPE some 50 years ago. This distinction between predisposition and predetermination is like angels dancing on the head of a pin. As a councillor, you would have to be mad not to say, if you wanted to have any effect at all, that while you had had a view, you had looked at the new evidence and it had not changed your predisposition. That would not amount to predetermination. The whole thing is complete nonsense.
My concern is that it leads to a fracture in the relationship between councillors and their constituents. They have to fence with issues, pretending that they do not have a view, or telling their constituents that they do not have a view or dare not have a view because it might affect their ability to vote. That will not be understood by any ordinary person. Councillors are elected to represent people and in relation to their views. Indeed, in some circumstances they may want to express a view. This is daft, and MPs would not put up with it.
Let us take the example of Stansted, which I think has been the subject of votes in Parliament. The MP for Saffron Walden, my neighbouring constituency in the old days, was against it and would no doubt vote against it. In Braintree I was cautious because I was in favour of Stansted, but not all my constituents were, so I did keep my head down a bit. But if I had been against it, I would have been appalled if I could not have said so and then voted in Parliament. If my noble friend has a chance to say another word, can he say why things should be different for councillors from how they are for Members of Parliament? I can see no answer to that.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
As I understand it, the impact of this clause will make it clear that individuals can campaign as you would want, but I hang on to the point that for as long as they leave open the possibility of a change of mind in due course, having examined the facts and merits of a case, they are not precluded from campaigning at the moment either. That is why I am seeking to probe just how much difference this clause makes.
Lord Newton of Braintree
I understand that, but reference was made to Mr Justice Andrew Collins, a great and good man. However, I would not want to be the judge who had to distinguish between predisposition and predetermination in circumstances where the person involved denied predetermination. You would have to be a mind reader, so it is not sensible.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, this is a substantive issue, which affects licensing. There is an important point here that needs addressing. I have no idea what the Minister will say in response to this, but perhaps some thought needs putting into it. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, said there was a clear distinction between quasi-judicial decisions and general policy. There is always an argument as to how quasi-judicial planning is, but there are some licensing functions which nobody can possibly argue are not quasi-judicial—not least because it is not very long since they were actually dealt with in the magistrates’ courts. One of the Local Government Acts—I think it is the 2007 one, but I am not sure—transferred the function of granting permission and licences from the courts to the local authority.
In my experience, there are two main areas. There are licence applications for events and entertainments. If you want to run a cinema or theatre or you want a temporary licence for a big shindig in the park, or whatever it is, you have to apply to the local authority for a licence. There are alcohol licences, as well as licences for premises, pubs, clubs and retail premises—for new ones and for changes and extensions to existing ones. Then there are occasions when there might be objections from the police to an existing situation where the question of revocation or restriction of the licence is considered. All those things are matters of public policy. They are not huge, overriding policies and will never be in a manifesto, but the question of whether a particular premise is a suitable place to be a pub or club is general policy. The question of whether alcohol should be sold from particular retail premises is a matter of policy and ought to be treated as policy. The removal of predetermination restrictions should apply to that. But if you are dealing with the question of whether a particular individual is a suitable, fit and proper person to hold an alcohol licence in any of those circumstances, that is not policy. Under those circumstances, judicial rules really have to apply, and you cannot possibly have people going round saying, “That man is a rogue”, or, “That man did my sister down”, or whatever it is, “and therefore I am going to vote against him having a licence”. Members of the licensing committee have to be trained, they have to carry out proper procedures, the whole thing has to be done by due process and it is a matter of whether an individual is a fit and proper person.
