22:09 - Division on Amendment 199 - Ayes: 17 / Noes: 136 - Amendment 199 disagreed.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness, and welcome her on her return from her homeland. I trust she has not been suffering from jet lag; I will not detain her too long.
I am not sure that the amendment is necessarily the right way to deal with this. My understanding is that in conservation areas there are provisions under the Town and Country Planning Acts for steps to be taken to maintain properties of this kind. It is not without interest that in Edinburgh recently there have apparently been problems with requirements being imposed on local residents by the local authority—who appear to have powers similar to those advanced in this amendment—which have caused some controversy. Apparently large sums of money have had to be laid out on improving or maintaining properties, and some of those who are benefiting from those expenditures have been connected with the decision-making process. That would not be applicable if the amendment were carried, and one would hope that it would not occur. Nevertheless, it is difficult to define exactly what standards would be required.
There is, however, a more general point which applies to this and the other amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, and that is the general by-law-making powers of local government. This is something I took up with the previous Administration, and some modifications were made about that issue. It might be worth the Government looking at the extent to which councils are free to make by-laws as opposed to having to have everything approved by individual departments. Alongside that, perhaps the Government could look at the question of consent regimes generally, which is something again that I have been attempting to pursue for a number of years, including in some recent Written Questions.
The noble Baroness has touched on an issue, perhaps almost inadvertently, that is worth considering: the capacity of local authorities to make particular provisions for their areas without necessarily having to have everything approved by central government. I do not know how the Minister will respond; I suspect that he will acknowledge the good intentions but say that perhaps it is not appropriate for this Bill, and I certainly would not press him to go further than that. However, I ask the Government to take back the issues of by-law-making powers and consent regimes generally, not for the purposes of this Bill, but as part of a localist agenda.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for introducing her amendment and welcome her back to Britain. Local authorities already have extensive powers to take action where a property is dangerous or having an adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood. I see no need for additional powers. Under the Housing Act 2004, local authorities can tackle poor conditions across all residential properties. If a property is found to contain serious hazards, the local authority can instruct its owner to undertake any works necessary to ensure that it is safe. Inspections and any subsequent enforcement to address the disrepair can be triggered by complaints to the local authority.
Local authorities have a key role to play in identifying empty properties in their areas, and in developing strategies to bring them back into effective use. We encourage local authorities to work with owners to persuade them of the benefits of bringing their property back into use. However, where it is clear that owners are not prepared to co-operate with efforts to get their property occupied through agreement, local authorities have enforcement powers to deal with them. Further powers available to local authorities to tackle disrepair and poor maintenance include those in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Where properties have an adverse impact on the amenity of the area, local authorities can require that they are tidied up, repainted and, where necessary, rebuilt. I hope this will satisfy the noble Baroness and that those who are concerned will have more luck in getting their local authorities to pursue the powers that they have.
I take on board the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, on the by-law issue. I confirm that the Government will look into that further.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I thank the Minister for his reply on this matter, which he went into in detail. I am even more grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, who understood the sort of point that I was getting at. I hope we will see the day when special items of need for particular councils can be dealt with more directly in that way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, again, one sympathises with the motivation behind this amendment. Quite apart from the particular case to which the noble Baroness referred, it is not a particularly attractive sight to see people hanging about smoking in the street. However, the only grounds on which orders could be made would relate to the impact of that smoking on health.
Enclosed areas are of course covered by the existing legislation, and, as I understand it, there is power to designate areas other than enclosed areas, if, in the authority’s opinion, there is significant risk that without designation persons in the area would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke—areas where, although they are outdoors, there is a concentration of people or of prevailing structures around the area that might lead to people being exposed to the smoke. If that is indeed the case, as it appears to be under the Health Act 2006, there does not appear to be any need for the amendment. I would encourage local authorities to look at that Act. No doubt the Minister in replying will have more information about that.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, again I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. Indeed, I have great sympathy for the amendment as it seems to me that the place immediately after the no-smoke zone ends is the problem territory, whether it is outside a public building, or wherever it may be.
The amendment would give local authorities an explicit power to make by-laws designating areas as smoke-free. The Health Act 2006 makes provision for the prohibition of smoking in enclosed public places and workspaces. It came into force in England on 1 July 2007. Section 4 of the Act provides regulation-making powers for the Secretary of State for Health to make further regulations—for England—designating as smoke-free any place or description of place that is not smoke-free under the Act. This could cover outdoor places. Therefore, if the evidence on the harms of exposure to second-hand smoke becomes more robust, and the Government’s preference for voluntary local action to extend smoke-free places where there is a clear need is shown not to be working, the Government can consider using Section 4 of the Health Act 2006 at a later date. I would say that, at the moment, the Government do not intend to make use of these powers. However, I know that colleagues in the Department of Health welcome the debate on this important issue and will continue to monitor developments and the evidence.
While we are sympathetic to local authorities making by-laws that preserve public health, our preference is to see local authorities promote the benefits of environments free from second-hand smoke on a voluntary basis. Creating smoke-free areas through legislation gives rise to complex issues, which I know that colleagues at the Department of Health would want time to consider carefully, and I do not think this is something we should be dealing with at this late stage of this Bill. As such, I am afraid that I cannot support the amendment and trust that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I thank the Minister and the spokesman from the Opposition for their very good and sound comments. I did not mention earlier that in the particular case I referred to one person left a cigarette burning which set fire to one of the garages so there is obviously a bit more of a risk in that regard too. However, I thought that was a red herring and should not be brought up.
This is a serious issue. I do not know what will happen in the future. I appreciate the points made about this being perhaps more of a health issue and therefore I am pleased to have aired it today—what a silly remark, to say “I have aired it” when we are talking about smoking. I have taken on board the comments that have been made and thank noble Lords very much. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
As far as it goes, I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. Pedicabs, and the way in which they operate, can be a nuisance, and it is only by licensing them that we can get some control over them. It would therefore be good if local authorities could establish local by-laws for the licensing of pedicabs in their area. If people are going to travel in them, we should make sure that they are roadworthy, that there is proper insurance cover for passengers, that there are rules about where they can stand when waiting for business, that the people peddling them comply with traffic legislation and that, where breaches occur, there is provision to get them off the road.
I accept that at present they seem to operate only in central London, so Westminster council faces the biggest problem. However, like my noble friend Lord Berkeley, I would have preferred to see London-wide licensing of pedicabs. They will no doubt move elsewhere, with Camden, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Southwark and Lambeth all likely to have them in parts of their boroughs. By-laws that differ from borough to borough just risk confusion and it would be better to have a London-wide option. However, as I said, the Opposition support the thrust of the amendment and I hope that the Government can indicate what they will do to deal with this problem.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I can understand why my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has moved this amendment. She has explained the problem and other noble Lords have made sensible and balanced contributions. However, Transport for London and ultimately the mayor are responsible for pedicabs in London. The Government take the view that issues surrounding pedicabs in London should be dealt with at a local level, which this amendment would provide for. After all, this issue only really affects London. However, the mayor, Transport for London and the London local authorities are already taking the initiative to address the matter with straightforward measures that avoid the trap of overregulation. Noble Lords will be aware that Westminster City Council is currently working up a voluntary—
Lord Berkeley
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but I believe that they operate in Oxford, and there is a similar problem there. But I do not know what the solution is.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I skilfully avoided saying that this problem was unique to London, because I thought this issue might arise, and I might get challenged by someone like the noble Lord.
Westminster City Council is currently working up a voluntary registration scheme for pedicabs, with registration being incentivised by providing parking bays and pedicab ranks for members. Those operators and riders subscribing to the scheme will sign up to a code of practice, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has already alluded to these developments. This registration scheme would then tie in with the provisions relating to the enforcement of road traffic offences in relation to pedicabs, which are included in the London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill, currently before Parliament. Effective implementation of the provisions in the Bill relies on a system of licensing or registration being in place. The relevant clause could not come into force until a registration scheme for owners and riders has been approved by the Mayor of London.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I thank the noble Earl and the noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. It has been much wider and more interesting than I had expected. However it is an issue, and I would like to respond on a couple of points.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley said that it should apply to the whole of London. I draw attention to the fact that traffic varies tremendously in London. For example, on the subject of disabled parking, the blue badge scheme does not apply in any of the three central London boroughs. You have to have a blue badge and a local badge as well to take full advantage of disabled parking. If you have a blue badge, there are blue-badge places you can use, but you cannot use any other parking places. Each of the three central London boroughs said it would make it impossible for them, because they would be flooded by people coming from outside the boroughs. So this is a long-standing arrangement just for central London.
I do not agree with the noble Lord that you need to have licensing for pedicabs out in Havering, for example, which I represented at one time. I do not believe there are any pedicabs running around Havering. I think they are a fun thing in central London. However my concern is not the fun element, which I agree with my noble friend Lord Jenkin, is absolutely wonderful. In Bangkok it was great fun to travel around in them. However it is not a fun element if you are at risk of being injured due to their ignoring road behaviour. That is what worries me.
This is an issue that needs to be tackled. I accept that it might be better tackled somewhere else and in some other way. Perhaps LRT could deal with it selectively, but it has to be done selectively, because many boroughs will have no problem at all. If—as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley has said—Oxford already has pedicabs then there are other places which need this issue to be addressed now. But again, the areas will need to be limited.
I have listened to the debate and I think it is valuable to have it on record for when this issue comes up again as it surely will in some other capacity. Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, it is almost refreshing to move from the constant headlines about the casino economy, which the world has enjoyed for the past few years, to something as substantive and reasonable as the noble Lord has brought to the House today in terms of the limited number of premises to which this amendment would apply. The key to the argument of the noble Lord is that this should be a matter for local decision within the overall context of that limited number. It seems to be entirely consistent with the approach of localism—it should be a matter for local determination—with the benefits that the noble Lord has referred to being realised in a number of places that wish to see that kind of development augmenting their current offer to residents and visitors. I hope that the Government will look sympathetically on the amendment and facilitate its passage.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment. I am aware that this amendment would make changes that some elements of the British casino industry have been seeking for some time. I can sympathise with the sentiments behind it, but this is not the right time to discuss the issues that the noble Lord raises. It is not an uncontroversial proposal and it would be wrong to assume that there is unanimous support for it either inside or outside the industry.
