Localism Bill
Baroness Hanham Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for moving this amendment. We have added our names to it and give it our full support. On a point of detail, I wonder if the reference to the Planning Act in subsection (3) of the amendment should be 2008 rather than 2004. I particularly commend the spelling out of the guiding principles rather than the adoption of the usual shorthand of the 2005 principles.
The amendment adopts the formulation of promoting sustainable development rather than contributing to it or furthering it, which we discussed in Committee. As the noble Lord said, this amendment would enshrine in primary legislation the duty to promote sustainable development at every tier of the process, including the Secretary of State, although the duty imposed on the Secretary of State relates only to the functions concerning applications for development consent, and this would not appear to cover, for example, the Secretary of State’s engagement with promulgating a national planning policy framework. We might just reflect on that.
There has been a divide in part of our debate today between those who say that these definitions should not be in primary legislation, those who say that it should be in the national planning policy framework and those who say that we should not necessarily seek to spell these out at all. We believe that it is right for it to be in primary legislation. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, on that. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and my noble friend Lord Howarth, queried whether doing so in a sense gives litigants a chance to challenge every decision whichever way it goes. I would argue a corollary: that not having a reasonably sophisticated framework in which these things can be judged equally, if not creating a greater opportunity for litigation, which is one of the key issues with the national planning policy framework as it stands, is a lawyer’s charter.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that we cannot possibly live every part of our life by this wording. He is right. There will always be a balance, a judgment, to be made about future generations and the current, and about local and national. To do that within the context that this wording creates gives us a real opportunity of achieving what we would broadly all sign up to.
When we discussed this matter in Committee, I understood that the Minister had indicated no change to the Labour Government’s position on the meaning of sustainable development. I think that we had one exchange and I thought that that was confirmed. If this is correct, it is very hard to see how this is reflected in the draft NPPF, which might be interpreted as giving primacy to economic development and be a view that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, may support.
A number of inclusions or omissions suggest a move away from the definition reflected in the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. The abandonment of brownfield first, the lack of content around social justice or equality and weaknesses around affordable housing proposals do not seem consistent with no change to the definition of sustainable development. If this debate does nothing else, it gives us the opportunity to hear directly from the Front Bench whether that definition is something to which it adheres, however it may be expressed in legislation or be the framework itself.
The right reverend Prelate raised spirituality and the extent to which that is included. One might argue that it is encompassed within ensuring a strong, healthy and just society, which may be the root to addressing the issues identified by the right reverend Prelate. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, referred to sustainability as being what conservatism was all about. I read these principles and say that it is a fairly good description of what socialism is all about. I am not quite sure what conclusion we might reach from that. It will never be an all-encompassing definition. Certainly, it seems to me to be not inappropriate, if we can get this in the Bill, to spell it out, to expand it and to meet the aspirations of my noble friend about including cultural in the definition. It seems to me that a strong strand from this debate is that there does not have to be a conflict between growth and the environment. The two can be encompassed. There will always be a balance in that judgment.
I was as interested as ever to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, about his earlier experience and his historical references. He was there right at the start, although perhaps there is a competing claim that it was the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who produced, via John Major, the term “sustainability” first. I do not mind who produced it first but we should seek to make sure that we encompass it in these important planning changes before us in the most appropriate way.
We would sign up to the definition and to it being in the Bill. Given where we are in this process, it is very important that we have a clear position from the Government certainly no later than Third Reading. Whether we get partial satisfaction today on this remains to be seen but we certainly cannot let it drift beyond Third Reading. If the Government are not able to bring something forward by then, I urge the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, to revisit this—we would support him—and test the opinion of the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, in the daily horoscopes sometimes I am a Virgo and sometimes a Librarian. Today I shall be a Librarian because they are hugely well balanced and see both sides of any discussion. That is precisely the position that I am in today. It has been a very helpful discussion with, as so often, real feelings behind it. From the outset, I shall say that I hear what everybody has to say about this. I may not be able to provide a definitive answer by the end but we are getting nearer to one.
The balancing act here is to do with the question of a definition. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, put his finger on it: the more you define it, the more trouble you get into legally. This is something that we have to take into account. Indeed, what we have also learnt from the debate is that there are potentially still extras that people would like to put into the definition. I fully see why and accept the wish of the right reverend Prelate to see spirituality included, and what the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said about culture and heritage. I hear what my noble friend Lord Cormack says about the importance of development enhancing. However, with this we begin to string out a lot of things that sustainable development is meant to cover. This is a difficulty that perhaps both Governments have had over the period. We all believe in sustainability. We can all define it to our own satisfaction, but the question is whether through that definition you end up in a legal minefield. The comments and speeches today have been very helpful in that regard and will certainly take us forward.