The other area is taxi licences for operators, drivers and so on. Again, these are matters that refer to a particular individual and to whether that person is an appropriate person to drive a taxi and carry a member of the public around, or whether they are an appropriate person to run a taxi business. The question of whether premises are suitable to be taxi offices is probably a planning decision rather than a licensing decision. That is public policy, in my view, and it is entirely reasonable that you should be able to go around an area meeting people who are concerned, or even campaigning, about it. The question about whether Joe Bloggs or whoever is a suitable person to run a taxi business or to drive a taxi is like the situation with alcohol licences: they are not questions that councillors should go around debating in public, or in private before the meetings. They are there as if they are magistrates, considering on the facts and the evidence, usually on the advice of the police, whether or not these people are suitable. There is a specific case there where the predetermination rules should be applied, and strictly. The purpose of moving this amendment is to probe the Government’s thinking on this issue. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I will be brief. I am not unsympathetic to the noble Lord’s amendment but I am not sure that I agree with the basis on which he proposes it. I think that he is distinguishing some circumstances where predetermination can be dispensed with from others where it should not. Without reopening the arguments that we have just been through, I do not believe that that is the import of Clause 14. In a sense, we are still awaiting the definitive government view on that. The issues around predetermination ought to run throughout the decision-making process. It is not quasi-judicial planning issues; there are lots of other decisions that councillors may make. As I understand it, if they have discretion on decisions, it must be real discretion. If they have pre-empted it by predetermination, there is the prospect that that decision will be unlawful, whatever area of decision-making is involved. However, I would not particularly disagree with taking those licensing operations outside the provisions of Clause 14.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, for temporarily forgetting that he is on the opposition Benches and not the government Benches and, in effect, making the case that the Government will be making to my noble friend Lord Greaves. On this issue, I am afraid that I beg to differ with my noble friend.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham; I imputed this set of amendments to him and not to my noble friend when we were discussing the previous grouping. It probably rather shook him to discover that he was the author of a set of amendments that he had not actually been involved with.
On Amendment 93, it might help to clarify just how radical the change is. I hope to provide some reassurance with what I am going to say. The Government’s view is that an elected member is equally able to listen to arguments and evidence and come to a fair decision on what my noble friend has referred to as a personal licensing matter as he is on any other licensing matter. That means that there is no justification for leaving unclear the circumstances that mean that a councillor has to withdraw from participating in any licensing decision process. That lack of clarity arises from the fact that we as a Government do not accept the distinction being drawn here between what a councillor can say about a decision relating to a personal licence and what they can say about a decision on any other licensing matter. We strongly believe—this is at the heart of our policy on predetermination—that councillors should no longer be restricted in which of their opinions they are free to express to the communities that they are elected to represent. Councillors, like any other individuals, will have regard to laws on libel and data protection when discussing individual circumstances or information which they may hold. However, it would be wrong to restrict them in this way from commenting on what may be a matter of great interest to their constituents.
I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment. I am afraid that the Government are not prepared to see these as exceptional circumstances from the general principle of predetermination and the freedom of councillors to express their view prior to making a decision.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I had hoped that the Government might take a rather different view on this. Having listened carefully to what the Minister has said, I am now even more convinced that I am right and they are wrong. The Minister referred to libel and data protection. I am not sure that either has much to do with it. Data protection would come into it with personal details being divulged to whichever licensing committee it was, which are private and should not be made public. If councillors made them public, they would be liable for it.
However, that is not at all the point that I am making. For example, there could be two rival taxi businesses in a community. The taxi business is fairly cut-throat. People do not make a great deal of profit and work very long hours. There are attempts to do the other side down, perhaps in a legal way. One faction is larger than the other and gets to the councillor who happens to be on the licensing committee. They say, “We do not want you to give a taxi operating licence to this person or taxi driver licences to these people, because they will be able to expand their operation and compete with us. We will find it more difficult”. These are personal applications. It would be outrageous if that councillor went around saying, “Yes, I will block the personal applications for taxi driving or operating licences from this or that person”, before the meeting. Councillors should be banned from saying things like that. Any councillor who goes around making such promises should be banned from taking part in the decision.
These decisions, particularly the alcohol decision, were until recently made in magistrates’ courts. Can you imagine a magistrate being in that position: going around and promising a community that they will block a particular person from taking over a pub and being the licensee because that community wants somebody from that community who it favours? Imagine the pub is in the middle of a big estate, and the estate has somebody who they would like to take over the pub, but the owners have an alternative in mind. To go around campaigning against that person getting a licence to run that pub would be absolutely disgraceful. It should be banned by law.
The more I listen to the Minister, the more I am absolutely convinced that I have raised a genuine problem. I disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton. He was saying that he wanted everybody to be treated the same, but he wanted it to be more restrictive for everybody. The Bill says that predetermination —I keep wanting to say “predestination”, but that is not quite it—should be abolished for everybody. I am not suggesting that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is saying that, but it is what the Government are effectively saying.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I do not think that that is what the Bill is saying. If predetermination equals a closed mind—I was trying to get an answer from the Minister earlier—and if predetermination as a concept is abolished, then there are very serious issues, particularly on planning and licensing arrangements, on which the noble Lord touched. That is the point I make about predetermination.