Seventeen new licenses were provided for by the Gaming Act 2005 aimed at contributing to economic development and regeneration in carefully selected locations. We do not know what sort of impact this proposal could have on the eight competitions to award the new licenses which are currently under way. All of those have yet to launch their processes. It would not be right to bring forward measures at this stage which could undermine these competitions and adversely affect the benefits that these new casinos could bring to local communities.
Nor should we assume that the casino industry in Britain is united behind this proposal. I understand that the industry is split over the idea. The National Casino Industry Forum supports it, but the Casino Operators Association is thoroughly opposed. That is not to say that the Government reject outright the principle behind the amendment, but there is some way to go before we could consider offering our support and we would need to look at some issues. For example, the amendment as proposed does not require the 40 or 50 currently dormant casino licences to be handed back as a quid pro quo. That might be an important gesture to ensure that any new flexibility did not lead to a substantial increase in the number of casinos.
The relevant Minister, the Minister for Tourism, who is responsible for gambling policy has met with representatives of the industry a number of times and they are fully aware of his views. I am sure that he would be prepared to consider this matter in the future in the terms that I have just outlined. With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord is willing to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. If those are reassurances, I wonder what a negative response would be. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his very positive response and I am grateful for his support. This is an anomaly and it should be covered by localism, the very word in the title of the Bill. On the other hand, I understand that the industry is not completely united on this. There is some wisdom in what the Minister has to say about waiting to see the outcome of the second round of the 2005 licences.
I take some comfort from the Minister’s comments that this will be kept under review. I have an awful feeling that it is never the right time and that it is easy to say that it is not the right time now. The NCIF, myself and others will be entering the lists again just as soon as the 2005 round is over and the impact of those new casinos is known because I think the good sense of this proposal is self-evident. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I am very taken with the image of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, patrolling the highways and byways of rural Essex as a sort of unpaid litter warden. It is a charming thought and I am sure he did a very good job, but he should not have to. That is the message of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and I congratulate him on bringing this matter to the attention of the House and hope that the Government will be able to respond. As the noble Lord said, the matter was debated in another place on an amendment moved by the Member for Gateshead, Ian Mearns, with whom I was discussing this on the train from Newcastle this morning. He received what seemed to be a sympathetic response from the Minister, Andrew Stunell, who said:
“We will certainly look carefully at the matters that have been raised”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/5/11; col. 441.]
Time has passed so I hope that the consideration has taken place. I think it is preferable to have this in national legislation rather than leave it to by-laws. There seems to be no reason why this amendment should not be proceeded with on this Bill or at least a clear indication given that it will have some priority in other legislation. But this is really too good an opportunity to miss and I hope that the Minister in replying, even if he cannot say today that the amendment will be accepted, will indicate that by Third Reading there will be a clear position and the Government will feel able to adopt it.
Of course, as the noble Lord pointed out, this is essentially a matter of enforcement. There is little point in having regulations without the capacity to enforce them. But, as the Essex police have found out in another context, enforcing measures concerning the driving of vehicles is not necessarily straightforward. This would certainly obviate the kind of difficulties that have arisen in another case and one would hope that the Government would see the logic of that and accept the thrust of the noble Lord’s amendment, and see to it one way or another that the objective which most of your Lordships share is carried into being.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and his tenacity in pursuing this issue. It is always said that this is a House of experts. I had not appreciated the expertise that we had between us about the distance from the fish and chip shop to the home. I am also an expert on this. The home where I was brought up and lived until I was 23 was the exact same distance from the fish and chip shop. It was our garden that caught the recycled newspapers which in those days were used for wrapping up fish and chips, and we had to keep shifting them, so I understand the concern that people have about litter.
This amendment would give local authorities an explicit power to make by-laws about littering from cars. Throwing litter from vehicles on to public land is a littering offence under Section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Indeed, some local authorities successfully tackle litter louts, issuing them with fixed penalty notices. I fully acknowledge that taking enforcement action against those who litter from vehicles can often represent a practical problem. However, extending the scope of the littering offence, as was also suggested by the Local Government Group in its amendment rejected in Committee in the Commons, raises issues of fairness and proportionality. A registered keeper may be open to prosecution even though they did not commit the offence and were not present to prevent it. It may not always be a ready solution for the registered keeper to avoid prosecution by identifying who was the actual offender.
However, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, powers will shortly become available to London boroughs following enactment of the latest London Local Authorities Bill, currently before Parliament, which will allow them to issue a civil penalty to registered keepers where enforcement officers witness littering from a vehicle. It makes sense to learn the lessons from the application of that approach in London before moving to wider legislation—and legislation is not the only approach. Changing littering behaviour is key. That is why the Government are supporting Keep Britain Tidy in developing the Love Where You Live campaign. That work with businesses, local authorities and civil society partners will make an important contribution to changing behaviour on littering in all its forms. The Defra Secretary of State is calling together later this year representatives of vehicle hirers, motoring associations, manufacturers, service stations, et cetera, with a view to agreeing a voluntary commitment to tackle littering from vehicles.
It is one of the guiding principles of making a by-law that no by-law should reproduce national legislation, which is what this amendment would achieve. That being the case, and although I certainly support the intention behind the amendment, which is that the anti-social practice of littering should be a criminal offence, I cannot support it and trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Earl Attlee
“(1) A Minister of the Crown may, in accordance with the provisions of this Part, require public authorities to make payments of amounts determined by a Minister of the Crown in respect of an EU financial sanction to which this Part applies.
(2) A requirement to make a payment under this Part—
(a) may only be imposed on a public authority if— (i) the authority has been designated under section (Designation of public authorities); and(ii) the EU financial sanction concerned is one to which the designation applies; and(b) must be imposed by a notice given to the authority under section 33 (referred to in this Part as a final notice).”
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I shall speak to a necessarily long list of amendments, starting with Amendment 195ZAA. The amendments deal with EU fines. I thank noble Lords for the constructive suggestions made during and since Committee. As a direct result, I am able to move some substantial amendments and therefore intend to take a little time explaining them.
To start, it would be helpful to reaffirm the basic principles here: this is about encouraging authorities not to incur fines for the UK in the first place. In the unprecedented circumstance that the UK is fined in relation to an infraction, it is about achieving compliance quickly, using a process which is fair, proportionate, reasonable and holds no surprises. We do not want to pay escalating fines to Europe. We have never incurred fines regarding an infraction and do not see these provisions as a prelude to being more relaxed about infraction proceedings or fines.
All this is reflected in the policy statement of the Local Government Group, which has been placed in the House Library and updates the one previously put forward by the Greater London Authority. I strongly welcome the statement, which is very helpful. I thank both the Local Government Group and the Greater London Authority for working with us so closely on this, and for their help and support. This paper will form the basis of a government policy statement on which we will consult more fully in due course.
The noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord McKenzie of Luton, each provided convincing proposals on designation in Committee. I have combined these and taken them further so that the Minister would need to designate each authority by order, using the affirmative procedure and specifying the infraction case and related activities of the authority, before the Localism Bill’s provisions could be used. The activities described must take place after the order comes into force and will relate to the authority’s functions and obligations.
This means that authorities can be designated only for something which is their responsibility. Only actions or failures to act following designation would be taken into account when deciding whether to pass on a fine, and only in relation to the specific infraction case. The designation order would cease to have effect when the infraction case was closed. This responds to concerns on retrospectivity raised previously and highlighted in Committee by my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree. It puts in place a mechanism which will give authorities an early opportunity to put things right, to solve the problem, before any fine. It also means that this House and the other place will have the ability to test the rationale for the proposed designation in debate. If this does not provide sufficient incentive, and in the unprecedented circumstance that the UK is fined for failing to comply with EU law, we will establish an independent advisory panel before seeking to recover any fines.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes and the noble Lord, Lord Best, for suggesting how an independent advisory panel could provide sufficient checks and balances to ensure that the Minister could not act, at the same time, as prosecutor, judge, jury and co-defendant on these matters. As I made clear in Committee, we remain committed to the principles of transparency, fairness, reasonableness and proportionality. This amendment will enhance all these qualities.
Such a panel would be formed at the point of need, with relevant legal, topical and sectoral expertise for the specific case. The Minister would consult the panel on the procedure and timetable. The panel would receive representations directly from the Minister and from the authorities involved. It would carry out fact-finding and make published recommendations to the Minister, including on the fair apportionment of culpability.
I remain strongly of the opinion that decision-making should remain with the Minister as an elected member of the Government with responsibility to make such decisions on resources. Any Minister acting against recommendations would need strong reasons for doing so should there be a subsequent judicial review.
The amendments on the process reflect the new role of an independent panel and will enable the authority better to plan its finances by covering all possible payments up front: lump-sum, accrued and ongoing periodic fines. This transparency could be a big help, allowing the authority to weigh the costs of fines against the costs of speedy compliance.
Any ongoing liability to pay towards a fine from the EU would end at the point where the authority demonstrated that it had taken all reasonable steps to comply. There is also provision for liability to be reduced—but not increased—if there is a change of circumstances.
We are extending the provisions to cover reserved matters in devolved areas. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Empey, who spoke on this, with others, in Committee. I can confirm to the House that the extension of the provisions to cover reserved matters, without prejudicing the performance of any devolved functions, has the full agreement of all the devolved Administrations. On the request of the Welsh Government, we are also providing a mirror power for Welsh Ministers to pass on EU fines to responsible public authorities exercising devolved functions in Wales. This replicates the UK provisions in their entirety, including designation by order.
The rest of my amendments make changes to ensure that the clauses as a whole work together.
Finally, I should like to respond to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—in advance of him moving it—which would ensure that the Government could not designate any rail or inland waterway provider. I agree that we should not penalise companies for their private services and functions, but where a company is performing a public function, and only for that public function, it needs to be encouraged to comply with EU law in order to avoid significant fines being picked up by the British taxpayer. Where a private company has responsibility under statute to carry out public functions, the default position would be to use any existing regulatory framework to resolve the issue. A Minister would seek to designate a private company only if it was carrying out a public function, if it had caused or contributed to an active infraction case, and if any regulatory body had not been able effectively to incentivise compliance. This would of course be tested by this House and the other place should a Minister seek to designate in such circumstances.
I hope that this demonstrates that I have taken on board the points raised in Committee, and that these provisions are stronger and better as a result. With these amendments there is a very clear emphasis on incentivising avoidance of fines. We are radically devolving power, but that needs to go hand in hand with responsibility. Therefore, I strongly believe that these provisions will help to protect UK taxpayers. I beg to move the government amendment, and hope that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will be willing to withdraw his amendments at the appropriate point after he has spoken to them.
Lord Tope
My Lords, as I think I was the first to complain about the original provisions of the Bill when we considered it in Committee, it is only right that I should now be the first to rise to congratulate the Minister on what he has achieved since we were in Committee. I said at that time, with great regret, that the first that local government knew of the Government’s intentions on EU fines was when they read it in the Bill, which was most unsatisfactory. That is not the responsibility of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, at all. His responsibility is the leadership that he has shown since that time in retrieving this situation. None of us would have wished to start from there, but that is where we found ourselves. The noble Earl has worked tirelessly since that time to achieve a compromise that is fully and wholly accepted by the Local Government Group, the Greater London Authority and, as far as I am aware, all others involved in this. It is still their position that it would be better if this were not in the Bill at all, but that is not too surprising—most people would rather not have provisions to fine them in legislation. Given that it is the Government’s intention, for the reasons given, that this will be in the Bill when it is enacted, then—thanks to the noble Earl and, as I think he would be the first to acknowledge, thanks to his officials—we have achieved a satisfactory outcome.
The only point that I would like to add is to welcome—as I also said in Committee—the statement of policy. It is a very good intention that the Government will discuss with local government those areas of concern in upcoming proposed EU legislation that has a significant effect upon local government. That is a very welcome good intention but I want to be sure that it happens. I have no doubt whatever that, as far as the noble Earl’s department is concerned, that has always been the case. I have been for many years a member of the Local Government Association’s European and international board and its predecessor’s bodies, right back to the days of the Local Government International Bureau. For some time in the early days of the new Labour Government we had regular meetings not only with CLG but also with the FCO and the Europe Minister to discuss issues of concern. They fell into abeyance some years ago and do not happen any longer. My plea to the noble Earl, and through him to the Government, is to ensure that this very welcome statement of policy does not just remain a statement of good intent but is actually put into practice. I am sure that this sort of meaningful dialogue between representatives of local government and representatives of central Government—not just CLG but also the FCO and other departments dealing with these issues, as appropriate—can only be to mutual benefit and will, we all hope, ensure that the provisions that we will shortly pass will never need to be used.
Lord Beecham
He was none the worse for that. I do not think that his wife, who used to drive him around, would have been guilty of depositing fish and chip papers anywhere near the noble Lord’s house.
The position that we have reached is one that the Local Government Association has worked very hard with the Minister and colleagues from all sides of the House to achieve. In particular, the outcomes around the designation and the opportunity to correct a situation that perhaps led to a fine—the provision of an effective appeals system—have all been significant. I am encouraged that the statement of policy that has been produced by the Local Government Group is one that I understand the Government are minded to adopt. Perhaps when he replies the noble Earl will indicate how far their consideration of the document has gone and whether there are likely to be any issues of significance that might not accord with the proposals that have been made. I understand that effectively an agreed position has been reached around four main areas: working in partnership; that there should be no surprises; that there should be a fair and proportionate process; and that consideration should be given to the ability to pay.
One of the crucial issues first voiced in the debate to the Committee by the LGA was the lack of an opportunity for local government to be involved in the legislation from which proceedings ultimately might flow in terms of infringement of European law. It is welcome that the Government have now indicated that local government will be identified specifically as a key sector for consultation when the Government enter into negotiations on EU legislation that could ultimately lead to fines coming down to local authorities. That is an extremely important extension of the consultative role that should ensure that the legislation is right in the first place, which would be a distinct improvement on the position hitherto.
The Minister has made it clear that there will be no surprises in future. No local authority will be taken by surprise because of the designation process, which is a reasonable one in which Parliament will be involved. Equally, the process will be broadly based in terms of those involved in deciding a number of matters—for example, whether the UK Government themselves have contributed to the infraction. I take it that that will also apply to any infraction that might have been contributed to by the devolved Administrations where their activities impinged on European legislation. I assume that that is taken care of in the arrangements that the Government have come to with the devolved Administrations.
My final point is crucially important. The panel will determine these matters and the Minister will consider the authority's ability to pay a fine and provide for possible alternatives in the event that the ability to pay is not present. It is conceivable that a small district council might find it impossible to pay a significant fine in respect of some infraction of environmental legislation within its competence. It is extremely welcome that the Government have acknowledged that that is a risk and that they will not be seeking to extort from such an authority a contribution to a financial penalty that would seriously impede the activities of that local authority.
Thanks very largely to the Minister, we have reached a satisfactory position on this. It has been a good example of the way in which local government and the Government can work together and in which Ministers can listen to proceedings in your Lordships' House, take back concerns and proposals and work with them. I hope that the noble Earl will feel able, metaphorically at least, to bite one or two of his ministerial colleagues in the hope that this becomes a habit across government and not confined to the noble Earl.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Tope and other noble Lords for their kind comments. First, I plead not guilty for all the work: it was my officials what done it.
My noble friend Lord Tope talked about consultation on the EU legislation and the fact that we are committed to consulting with local authorities. I am confident that the LGG will hold our feet to the fire on this issue.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin mentioned Keeling schedules. They are useful in certain circumstances but the decision to use them is decided on a case-by-case basis.
My noble friend also asked me to give an assurance that under no circumstances could fines refer to activities, errors and omissions made before the Bill passes. I am very happy to give an absolute assurance that under no circumstances can the provisions be used retrospectively. Subsection (5)(b) of the clause proposed by Amendment 195ZAH means that only actions or inactions after designation can be taken into account. This is extremely important because it allows all those affected to concentrate on solving the problem rather than listening to the lawyers and doing nothing other than arguing. It is a very important point.
Earl Attlee
And ability to pay—a very important point. The fines can only be set at a level that will not effectively bankrupt the authority. That is one of the principles in the legislation.
Earl Attlee
Earl Attlee
“Designation of public authorities
(1) A Minister of the Crown may by order designate a public authority for the purposes of this Part.
(2) The order must—
(a) specify the public authority by name;(b) identify any EU financial sanction to which the designation applies; and (c) describe the activities of the authority which are covered by the designation.(3) The order may identify an EU financial sanction for the purposes of subsection (2)(b) by—
(a) specifying an EU financial sanction that has been imposed on the United Kingdom;(b) specifying any Article 260(2) proceedings that have been commenced and providing that the designation is to apply to any EU financial sanction that may be imposed on the United Kingdom in those proceedings;(c) specifying a judgment of the Court of Justice finding that the United Kingdom has failed to comply with an EU obligation and providing that the designation is to apply to any EU financial sanction that may be imposed on the United Kingdom for failing to comply with that judgment; or(d) specifying or describing any proceedings under Article 258 or 259 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that have been or may be commenced and providing that the designation is to apply to any EU financial sanction that may be imposed on the United Kingdom for failing to comply with a judgment of the Court of Justice given in those proceedings. (4) The order may, for the purposes of subsection (3)(d), describe any proceedings under Article 258 or 259 that may be commenced by reference to the subject-matter of—
(a) a Reasoned Opinion addressed to the United Kingdom under Article 258 or 259 (as the case may be); or(b) any other document sent to the Government of the United Kingdom by the Commission of the European Union or by another member State which gives notice to the Government of the possibility of proceedings being commenced against the United Kingdom.(5) The activities described for the purposes of subsection (2)(c) must be activities of the public authority which—
(a) are carried out in the exercise of non-devolved functions of the public authority; and(b) take place after the provisions of the order describing the activities come into force.(6) The following may not be designated under this section—
(a) the House of Commons, the House of Lords, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the National Assembly for Wales; (b) a Minister of the Crown or a United Kingdom government department;(c) a member of the Scottish Executive;(d) the First Minister or the deputy First Minister for Northern Ireland, a Northern Ireland Minister or a Northern Ireland Department;(e) a member of the Welsh Assembly Government;(f) a court or tribunal.(7) Before making an order designating a public authority a Minister of the Crown must consult—
(a) the public authority concerned; and(b) if it is a public authority with mixed functions, the appropriate national authority.(8) In sections 32 to 33 references to “acts”, in relation to a public authority which has been designated under this section, are to acts within a description of activities covered by the designation.”
Earl Attlee
“Establishment of independent panel
(1) This section applies where—
(a) an EU financial sanction to which this Part applies has been imposed by the Court of Justice; and(b) at least one public authority has been designated under section (Designation of public authorities) and the EU financial sanction is one to which the designation applies.(2) A Minister of the Crown must establish a panel for the purpose of carrying out any functions it may be given by or under any provision of this Part in relation to that EU financial sanction.
(3) The panel must be established before any warning notice is given to a public authority in relation to that EU financial sanction.
(4) The panel is to consist of one or more individuals appointed by a Minister of the Crown who appear to a Minister of the Crown to have suitable qualifications, expertise or experience to carry out their duties.
(5) A Minister of the Crown may invite nominations for appointment to the panel from such organisations as a Minister of the Crown considers appropriate.