Lord Greaves
Yes, I accept that. I accept that there is a difference. It seems to me that there is a difference between the Government’s rhetoric and what they are saying will happen: that councillors will be freed from the kind of constraints that the wife of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, found, and which I found when I got back on the council. I think that relates to the probing that the noble Lord has usefully undertaken in the past hour or so, but there is no doubt that the regime will be more liberal than at present. We are probing what it will be exactly. The noble Lord said that it will be very radical and that perhaps we were not appreciating how radical it will be.
In general, I am fairly happy with that. However, I am not happy, and I suggest noble Lords should not be happy, about how it applies to applications for personal licences by individuals where they may be seen as controversial in the community. There may be other incidences as well. Let us look at an alternative. In a fairly built-up area, there are two corner shops which do not have alcohol licences but one of them applies for such a licence and the other one objects. The shop owner who objects could have lots of friends in the community who will instigate a petition, saying that the other shop owner should not have a licence. The motivation will be competition, not that the shop owner has spent the past five years in jail or is a fraudster or is generally unsuitable; it is simply competitive rivalry. As a result, the friends persuade a councillor with whom they have close connections, and who happens to be on the licensing committee, to oppose the licence. They hold a public meeting and present a petition. Surely that should not be allowed and yet, as I understand it, that kind of thing would be allowed under the new regime that the Government propose.
There is an important and serious issue here. I ask the Government to take the matter more seriously and to take more legal advice on it. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I am not sure we have had a may/must amendment yet on this Bill, but perhaps we have and I have missed it. This is an important amendment. I rise to speak to my amendments in this group: Amendments 97A, 98E, 98F and 98H. I will also speak to the other two amendments in the group, if I may.
There is widespread concern within local government that the Government have not got this exactly right. At the very least, it needs some fettling and a number of probably quite major changes if it is going to work fairly. As my noble friend Lord Tope said earlier, there is a widespread feeling in local government—it is not universal—that the demise of the Standards Board for England is to be welcomed. The Standards Board for England’s regime has turned out in practice to be expensive. It has been arbitrary in too many cases, and therefore it has been seen to be unfair. It has been open to abuse, and it has been open to attempted political manipulation, not by Standards Board members or its staff, but by people trying to use the system in order to do down opponents.
In our judgment, the removal of the Standards Board for England is a good idea, and we congratulate the Government on doing it, but something has to replace it. We cannot simply go back to the free-for-all situation we had up until about 20 years ago when standards codes and sanctions against councillors were hardly known. The system then seemed to work. There did not seem to be any more rogue councillors than there are now, and people did not seem to step out of line more than they do now, but the world has changed. We are now in a world in which standards in public life have come in and are accepted right across the board of everybody who takes part in public life. We have even had to grapple with these matters and come up with solutions here in the House of Lords. Local authorities are no different, and to pretend that local authorities generally, or some local authorities in particular, can be excepted from this situation is not the world that we are now living in.
The Government’s proposal in the Bill is that there will be no national system, no national organisations and no bureaucracies; it will all be left to local authorities. In our debate on a previous amendment, my noble friend Lord Taylor said that it will be up to local authorities to behave sensibly and do what they think is best in their area. There will be no uniform or national standards code, so each authority will be able to adopt its own code or not have one. It can keep, amend or do away with the present code. If any of my description of the present system is wrong, I hope the Minister will intervene and tell me, but I do not think it is.
Authorities will be able to choose whether to have standards committees. Since local authorities all have them at the moment and are institutionally fairly conservative bodies, most of them will probably keep them in one form or another, but it will be open to an authority not to have them, so there will be a hotchpotch pattern; they will be able to invent their own rules for how standards committees work within their own codes of conduct.
In addition, for the offence of failing to declare appropriate interests, either by not entering them on to a register of interests or by failing to declare them in meetings at appropriate times, the only real sanction left is the criminal law and, subject to the Director of Public Prosecutions’ agreement, people will be arraigned before a magistrates’ court if the DPP thinks it is serious enough. Meanwhile, parish councils will be left in some sort of limbo. They might be able to have their own systems or to continue to be part of a district council’s standards committee and system of standards, but if the local district council does not have one or decides to do away with it all, the parish councillors will have the choice either of doing it themselves, which might be rather difficult for small parish councils, or not doing it at all.
That seems to be the regime that is on offer. Perhaps the way I have presented it suggests that I am not terribly impressed with it. Nevertheless, I think my presentation of it is factually correct.