(6) The validity of any acts of the panel are not affected by a vacancy among its members.
(7) A Minister of the Crown may pay to a member of the panel such fees, allowances or expenses as a Minister of the Crown may determine.
(8) A Minister of the Crown may provide such staff, accommodation or other facilities as a Minister of the Crown may consider necessary to enable the panel to carry out its functions.”
Earl Attlee
“(1) Before a public authority which has been designated under section (Designation of public authorities) can be required to make any payment under this Part in respect of an EU financial sanction to which the designation applies—
(a) a Minister of the Crown must give a warning notice under this section to the public authority;(b) the procedures set out in the warning notice (with any changes made under subsection (7)) must be followed; and(c) a Minister of the Crown must determine the matters mentioned in section (Matters to be determined before a final notice is given)(4).”
Earl Attlee
“Matters to be determined before a final notice is given
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a warning notice has been given to a public authority; and(b) the panel has considered all representations made to it under the procedures set out in that notice. (2) The panel must make, to a Minister of the Crown, a report on the matters to which the representations made to the panel relate.
(3) The report—
(a) may be published by the panel in such manner as the panel thinks fit and, if not published by the panel, must be published by the Minister of the Crown to whom it is made in such manner as the Minister of the Crown thinks fit;(b) must include recommendations as to the determination of the matters mentioned in subsection (4)(a) and (b);(c) if the authority has made representations to the panel about anything the authority considers relevant to any of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (c) to (e) of subsection (4), must include recommendations as to the determination of the matters mentioned in those paragraphs; and(d) must include the panel’s reasons for any recommendations included in the report.(4) After having had regard to the report, a Minister of the Crown must determine the following matters—
(a) whether any acts of the authority did cause or contribute to the infraction of EU law concerned and, in relation to any periodic payments mentioned in subsection (3)(c) of section 32, whether those acts have continued and will continue to do so;(b) the proportion of—(i) the total amount of the sanction (as specified under subsection (3)(b) of that section), and(ii) any periodic payments (as specified under subsection (3)(c) of that section),that, in the light of the acts of the authority which are determined to have had or to be having an effect mentioned in paragraph (a), is to be regarded as reflecting the authority’s share of the responsibility for the infraction of EU law concerned or, in relation to any such periodic payments, the continuing infraction of EU law concerned; (c) whether the authority should be required to make any payment or payments in respect of the EU financial sanction;(d) if so, what payment or payments the authority should make towards—(i) the total amount of the sanction specified under subsection (3)(b) of that section; and(ii) any periodic payments specified under subsection (3)(c) of that section; and(e) when any such payment or payments should be made.(5) In determining the matters mentioned in subsection (4)(c), (d) and (e) the Minister of the Crown must have regard to—
(a) the effect on the authority’s finances of any amount it may be required to pay and in particular, if the authority has mixed functions, the need to avoid any prejudicial effect on the performance by the authority of its devolved functions;(b) the determination under subsection (4)(b); and(c) any other relevant considerations.(6) Before making a final decision on the matters mentioned in subsection (4)(c), (d) and (e), the Minister of the Crown must invite—
(a) representations from the authority about the potential effect on its finances and, if it has mixed functions, the effect on its devolved functions of any amount it may be required to pay; and(b) if the authority has mixed functions, representations from the appropriate national authority.”
Earl Attlee
Earl Attlee
Earl Attlee
Earl Attlee
Earl Attlee
““the appropriate national authority”, in relation to a public authority with mixed functions, has the meaning given by section (Meaning of “public authority” and related terms)(8);
“Article 260(2) proceedings” has the meaning given by section 31(8)(c);
“Court of Justice” means the Court of Justice of the European Union;
“EU financial sanction” has the meaning given by section 31(8)(a);
“final notice” means a notice under section 33;
“functions”, “non-devolved functions” and “devolved functions” are to be construed in accordance with section (Meaning of “public authority” and related terms);
“infraction of EU law”, in relation to an EU financial sanction, has the meaning given by section 31(8)(b);”
Earl Attlee
“PARTEU fines: WalesPower to require Welsh public authorities to make payments in respect of certain EU financial sanctions
(1) The Welsh Ministers may, in accordance with the provisions of this Part, require Welsh public authorities to make payments of amounts determined by the Welsh Ministers in respect of an EU financial sanction to which this Part applies.
(2) A requirement to make a payment under this Part—
(a) may only be imposed on a Welsh public authority if— (i) the authority has been designated under section (Designation of Welsh public authorities); and(ii) the EU financial sanction concerned is one to which the designation applies; and(b) must be imposed by a notice given to the authority under section (Final notices) (referred to in this Part as a final notice).(3) If a final notice is registered in accordance with rules of court or any practice direction, it is enforceable in the same manner as an order of the High Court.
(4) Any sums paid by a Welsh public authority under this Part are to be paid into the Welsh Consolidated Fund.
(5) In this Part—
(a) “EU financial sanction” means a sanction consisting of a lump sum or penalty payment (or both) imposed by the Court of Justice in Article 260(2) proceedings for an infraction of EU law;(b) “infraction of EU law”, in relation to an EU financial sanction, means the failure to comply with a judgment of the Court of Justice given in proceedings under Article 258 or 259 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; and(c) “Article 260(2) proceedings” means proceedings under Article 260(2) of that Treaty.”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raises a significant issue. I can clearly see the point that he is making. If the Government are not minded to accept it, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us some insight into the Government’s thinking on how they intend to deal with this problem. My noble friend Lord Beecham raised a significant point about residential property, which is probably just as important as the point about commercial property.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who moved it. The amendment would give authorities the power to reduce the liability for empty property rates. Our ability to take action on empty property rates needs to be balanced against the costs involved, the targeted support that we already provide on business rates and the overriding need to reduce public expenditure and support the economy generally by reducing the deficit. This Government have already doubled small business rate relief for two years, which will benefit about half a million rate payers, with about one-third of a million paying no rates at all for that period. We are also taking powers through this Bill to waive £175 million of backdated business rates demands levied on businesses, including some in ports.
Unfortunately, in taking these matters into consideration, support for empty property rate measures is currently simply unaffordable. While the Government have no immediate plans for reform, we are certainly keeping this matter under review. However, the Bill does give local authorities powers to provide discounts on business rates bills as they see fit, provided they fund the relief themselves. So authorities will be able to reduce bills in the way suggested by the amendment.
I hope that the noble Lord is willing to withdraw the amendment, but I assure him that the matter is under review. It is quite interesting, because I have within the papers here a note about the reliefs. In 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, changes were made.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, can I just point out to my noble friend that the effect of my amendment is not to reduce business rates but to multiply them by five times, resulting in greatly increased revenue to the local authority and the Exchequer. I am afraid that in some way his briefing is somewhat wide of the mark. I should be delighted if he would write to me when his officials have been able to revise their mathematics. As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, clearly understands, this is about increasing the rates and increasing government revenue. I would hate it to be thought that I was in any way undermining the stalwart efforts of my right honourable friend the Chancellor to reduce the deficit.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord has made those comments. I think that the officials had difficulties with this, and quite frankly so did I. I sought out the Local Government Finance Act 1998, but I am afraid that it has been amended, because the reference that he makes is not there. Immediately before speaking, I tried to check this myself, because I had some doubt about this. The whole area is under review, as it seems to have been for four years on the trot, because Chancellors and local government people have changed the position. So it is still the fact that the area is under review, but it is one that does impact on the economy. Having heard what the noble Lord said in his latter remarks, clearly, we will need to reflect further. But I cannot make any commitments at this stage. Perhaps a few tender words here and there might help us to understand exactly what he is about.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Can the Minister give the House an indication that he will come back before Third Reading? I would not want the noble Lord, Lucas, to have to come back again on Third Reading on this matter.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
I will certainly use my best endeavours to see that we can write to the noble Lord and that copies are placed in the Library so that other noble Lords with an interest can see the results of that.
Lord Beecham
Can the Minister also consider the points that I made in addition to those made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for Third Reading?
Lord Shutt of Greetland
I will endeavour to look at them, although I believe that they were on a different matter. Nevertheless, in the interests of moving forward, I am sure that we will be able to look at that too.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to try to have a safety valve in the arrangements for referendums around council tax, and for the outcomes of those, whereby the Secretary of State, notwithstanding the early determination, may direct that a substitute calculation can be increased by an amount determined by the Secretary of State. When we debated these amendments before we instanced particular circumstances where it was perhaps difficult for a local authority to disclose fully some of the sensitivities around its budget. Those matters might be commercially confidential or there might be a dispute outstanding. To spell out the consequences, risks and costs associated with that that could fall on the local authority, which could be difficult and prejudice its position. Hence the proposition that there should be an opportunity for the Secretary of State, obviously after discussions, to increase the amount determined. It may be that the Minister will say that this could be dealt with earlier in the process when the Secretary of State designates certain categories of authority, and that there will then be scope through that discussion to itemise just a few or even one particular local authority. That would be the mechanism to allow a council tax increase which was relevant to that local authority, but which was greater than the amount generally determined. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I fear that my response on this occasion will be fairly similar to the previous one. The amendment does not take account of the fact that the provisional principles for council tax referendums will be announced at the same time as the provisional local government finance settlement. Authorities will then have the opportunity to make the Secretary of State aware of any exceptional circumstances that they consider he should take into account when determining the principles.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, suggested that there may be financial problems that the local authority is reluctant to disclose. But what about being open to the Secretary of State about its problems? Surely it would want to keep the Secretary of State informed. I do not understand how the situation could arise whereby a local authority was in severe difficulties but wanted to keep that quiet from the Secretary of State.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am sorry if I was not clear. The concern was not about being open and transparent with the Secretary of State, but about the process of a referendum laying bare some difficult situations that could prejudice the outcome of those so far as the wider public is concerned. Obviously, in due course, everything would have to be properly reported and accounted for in the public domain, but there could be some sensitivity around issues just at the point where the referendum might be undertaken. That is the issue we are seeking to safeguard.
Earl Attlee
I think that I can accept, as the noble Lord describes, that you might not want to make the difficulties public at the time of the referendum, should that be necessary, but I do not understand why the local authority would not make it clear to the Secretary of State that there was a problem locally. It might have been a minor disaster, or a facility could have been destroyed, for example. The Secretary of State may or may not be aware of it but the local authority could tell the Secretary of State, and if it is a matter that does not need to be fully advertised then the Secretary of State could perhaps put it in a different category. It might be common knowledge, and therefore it would not be a surprise that the local authority was put in a different category.
In addition, if an authority is faced with difficulties prior to the referendum being held, the Secretary of State may direct that the authority need not hold a referendum if he considers that it will be unable to discharge its functions effectively or unable to meet its financial obligations. It cannot be right to allow an authority to apply to set an excessive council tax after it has been rejected by the electorate, nor can it be right for the Secretary of State to set a higher level of council tax after a referendum.
I do not think that this is localist. Indeed, it would defeat the whole reason for having a council tax referendum in the first place—to let the local electorate decide. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation. We had this response and exchange previously. I should stress that I was not in any way suggesting that a difficulty which a local authority may be in should not be fully shared with the Secretary of State. I was simply expressing the difficulty, at that point in time, of having to expose it fully in the public domain because of the adverse consequences that it might bring, to the detriment of the taxpayers in that area. That was the issue that I was seeking to pursue.
I take the noble Earl’s point that doing this perhaps after the referendum has been lost would seem to negate that process. However, I hang on to the point that there needs to be some mechanism to deal with it. The noble Earl referred to provisions, which we will cover in a different way in Amendments 196A and 196B, whereby if the Secretary of State is of the view that an authority is unable to discharge its functions or would be unable to meet its financial obligations the Secretary of State can step in. However, when we discussed that matter last time, it emerged that that would be an in extremis situation and I am still trying to focus on an issue when that situation has not been reached but it might be a material contractual issue that the local authority is facing. The issue may have reached a critical stage in negotiations, or there may be litigation pending or under way. I am suggesting a safety valve to deal with that.
If the Minister is saying that the best way of dealing with that is to have these discussions earlier so that there can be a separate category for that authority, I would accept that as a route forward. Quite how it would be viewed by the wider public if an individual authority, which presumably would have to be named, were to be separately categorised, and the inferences that might be drawn, could give rise to some—
Earl Attlee
My Lords, you could have a category with a single authority or with two authorities that have some bad luck, where something went wrong, and they could be treated a little more generously than others.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Again, I am grateful for that. I hold to the view that although it may help in some instances, being named separately in a category with a potential council tax increase that was greater than that of most other authorities could itself engender inquiries, concerns and speculation over what might be going on. There is no easy way round this but I am happy to accept the Minister’s assurance that this type of issue could be dealt with through the mechanism that he identifies. I am content to leave it there and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 195K but shall not move Amendments 195L or 195M because this is an overlapping provision. This amendment would delete the detailed list of issues where guidance can be given by the Secretary of State in relation to a referendum. Regulations can touch upon provisions relating to: the question to be asked; the publicity to be given in connection with a referendum; the limitation of expenditure in connection with a referendum; the conduct of the authority, members of the authority and officers of the authority; when, where and how voting in a referendum is to take place; how the votes cast in a referendum are to be counted; and for disregarding alterations in a register of electors and so on. I contend that those issues should be left to the local authority to determine. If we are to be adherent to localism and want to trust local authorities, then we do not need this degree of prescription.
I am afraid that I missed all the fun over the removal of referendums earlier in the Bill as I was in the Committee on the Welfare Reform Bill. This is one area where referendums clearly remain in the Bill but I believe that the prescription should be removed.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, this amendment removes the power to make regulations in relation to significant issues relating to the conduct of council tax referendums. If there are to be no regulations, what are there to be? Are authorities to be left to make up their own rules on conducting council tax referendums and counting the votes?
Voters are entitled to see referendums handled in a consistent way with proper safeguards. The Government have accepted, on the recommendation of your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, that the regulations should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
When I responded to similar amendments proposed in Committee, I said that the regulations would be modelled on existing regulations on the conduct of referendums on local government executive arrangements and would be subject to consultation with the Electoral Commission. Therefore, we are not suggesting a completely different system for operating a referendum; we are merely suggesting changes, where necessary, for this particular type of referendum.
Given that the regulations will be given considerable scrutiny and will be subject to the approval of both Houses, I request that the amendment be withdrawn.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I do not think that we are going to agree on this issue. We think that the Bill is unduly prescriptive and unnecessary. Clearly, the local authority has to have a referendum if it is going to deal with its council tax levels or if it wishes to go above the designated level. It cannot avoid that. If it acted spuriously or arbitrarily, it could obviously be held accountable for that.
There is also the question, which we touched on in Committee, of what happens if the referendum is found to be flawed in some respect in due course. What happens to the declared outcome of that referendum? That is an adjunct to these provisions but, on the specifics of seeking the removal of this prescription, I think that I understand the Government’s position. I do not agree with it but I do not see that there is a great point in pursuing it further this evening and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee
“(6A) No regulations under this section are to be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Earl Attlee
My Lords, in its report, your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended that regulations made under new Section 52ZQ should be subject to the affirmative procedure.
These regulations will set out the rules for conducting council tax referendums, and I am content that the Bill should be aligned with this recommendation. To give effect to this recommendation, Amendments 196 and 197 will add new subsection (6A) to new Section 52ZQ of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, which is inserted by Schedule 5 to the Bill, and will amend Schedule 6 accordingly.
There are a number of further minor and technical amendments—Amendments 197A, 197ZA, 197ZB, 197ZC, 197ZD and 197ZE. These do not alter the policy effect of the council tax referendums provisions but they ensure that minor drafting errors are corrected and that the provisions operate appropriately in relation to Wales. If your Lordships desire, I can give more detail on these amendments, but I assure noble Lords that they are minor and technical. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am content with the government amendments and have no points to raise in connection therewith. Although they are grouped together, I have not yet spoken to Amendments 196A and 196B. I do not know whether they will be called separately but I can support the government amendments as they stand.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this amendment takes us back to the point that we touched on earlier this evening: whether circumstances might arise where currently the Secretary of State can determine whether an authority will be unable to discharge its functions in an effective manner or will be unable to meet its financial obligations unless it has a so-termed excessive council tax increase. Our amendment would bring to that process the right to seek an independent assessment of those same criteria, so that there is a process, other than, or in addition to, the Secretary of State’s own engagement with that decision. That may, in part, provide a route for dealing with the issue that we discussed earlier concerning one-off events arising for local authorities.
My understanding is that these tests are to be judged in the extreme—only if there is a cataclysmic situation and not one somewhere along the spectrum before that. I do not think that that is what the wording actually says or what the natural meaning would be. However, I believe that an authority should have a right to an independent assessment when it is heading towards situations which are very serious for it and which, without an excessive council tax increase, it could not see its way through.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, similar amendments were withdrawn in Committee. I set out the Government’s position there and my noble friend Lady Hanham followed up in significant detail in her letter to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, dated 19 July, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. I shall not repeat all those points in detail, other than to reiterate that it would be inappropriate for an unelected and unaccountable person to make the decision, which will involve a judgment about whether local taxpayers should be entirely unprotected from excessive increases for a financial year.
My noble friend’s letter made it clear that authorities will be able to make the Secretary of State aware of any special circumstances applying to them during the process when council tax principles are formulated and finally determined. We talked about the possibility of having a separate category. If my right honourable friend got this decision wrong, clearly there could be very serious consequences if it turned out that a local authority was not able to carry out its functions, and there would be political repercussions for my right honourable friend. My noble friend also said the Government would keep an open mind about the context within which this power to disapply a council tax referendum would be used. With this in mind I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw these amendments.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
“(2A) The persons or bodies who may be specified by regulations under subsection (2)(d) include a Minister of the Crown or a government department.”
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords we now move to that part of the Bill regarding right to challenge. The first set of Government amendments—there are eight amendments in the group—seek to improve the workability of the right and to clarify certain issues that arose in response to our recent consultation exercise and indeed at the Committee stage in your Lordships’ House. Our consultation on the community right to challenge showed there is a real appetite to extend the duty to consider challenges under the right to more public authorities, including central government departments. Seventy-three per cent of respondents on this issue supported this course of action and I believe it has the support of many in this House. During our deliberations in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, suggested several services provided by government departments to which the right could be extended.
Clause 69(2)(d) already gives the Secretary of State the power to add other persons or bodies carrying on functions of a public nature as relevant authorities. Amendment 197B ensures that these persons or bodies could include a Minister of the Crown or a government department. Amendment 197C ensures that if the duty is extended to a person or body that exercises functions outside England, the right to submit an expression of interest will apply only to services provided by that person or body in England.
Amendment 197D responds to a query raised by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, in Committee about whether a public or local authority could be a community body. This was never our intention. In line with the definition of a voluntary body in Clause 69(6), we are therefore amending Clause 69(8) to clarify that a public or local authority cannot be a community body.
Amendments 197E, 197F, 197G and 197H are about enabling relevant authorities to determine timescales. They make changes to the provisions on the timescales associated with the community right to challenge in response to concerns raised by many local authorities, and others, during our recent consultation. These concerns focused on the difficulty of setting timescales nationally that could take account of the wide variations in services and circumstances and did not interfere with timescales for existing commissioning cycles. We agree with these concerns and are therefore amending the provisions to remove the Secretary of State’s powers to set timescales in regulations and replace them with a requirement for relevant authorities to set these timescales instead. We intend to set out in guidance, to which authorities will need to have regard under Clause 73(2), the factors they should take account of in doing this.