We have been here before and had something similar to this. When standards committees were first brought into local authorities, local authorities were left to do their own thing. Many of them did it very well, but in some places it was not done well. It was done either inefficiently or in an arbitrary, uneven or unfair way. In a small minority of places—it is always a small minority—it was not a good thing. It was fairly dreadful. Some authorities used it to victimise individual councillors in order to conduct campaigns against opposition groups on the council and to conduct witch-hunts against individuals. That is always the danger if local authorities in an area like this are left to their own devices, because there will be some places where malign, malevolent politics gets in the way of a fair system. Therefore, we propose in amendments in this group, and in the next group, which I will speak to later, a system in which every authority must have a standards committee. It seems ridiculous that someone could be dual-hatted or triple-hatted, and on three different authorities at different levels, some of those authorities having a standards committee and some not.
Equally, we are suggesting a uniform, standard, national code of conduct. We are not talking about local diversity. There cannot be local diversity about what is appropriate conduct for people in public life. We are talking about standards in public life. While standards and rules for councillors may be different from those for Members of the House of Lords, Members of the House of Commons, people on national quangos or whatever, the organisations are different. Nevertheless, they should be based on the same principles and underlying standards in public life.
There does not seem to be any reason why, if I am a member of a district council, a parish council and a county council, which I have no intention of being except for one of them, there should be a different code of conduct on each council. Surely, that cannot be right. Nor can it be right that of the 11 or 12 district councils in Lancashire, some do not have a code of conduct and some have a very different code of conduct from the adjoining council. Codes of conduct should be laid down nationally.
We are saying that the drawing up of the code of conduct and its approval should be done by local government and not by the Secretary of State or national government. It should be the responsibility of representatives of local government and, in terms of legislation, the LGA obviously is a key representative. We want systems for appeals and we want to sort out parish councils. We want to look at criminal offences, but they are in the next group so I will not talk about them any more at the moment.
On something like this there has to be protection for the public against rogue councils. Much as I have an underlying, innate aversion to national uniformity in anything, some things are so important and fundamental that they underpin everything else. This is the right way forward.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that we cannot have a free-for-all and that it should be mandatory for every local authority to have a code of conduct. There should be a universal code and an appeals procedure. If that means that we would support each of these amendments, that is where we are.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I apologise. I should have jumped up before the Minister. I will speak to Amendments 98K and 98M in this group.
On the two other amendments in the group, Amendments 98J and 98L, which would remove “and other” and “or other” respectively, an important, if not fundamental, point to be made is that the Government are proposing to use in this Bill language which in local government is rather out of date. Local government used to talk about financial interests and non-financial interests. If you had a financial interest, you had to declare it. You then had to do whatever the council instructed you to do, such as leave the room or sit there and not speak. If you had a non-financial interest, you had to declare it, but you were not usually subject to those sanctions.
My experience is that local government nowadays talks about personal and prejudicial interests, which are similar. However, prejudicial interests, while they include financial interests, are wider ranging and may include interests which are not directly financial but are nevertheless thought to be prejudicial to somebody taking part in discussion and debate. Personal interests, which have to be declared, are those which people should know about but are not thought to be prejudicial to people taking part in a debate. It seems to be common practice in local government nowadays for those words to be used. I was fairly sure that they had been used in the previous legislation, although I have not looked it up. Perhaps along with my noble friend, I would ask the Government to check the nomenclature, because there is no point putting in legislation words which are not now used on the ground and, in any case, are narrower perhaps, and less clear certainly, than the words and categories now used in local government.
My amendments in this group follow on from the amendments in the previous group. They are part of a package of the way we suggest the new standards regime needs to be changed. First, if there is to be a local system of councillors being sanctioned by local committees and no National Standards Board procedure, there needs to be an appeals procedure written into the system. There has to be a way in which someone who feels aggrieved by a local decision is able to appeal to a wider group against the sanction made against them. As I understand it, this is normal human rights and administrative tribunal procedure. In many ways these bodies will be operating as administrative tribunals and we hope that the Government will look at this issue. We suggest that it should not be a national quango such as the Standards Board for England and that it should not be run by central government; it should be operated within local government by representatives of local government and it should be set up in co-operation with the LGA. As my noble friend Lord Shipley said, we have set out ways in which this can be done.