We have outlined what we expect these factors to be in the policy statement on the community right to challenge which was recently made available to Peers. Chief among them is the need for authorities to set timescales that give relevant bodies sufficient time—whether that is to prepare and submit an expression of interest or organise themselves to bid effectively in a procurement exercise or ensure relevant bodies are notified of decisions within a reasonable time. Authorities will also be required to publish details of these timescales.
Amendment 197E therefore removes the Secretary of State’s powers to specify the minimum periods which authorities can specify for the submission of expressions of interest. Clause 70(2) already enables authorities to specify periods for the submission of expressions of interest and Clause 70(3) to publish details of these periods.
Amendment 197F removes the Secretary of State’s power to specify the minimum and maximum periods which must elapse between the acceptance of an expression of interest and the commencement of the procurement exercise. Instead authorities are required to specify and publish details of these periods, which can be different for different cases.
Finally, Amendments 197G and 197H remove the duty on authorities to make a decision on an expression of interest within a timescale specified by the Secretary of State in regulations. Instead the authority must specify and publish the maximum time this decision will take. In order to prevent delay, relevant authorities will also be required to inform the relevant body of this maximum period in writing, either within 30 days of the end of the period for receiving expressions of interest, or where none exists, within 30 days of receiving an expression of interest. It must then notify the relevant body of its decision within the timescale it has specified. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas
I should be very grateful if my noble friend could go into a little more detail about Amendment 197E. He has removed there the ability of the Secretary of State to set minimum timescales. I understand what he says about flexibility. But if a local authority wishes to discourage activity under this part of the Bill, then timescales are where it will squeeze most easily. As my noble friend says, community organisations will take time to get themselves organised, to get their bids in and get them up to the standard required for subsequent scrutiny and competition. It is not clear to me in all the liberalising—from the point of view of the local authority—which is going on in these amendments, how the community, or bits of the community, can effectively appeal against, or have some notice taken, of a local authority which is setting very short timescales, which make things impracticable. There is guidance there. If the local authority does not go along with guidance, there does not seem to be any set of teeth that can be sunk into the local authority.
My experience of this is mostly in terms of parking regulations. There, again, the Government issue guidance. If the local authority goes against that guidance, no one takes any action of any description at all. Here it seems to be rather more important that in order to encourage action under this part of the Bill, there is an effective policing of the actions of local authorities to make sure that they are opening themselves up to what must be in many cases an inconvenient and, in their view unnecessary, application of neighbourhood rights and interests, with a system which they have got running very nicely, thank you very much. I would very much like some comfort that there will be an effective substitute for the backstop provided by the Secretary of State in the Bill as we have it now, which is being removed by these amendments, in cases where a local authority is acting to make this part of the Bill unworkable. I hope my noble friend can give me some comfort on that.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
I do not know whether I can give the noble Lord any comfort. The problem is that, on the one hand, people are asking for localism and letting the locals decide and, on the other hand, the noble Lord is saying, “Let the Secretary of State be on their back”. We cannot have it both ways. We certainly hope that people will be reasonable. For example, to have an expression of interest that is open for five minutes would not be reasonable. I should have thought that there would be other ways in localities to put a stop to that. It is as a result of our earlier debates and concerns about the Secretary of State being too prescriptive in these matters that some of these amendments have been brought forward. I should have thought that that would be appreciated by the House. But we are seeing the other view, which I know exists from time to time, that there will be recalcitrant local authorities which will not get on with things as people hope they might. I think we have moved in the right direction and, if it goes wrong and the recalcitrant authorities become a multitude, clearly something would have to be done, but perhaps we ought to trust local people and local authorities.
Lord Greaves
I take it that that was not the Minister’s reply to the debate. I have three brief points to make. We are moving on to the community right to challenge, and some of us have found it quite difficult to understand how it will work and how some of the problems which might result will be overcome. I thank the Bill team for their time and patience in explaining exactly how they see it working and being fairly honest about some of the difficulties which might exist. This is a difficult part of the Bill and it is one which, when it is enacted, as no doubt it will be, will need a careful eye kept on it. I cannot say that we have not had an immense amount of co-operation in trying to thrash it out.
I very much support Amendments 197B and 197E to 197G on the timing issues. Those are clearly a result of responding to the public consultation, but also to the discussions in Committee. I do not share the worries of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the timing issues. The way in which the timing issues are now presented in the Bill is much better and leaves a great deal of initiative to local authorities. It is much better than the existing wording which leaves it all to the Secretary of State to lay down rules and regulations. I wish that the Government had been more flexible on similar matters in the 100 or so areas in the Bill that we can point to as giving excessive powers to the Secretary of State. In this instance, the Government have listened and we welcome that.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
I thank noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I am able to say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that we are requiring local authorities to publish the timescales, so that if there were hideous timescales they would be shown up. I cannot imagine that they would endeavour to publish timescales which looked as though they were totally impossible for people to cope with. As a matter of public law, they must act reasonably. We have to bear that in mind and I hope that gives the noble Lord some comfort.
I understand the concerns of my noble friend Lord Greaves. I know how much hard work he has put into trying to understand the issues in this area. I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, if I am wrong, but I believe it is quite right that a parish should be in a position to exercise the right. I believe that if one were able to challenge areas of government, local authorities could then become relevant. I may have to write to him to clarify that, but that was my belief when I heard people speak on that area, although it may be that some tidying up is required. I trust that noble Lords will be able to accept these amendments.
Lord Greaves
Before the Minister sits down, and without wishing to pre-empt the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is that an indication that there might be some tidying up to be done at Third Reading, and that that issue therefore could be considered then?
Lord Shutt of Greetland
If we can do this by writing a letter and giving comfort in that way, it will be done that way. If, ultimately, it really were needed, we would indeed have to come back to it at Third Reading.
Lord True
There is nothing to say that this deals with a large organisation—some of the things that we are discussing at the moment are relatively small. It seems inconceivable to me that two employees would act against the wishes of those people that they actually want to work with in the future. For years the noble Lord endured the policy of his party being made by small, powerful executives purporting to speak in the names of millions of people—for all we know, they probably still do. I do not see any reason why a group of workers or employees should not get together and entrust their negotiations about an expression of interest to two or three of their number. I think that we should be extremely careful in framing this Bill not to put forward regulation that makes employee initiative more difficult.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, introduced the debate and then strolled off into the area covered by my notes for the next section, so I will trespass into them and see whether that works.
Before I respond in general I will deal with the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, because I am aware that he was not particularly comforted on the last occasion that I responded to him. I hope that he will be now, because if he looks at Clause 74, he will see that it is headed, “Provision of advice and assistance”. I will not say that it is littered with the words “Secretary of State”, but they are there half a dozen times, which suggests that the Secretary of State may well give advice and assistance to those who want to be involved in the challenge. I understand that the department’s view is that the clause would be used to give help and advice to various organisations that may be far better able to tackle the challenge.
Lord Lucas
My Lords will my noble friend clarify whether that would be the case when the Secretary of State was being challenged under the amendments made earlier by my noble friend?
Lord Shutt of Greetland
That is a little further down the road, is it not? If the clause states that that advice is being given, then that advice is being given. Therefore, if the Secretary of State is directly giving a service that is ultimately challenged, I would have thought that that had to be, quite frankly. However, that is a little further down the road and it will not happen tomorrow. Nevertheless, it is there that advice can be given and I hope that that will be helpful to my noble friend.
I will look at these notes and respond accordingly. Amendment 197CA would remove relevant authority employees as a relevant body, meaning that they would be unable to express an interest in running a relevant service. The coalition programme for government committed to empowering public sector staff to take control of their own services in new enterprises such as mutuals. That was reinforced in the recent publication of the Open Public Services White Paper. The Cabinet Office is leading on implementing this commitment by introducing a new right to provide. The inclusion of employees of the relevant authority as relevant bodies under the right to challenge will implement the right to provide in relation to local authority services.
To accept this amendment would be a great shame. Employees are often best placed to see how services could be improved and their ideas could make a huge difference in delivering more efficient, effective and responsive services. The amendment could prevent those good ideas from seeing the light of day by forcing employees to organise themselves as a charity, voluntary or community body simply in order to express an interest. Employees may not be prepared to be in a position to undertake such a process before an expression of interest has even been accepted, although of course they will have to comply with the requirements for what must be in an expression of interest.
In addition, this could create a parallel process with employees putting their ideas to local authorities outside the procedure set out in the right. This would risk jeopardising the transparency of the process: proposals should be evaluated consistently whether they originate from existing employees, a parish council or a voluntary or community body.
It is worth noting that in the policy statement, the Community Right to Challenge, which was made available in the House Library on 8 September, we make it clear that safeguards will be in place to prevent the kind of abuse of the right that is concerning some noble Lords. For example, the policy statement states our intention to provide that expressions of interest will have to set out the relevant body’s case that they are capable of providing the service and of competing in a procurement exercise. That will work to ensure that only employees serious about running a service express an interest in running it and should discourage any abuse of the right. In addition, employees submitting an expression of interest will need to set out how they propose to engage with staff affected by the expression of interest in the development of their proposal.
Amendment 197CB, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, deals with employee support for challenges. I understand that the intention behind the amendment is to apply a condition to Clause 69(5)(e) that employees must first obtain the support of a majority of employees affected by their expression of interest before they can be considered a relevant body. The policy statement I referred to previously also set out our intention to require employees to set out in their expression of interest their proposals for staff engagement. However, we do not want to be prescriptive about how this is to be achieved. It is best decided locally rather than centrally. The experience of the way the right to request has worked in the National Health Service shows that existing, well established communication channels are likely to play an important part in engaging staff. There is no requirement for a ballot to demonstrate staff support for a proposal under the right to request. However, the face-to-face meetings, intranet updates and staff clinics undertaken when some 1,200 staff from the Hull primary care trust used the right to transfer to a social enterprise show that good communication between the staff involved is likely to be at the heart of any successful challenge.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I shall be brief. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, raises important concerns. The other amendments in the group seek a process to deal with these concerns. Without these amendments or something else, it is all rather open to interpretation, which is not a good place for us to be. I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the sense of unease.
The amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Tope, and my noble friend Lord Beecham, are absolutely right. They make provision for a consultation process with the users of a service, their representatives and residents of the area. If the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, is unable to accept these amendments, will he tell the House when he responds how he squares that with his previous remarks about localism? I genuinely feel that the Bill is confused. In some cases it gives power to the local community, in some cases it takes it back. There is a lot of regulation. It is all a bit confused here. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could address that point in particular.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
I thank the noble Lords who have spoken to this set of amendments. I have notes on these amendments and will do my best to deal with them. Frankly, I am not certain that there is an absolute assurance, but let us see how we go with these amendments.
Amendment 197EZA would give the Secretary of State a power to specify in regulations a service value threshold above which an expression of interest may be rejected. It further provides that this threshold will be set at or above the level at which a full, open tendering process is required to take place by any Act or regulations. I understand that the intention here is to focus the right on those contracts where it is perceived that community groups might have a greater advantage in the procurement process. However, it is worth being clear that while only contracts valued at more than £156,000 must currently comply fully with processes set out in the public procurement regulations, procurement below this level will still be subject to requirements of openness, transparency, freedom to provide services and non-discrimination.
Furthermore, it is not right to limit the range of services open to challenge in this way. It is not true that the voluntary sector delivers only small-value services. The right ensures that good ideas for improving any services get a fair hearing and gives those groups the opportunity to go for it. A threshold that prevents consideration of ideas for better or more innovative delivery of higher-cost service contracts seems unnecessary, given the safeguards that I have already mentioned, and a shame.
This amendment also risks discouraging growth and partnership. For example, a consortium of Holy Cross Centre Trust, Mind and Camden Volunteer Centre won a £2 million contract to deliver mental health daycare services. Would this consortium not be able to challenge? Or take the example of Hackney Community Trust, which started off as a small social enterprise delivering local community transport and has expanded into a highly successful social enterprise. At what point would we say “Sorry, you have grown too much, so your ideas no longer deserve a fair hearing”?
Finally, it could also limit opportunities for larger charities and communities of interest to challenge for higher value services. Nobody would argue, for example, that Age UK does not represent the interests of older people. Yet if Age UK wanted to challenge to deliver the meals on wheels service alongside other services in a large authority area, this amendment could prevent it from doing so. It would be inflexible to set a threshold for service value above which an expression of interest could be rejected, and we would not want to reduce the scope of services that could be challenged.
Amendments 197EA and 197EB would enable relevant authorities to carry out a service review instead of a procurement exercise following the acceptance of an expression of interest. Amendments 197EC and 197ED would require relevant authorities to consult widely in carrying out such a review. We have introduced the community right to challenge to ensure relevant bodies with good ideas for how they can deliver services differently or better get a fair hearing and a chance to compete to run the service. These amendments would put at risk both of these aims.
It is unclear what a service review would constitute under these amendments, and the authority would not be compelled to take any action as a result. Many of you will have received the briefing from 10 leading voluntary and community sector groups, including ACEVO, NCVO, NAVCA and Locality, which states:
“Giving local authorities the choice whether or not to respond to an Expression of Interest with a procurement exercise would negate the right to challenge entirely, by effectively allowing local authorities to ignore Expressions of Interest”.
We are supportive of authorities reviewing their services and consulting widely as part of that activity. This is what good authorities will be doing regularly anyway. But that should not detract from or obstruct these important new rights for communities and I do not agree that they should be watered down in this way.
Having said that, if a local authority and any groups that had submitted an expression of interest can agree together that a service review is the most appropriate course of action, there is nothing to stop those groups withdrawing their formal interest and working with the authority to conduct such an exercise. Leaving the power in the hands of the community group ensures that the right is protected but gives the flexibility—where there is a good and proactive local authority—that noble Lords are requesting.
Amendments 197EC and 197ED impose an onerous duty and go beyond, for example, the best value duty consultation requirement, where the duty is to consult representatives of people who may be affected. Contacting every individual resident and service user would constitute a significant new burden. Again, good authorities already engage a wide range of service users and their representative groups as part of the commissioning and engagement process, and should be designing and commissioning services that best meet the needs of their communities.
Amendment 197FA seeks to enable relevant authorities, when assessing bids in a procurement exercise, to apply any criteria they consider appropriate relating to how they might promote or improve the social, economic or environmental well-being of their area as a result of the procurement. This amendment is unnecessary as it is already possible for relevant authorities to apply such criteria within the limits of procurement law. Any criteria applied beyond these limitations could be unlawful and subject to legal challenge.
Amendment 197FAA would require relevant authorities carrying out a procurement exercise following the acceptance of an expression of interest to consider,
“whether it would be appropriate to include particular restrictions on or requirements of persons bidding in response to the exercise”.
I can reassure noble Lords that this amendment is not necessary to ensure that a local authority can control the identity of the service contractor to which it lets the contract during the life of that contract. It is already standard practice for public contracts to contain a term that any purported transfer by the service contractor of its performance of the contract to another person will lead to termination of the contract.
Local authorities will want to retain control over the identity of the person providing services and will already do that in their service contracts. Even if that were not the case, EU procurement law is strict about a change of identity of the contractor. The substitution of a new contractual partner for the one to which the contracting authority initially awarded the contract could be regarded as a change to an essential term of the public contract in question. This could trigger a new procurement exercise.
We have not sought in these provisions to tell relevant authorities how they should design contracts, and nor should we. We have heard many times in these debates that we should be less prescriptive in what we ask of authorities, while ensuring power is really pushed down to communities. A local authority may already impose restrictions or conditions that apply to all persons bidding, as long as such restrictions or conditions are lawful and do not discriminate between bidders. Any attempt by a local authority commissioning a service to impose conditions or restrictions on some but not all persons bidding in the procurement exercise would risk being unlawful as being discriminatory.
I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments. Yet, I understand the concerns that many noble Lords have about the Trojan horse issue—whether employees, a charity or someone else is challenging just with the idea of someone else coming in on the exercise. Clearly, all that has been proposed is a community right, and it is all about communities. The question comes when the community has challenged—I suspect that the community will have done that because of dissatisfaction—and the authority then says, “Well, we had better have a procurement exercise”. Certainly, if that exercise is beyond the EU figures there is no question that the exercise will be open. People will have put work in, as will have the community bodies and so forth. However, I do not see circumstances in which that procurement exercise can somehow be limited, because that would be outside the law of the land because of our involvement with the European Community. We must be careful not to kid ourselves about that.
However, having said that, everything in these proposals is about the community’s right. In my view, the community would be exercising that right because it thinks that it can do things better and that the service that it is getting would be better in the future than it received in the past.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I am pleased that the noble Lord understood the concerns raised on this important group of amendments, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Is there nothing that the Minister can offer us in terms of looking at this further? Perhaps he may agree to consult with colleagues and come back at Third Reading.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
What I will say is this: I have been giving some thoughts regarding guidance, to which there has been reference all along. Guidance will be given and notes will be available from the department, but there may be circumstances where that guidance will be, “This is something on which you make your own mind up”. I am sure that the department will cull the debate and look at where offers ought to be made. Certainly, if guidance is required, guidance will be given. However, there will be instances where, because we are talking about localism, local people and people on local authorities will be making their own minds up.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Before the noble Lord sits down, can I ask whether there is any possibility of guidance being available by Third Reading, even in draft?
Lord Shutt of Greetland
It is extremely unlikely that the noble Lord will get it as quickly as that, but I believe that it will be available before 31 March.
Lord Greaves
Before my noble friend sits down and before I stand up, perhaps I may ask a question which has just occurred to me. If a service—for example, the refuse and recycling service—goes out to a contract and it is for well over £156,000, will an existing in-house provider be able to take part in that tendering exercise and compete against outside contractors in exactly the same way as it would under the old compulsory competitive tendering system or under the system in which councils sometimes put out a contract to test the market against their own in-house provision? Under the community right to challenge, if a contract goes out to tender like that, will the in-house provider still be allowed to take part in the exercise or will it be doomed?
Lord Shutt of Greetland
I may need to think about that and write to my noble friend. However, it seems to me that the in-house provider here could be the “two or more employees”. Those in-house people whom my noble friend speaks of would be the group of workers. That is how I think it would be done but, if I am wrong about that, I shall let him know. It seems to me that that is how the challenge would be used. However, if my noble friend is talking about procurement and there is an existing body, I do not see any circumstances in which that existing body will not be able to participate in the procurement exercise. I hope that that is helpful.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I am grateful for that. I realise that my noble friend has not had a chance to think about that question but I think that the issue of “two or more employees” is totally irrelevant in this case. We are talking about a challenge made by an outside body or organisation. The contract is put out to general tender and there is not a two-person or six-person challenge from inside the organisation. There is an existing department full of staff who are currently working for the council and who may or may not be able to take part in the competitive tendering exercise. The more I think about this, the more it seems to be a crucial point, and it would be very helpful if the Minister could come back to us on it. This is a very new point and perhaps some clarification of it at Third Reading, if only to put the Government’s view on it on the record, would be extremely helpful. I hope that that will happen.
There are times when I listen to Ministers reading out their briefing when I think, “If that is the best they can do, I must be on to a good point”. The attempt to rubbish my amendment concerning a service review by suggesting that it would involve consulting every single resident, which would not be possible, was really rather derisory. I do not blame my noble friend for that; he has his briefing to read out. Councils and other bodies consult users of services all the time and they know how to do it. It is not difficult and you do not have to be absolutely certain that you have consulted every single resident. You put out a consultation by whatever means are reasonable. It might be through the internet, leaflets, articles in local newspapers or whatever. Therefore, I thought that that response was a bit pathetic.