My second point concerns parish councils. The Government have not bottomed the issue of parish councils on this new standards regime. I have a long briefing about the problems that it will cause to parish councils but I shall not read it all out. If parish councils have to operate their own procedures, there will clearly be resource implications. Big town councils might be able to do it—although it might be wasteful of their funding—but small parish councils will not possibly be able to do it. If there are many individual local codes so that parish councils operate different systems and some do not have any, how will members of parish councils be trained to understand the code? How will parish clerks, who play an absolutely crucial role, be trained in the new system?
My experience from talking to people involved in standards committee throughout the country is that where there are lots of parish councils they seem to occupy quite a high proportion of the time of standards committees. The reason for this is obvious: parish councillors are not getting the expert advice on standards matters—on declarations of interest and so on—which they ought to be getting; and parish clerks are perhaps not being trained or not passing on that advice. I am a huge fan of parish councils but there may be something about parish-level politics and government that leads to individual rivalries and encourages people to make complaints against each other. Whatever it is, there is no doubt that parishes form quite a large part of the workload of standards committees in many different places. To leave them adrift, as this Bill seems to do, does not seem the right way to go.
In our view, the parishes probably need their own system. That system ought to be operated via the established means of communication and training that parish councils have with the National Association of Local Councils and other bodies such as the county organisations, and there ought to be county-level standards committees for parish councils. Whatever the system is, doing it within the parish council community is a sensible idea—particularly if the parish council finds itself cast adrift with a district that does not have a system. In any case, if districts have different codes of conduct and different systems for standards committees, the parish councils will have to join in those willy-nilly whether or not they agree with the systems and the codes. A separate parish system seems to be the way to look at things.
My final point relates to criminal offences. Again, we think the Government have not thought this issue through properly. On failures to declare interests, a major failure is a very serious matter indeed, whether it be a failure to register or a failure to declare during a meeting. A minor failure would require a sanction—but not a draconian sanction such as being hauled up before a magistrates' court. Yet the government system seems to mean that if the offence of not declaring or not registering an interest is not sufficiently serious for the DPP to agree to prosecute, there will be no sanctions at all. That does not seem to be the right way forward.
As for the criminal investigations and vexatious complaints, that needs thinking through; there are enough vexatious complaints on standards already that end up with people being found not guilty and having no sanctions against them—or, in my case, the complaint was proved and the sanction was nothing. People can imagine what happened. There are enough cases of people using the standards procedure for political or personal vexatious purposes. Think of the prospects of this being used when criminal sanctions are possible. You would get massive headlines in the local papers that the complaints had been made, it would all come to nothing but the damage would all have been done. It has to be thought through a bit more carefully.
I join my noble friend Lord Tope in hoping that we can have discussions with the Government in the mean time and that at the very least we can get the thing thought through again. If no change occurs at the end of the day, so be it—but we are convinced that the Government have not yet got it quite right.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am not sure that we would agree with everything that the noble Lord has said, but we would appreciate the opportunity to join in the discussions with government together with the coalition parties.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I thank noble Lords. I am sort of having a second bite of the cherry within the group, because I can talk specifically about the proposals of my noble friend. I hope that I can really reassure him. He talked about appeal structures and the like and the need to maintain them—and of course human rights legislation provides for this. But in actual fact the sanctions that the Secretary of State intends to provide for in regulations under Clause 18(2) will be relatively low-level sanctions based on powers of discipline that councils already possess. It is not our intention to confer any new disciplinary powers of the sort that would give rise to a need or expectation for a bureaucratic appeal process.
I cannot support Amendment 98M, which would insert a new clause relating to parish standards, although I understand the interest in it. The legislation as currently drafted gives parishes the power to have a code or a standards committee if they would like. Parish councils are free to make arrangements to work jointly with other authorities. My noble friend is mistaken if he believes that advice is not available to parish councils. The last Government published the Quality Parish and Town Council Scheme; it was published by the department in 2003, and it gives information about model charters whereby principal and local councils in England can work in partnership. That document can be viewed on the DCLG website. We intend here also that the regulations to be issued by the Secretary of State under Clause 18(1) will specify that the registration of parish members' interests will be carried out by the monitoring officer of the district within which the relevant parish falls.
There was some talk about the criminal sanctions for failing to register, and I note noble Lords’ concerns on that. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked, too, that he might be a party to discussions that we might have before Report on those issues. I assure noble Lords that we would be happy to discuss that aspect of Clause 19 relating to breaching regulations under Clause 18. With that, I ask my noble friend Lord Tope to withdraw the amendment.