The Trojan horse argument is important but the real problem arises when that Trojan horse is accidental. If you get a community that is really keen on taking over a service and it has real local support but the contract has to go out to tender and the community cannot possibly match what an outside commercial organisation can provide in terms of cost, then that community is not going to be very pleased. It is going to say, “We challenged and these people from outside who have come in to make a profit have stolen our services away from us”. They might well have preferred the service to stay with the council rather than for that to happen. That kind of scenario will simply lose public support. It is not about rights for communities, it is about communities potentially being set up to provide rights for the commercial challenges from outside. The advice to councils is going to be absolutely vital. It has got to be clear, it has got to be strong and it has got to provide councils with all the safeguards they need—not to stop communities challenging and taking services over—but to stop it being abused.
Baroness Hamwee
I shall not speak at much length. This amendment was tabled at the last stage as well. It would provide for a relevant authority being able to require whatever information it thinks desirable. I dare say my noble friend will confirm that it is not necessary to state this because it is implicit or provided for elsewhere. The reason I am moving it is because I want to quickly comment on some of the things he said in response to the last group. As it was Report stage I could not come back on them then. He said, “It’s all about community”. But what my noble friend and I are saying is that we fear that it is not. I very much welcomed his comment that guidance might well say, “Make your own minds up”. That is exactly what one would want to see. But I wonder if I could suggest to him that guidance might include some sort of flow chart which would assist authorities to understand what they can do and what they cannot do, and what direction they have got to be thinking in. I also say that my noble friend Lord Greaves’s point about how a procurement exercise allows for a tender from the authority—from the in-house service—is very serious. It may be one of those things where the answer is so obvious that none of us can see it because it is blindingly obvious. If it is not obvious, and if it is not answered in a way in which the Minister will understand we would regard as satisfactory, then it is so serious that we must not lose sight of it. We should not discard it now and we should return to it at Third Reading to ensure that it is entirely clear. I hope that will not be necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
These matters are grouped together. I thank the noble Baroness. There are four amendments in the group and two have not been moved. This is the third one and I take it that the fourth will not be moved. On that basis I respond to my noble friend Lady Hamwee.
Amendment 197FC would enable a relevant authority to ask a relevant body for any information it considered desirable in deciding whether to accept or reject an expression of interest. The amendment is unnecessary. Clause 69(1) already enables the Secretary of State to specify in regulations the information to be included in an expression of interest. The majority of respondents to the consultation broadly agreed with our proposals on this and the policy statement placed in the Library of the House sets out the information we intend to specify be included in an expression of interest. This information will enable the authority to decide whether there is one or more grounds for rejection. If expressions of interest do not include any of the required information, we would expect relevant authorities to take a common-sense approach and simply ask for it.
This amendment would enable authorities to place additional requirements, and potentially a disproportionate burden, on relevant bodies, and treat expressions of interest from different relevant bodies differently, which would be unfair and could potentially leave authorities open to challenge. If the experience of implementing the community right to challenge shows that a relevant body may need to provide further information to enable authorities to take a decision on an expression of interest, then we can consider whether we need to amend the regulations to allow for this.
In the circumstances, I trust that my noble friend will feel she does not need to press this amendment. Following her other comments about guidance, I am sure that the resources of the department will provide guidance, flow charts and material in any form that clearly gets over to authorities the information that they need. As I have indicated all along, I believe that all these proposals are right, but, in the event, it is about trust and it is about communities; it is not about exposing big contracts to organisations under the umbrella of something which has been done for communities. I trust that everyone has got that trust and that it will work in this way.
Baroness Hamwee
I thank my noble friend for that response. Of course, I shall not press the matter, but I note that he talked in terms of the Secretary of State making regulations which will allow for certain information to be requested. I am looking for a little more individuality than that. However, I shall use this opportunity to add a coda to my point about the in-house service and procurement. I am not asking for an answer now, but I shall put the question on record. In order to take part in it, would the in-house service have to form a separate, new entity in order to be able to bid? That would seem to involve a lot of extra bureaucracy and work, which I do not think any of us would want to see. I shall put my noble friend out of his agony and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I shall resist the temptation to stamp on my noble friend; it is a highly resistible proposition. I support the thrust of his amendments. Indeed, I detect certain sympathy on the detail of Amendment 199 from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. There are matters in it that are worthy of further consideration by government and I hope that they will not simply reject the topic out of hand even if they cannot quite accept the wording of the amendments for reasons which have been advanced tonight and perhaps others.
On the new clause that would be inserted by Amendment 201, it is not an extraordinary demand to make of a public body that it should keep a record of, or at least do a report on, requests for freedom of information. I should have thought that this was a reasonably appropriate matter for a council audit committee—I serve on such a committee—to have before it as it is information about the governance of the authority. It does not seem to me that the amendment seeks to impose an inherently onerous obligation. It is one that should be within the knowledge of members of that authority. I think that routing it through the audit committees, or possibly standards committees, of councils would be a good way to ensure that elected members do not lose sight of the council’s obligations and that they ensure that their officers actually comply with them. I hope that the Minister will accede to my noble friend’s request to think about this and to perhaps bring something back at Third Reading. It is an important issue and although sometimes, obviously, there are difficulties in complying with requests, there is no reason why these issues should not be examined and, in the interest of good governance, improvements made to the local regime.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wills, for moving the amendment. It is well known that he was himself, when in office, a champion of freedom of information. I am very grateful for the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about my own record. I failed to persuade Jim Callaghan to put freedom of information into the programme of the 1976-79 Labour Government, but I was very happy that it was with Liberal Democrat votes that the Freedom of Information Act that is now on the statute book passed through this House. I am sad to read that the Freedom of Information Act is among Mr Blair’s major regrets of his premiership as it remains one of the things that I am most proud of being associated with.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wills, is a little ungenerous about the approach of this Government. It is not true that we have done nothing since coming into office. In fact, quite the reverse is the case. I think that the initiative that this Government have shown in relation to freedom of information and transparency has been quite revolutionary. The Government are committed to extending the scope of the Freedom of Information Act and to increased transparency and have made considerable progress in this since May 2010. For instance, as part of a package of measures announced in January, we have already introduced primary and secondary legislation to extend the Act’s scope and are currently consulting on more than 200 further bodies in this regard. In order to ensure that the Act continues to meet the needs of its users, the Act as a whole will be subject to post-legislative scrutiny. I do not think that noble Lords fully appreciate just how revolutionary that is. Indeed, when I urged that we bring forward post-legislative scrutiny, some of the strongest supporters of freedom of information were slightly nervous that the Act would come under too much criticism. What I say to them, and say to supporters of the Act now, is that post-legislative scrutiny and the assessments built into it will give the opportunity to prove what I still believe: that freedom of information underpins good governance.
Lord Wills
I am extremely grateful to everyone who has spoken in what has been a not particularly lengthy but very revealing debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord True, for his contribution. It reminded everybody of the battles that still need to be fought for the public to get the mechanisms that they need to hold those who serve them properly to account.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for although I think he disagreed with the wording of my amendments—I have always made it clear that I am very happy for them to be revised—I detected a sympathy towards the general thrust of them. I hope I am not wrong in that. I join him in paying tribute to the Minister as he has a very honourable, long and splendid record in campaigning for transparency and freedom of information. Any criticism I might be about to make does not reflect on him personally. He has a very long and honourable record in this field.
I agree with him. This bit of legislation will benefit, I am absolutely confident, from post-legislative scrutiny. Post-legislative scrutiny was a very welcome constitutional innovation brought in by the previous Government. I am wholly in favour of it and I think this legislation, as all legislation, will benefit from it. I agree with him on that but there I am afraid our agreement ends. I ask him to look at Hansard tomorrow to see what I actually said about the record of this Government. I did not say they had done nothing. I said they had done nothing that they had not inherited from initiatives taken by the previous Government. Everything he has mentioned was set in train by the previous Government. In the coalition agreement they said they would increase transparency. I take that as going beyond what the previous Government did. That is where, I am afraid, I was very disappointed in the Minister’s response. In all sorts of other areas of constitutional legislation which we have debated at great length in this House they have rushed it through with great vigour and energy, brushing aside getting all their ducks in a row and all those other metaphors the Minister brought out just now. There has been none of that. It was so urgent and so important it had to be ramrodded through Parliament at great speed with consequences we are going to suffer from for a very long time.
Why is transparency for this Government so much less important than all those other constitutional measures? In my view it should be even more important and the Government are showing absolutely no urgency in this field. If this Bill simply left the situation as it was I could perhaps sit down now and say, “Oh well, give the Minister a bit more time to see what happens”, but it does not. When this Bill goes through, as it will, if it works as intended, and I am sure it will more or less, it will not leave things as they are. It will decrease, perhaps significantly, the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. The people we serve, the voters and taxpayers, will suddenly find they cannot get information they think they have a right to know because suddenly great swathes of services will be removed from their right to know. That cannot be right. The Minister said they will do it when they get they get their ducks in a row and all the rest of it—some time, never. He cannot even commit to coming back at Third Reading—
Lord McNally
There has been an absolute tsunami of transparency. My right honourable friend Francis Maude has been frightening the life out of Whitehall and his ministerial colleagues by the way he has been forcing through transparency and the transparency agenda. It really is no good the noble Lord, Lord Wills, rewriting the history of the past 18 months. In fact, this has been a period of real progress in transparency in government. He should have the decency to acknowledge it.
Lord Wills
If the Minister would actually listen to what I was saying—I would be delighted if that was the case. I would sit down happily. I am sitting here on the Back Benches. I have no need to sign up to the Front Bench position any more on anything. I sit here quite happily committed to greater transparency. If what the Minister had just said were the case I would sit down happily now, but it is not the case. The coalition agreement says greater transparency. All the Government are doing is carrying through what the previous Government had already put in place. That is the record. It is not rewriting history. It is there firmly on the record. All I asked the Minister to do at the end was to set a timescale—maybe next year, maybe two years or sometime this Parliament. Absolutely nothing he said suggests that he going to do anything in this Parliament to make sure that this Bill does not restrict the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. On that basis, with great reluctance, I am afraid I am going ask to test the opinion of the House.