The first thing that I want to say is that we support the principle that planning should promote sustainable development. Indeed, it is central to the approach that we have taken in the draft national planning policy framework. The framework, as presently structured, makes it clear that planning has three pillars: the environmental, the economic and the social. Those are the three pillars that contribute most to a planning decision. We fully recognise that we have to balance those three elements.
Secondly, we also believe that the objective of sustainable development is appropriate for statute. There is already a duty on those preparing local plans to do so with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. That is already the situation. The Bill will introduce a new duty to co-operate in relation to planning for sustainable development, which will ensure that councils and other public bodies co-operate effectively on strategic planning matters, including sustainable development. Our Amendment 210D, which I will move formally at the end, would extend this principle to neighbourhood planning by placing on all neighbourhood planning proposals an explicit condition relating to sustainable development. This ensures that the principle of sustainable development runs through all levels of plan-making—strategic, local and neighbourhood.
Thirdly, I understand the desire to ensure that there is clarity and consistency in the meaning of sustainable development. We have heard this afternoon how difficult that is to achieve. Everybody sees just another little gate that they might open to put forward something that they feel strongly about. I recognise that there are strong views and, as I said at the beginning, I have heard clearly what has been said. I shall ask that we reflect on that when I come to the end.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I would like to ask the Minister a simple question. Under the Planning Act 2008, the national policy statements—which I think everyone welcomed at the time—require parliamentary approval and debate. I do not think that there has been any problem with that. They require consultation and they have had it, although some of them are receiving it rather later than some of us would like to see, though I am sure that they will come eventually. It seems to me that the national planning policy framework is a sort of parallel document to the national policy statements for planning and in respect of other smaller developments which do not come within the scope of the NPSs. As the NPSs have a link to the planning legislation, it seems logical that the national planning policy framework also should have one. I welcome the consultation and the debates that we are going to have. It would, however, seem to make it a simpler and clearer structure if there was a reference in the Localism Bill to the NPPF—not what it should say or anything like that, but just a reference.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, there could have been no doubt that the draft of the NPPF was coming out: we have had several discussions in this House and I made it quite clear that it was coming. It has been on the website since the day that it was published and some of the detailed comments on it bounced out almost the following day. So there has been a good opportunity for people to form their views. That is what the consultation is all about, and having got the 10,000 or so responses—indeed it may have gone up by another 2,000—by today, there will be ample opportunity to hear people’s views. I hope that this will happen in a balanced way, because some of the discussion so far has been extremely unbalanced and not at all helpful. I think that it is calming down now and proper discussions are taking place against a real background. We can move on from there.
We are going to have two opportunities to discuss this further. In reply to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, the national planning policy framework is not an adjunct to the policy guidance statements; it is in replacement of. Somebody told me how many thousand pages the policy guidance statements run to and it was something like 1,500. They are becoming very big, very wide, and very difficult to work through to discover the actual policy. The framework is an attempt to cut those down without losing the emphasis and the position that they took.
That is the reason why the Government will be listening very carefully to what is said and what the consultation brings forward so that we do get this right. It is extremely important as it is the background to all planning decisions in the future and for the understanding of the things that we all hold precious—the heritage, the green belt and everything that makes up planning. So the consultation is real and will bring results. My honourable friend Greg Clark, who is in charge of this Bill, has already made it clear that he is very open to discussions on this.
I do not propose to worry the House much more about this. I hope that I have answered the relevant questions. If I am not careful, I will get myself in trouble—and having said that I was a nice, balanced Librarian, I do not want to do that. Having made my point about policy statements, I had better read out what this says because otherwise I will get the wrong thing in Hansard. The national planning policy framework is a very different document from national policy statements. National policy statements are the key documents for deciding on major infrastructure proposals. The national planning policy framework is used to inform the preparation of local plans. Local authorities must only “have regard to” the national planning policy framework rather than follow it specifically. I am sure that noble Lords understood that clearly, and I apologise if I misled the House on the way.
I am looking forward to the debates that we will have, particularly the one tomorrow. Perhaps I may comment briefly on the substance of Amendment 203L, to which the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, spoke. The amendment would put in the Bill provisions about the form and content of the NPPF—I ask noble Lords to forgive me if I stop talking about “the national planning policy framework” because I am tripping over the words all the time. I have heard the arguments about the need for the NPPF to have legislative force to reflect its importance. However, there is no doubt that everybody—the public, councils and the development industry—understands the importance of the NPPF. It is unnecessary to legislate further to give it status. Existing planning Acts already require a local planning authority, when making plans, to have regard to the policies and guidance issued by the Secretary of State. That is why the NPPF is government policy. Government planning policy and guidance is also capable of being a material consideration in the decision-making.
It is clear that the NPPF will bite in the same way as the previous policy guidelines on local decisions, and in a way that is understood. Putting it into legislation would risk changing the legal status of the framework in relation to local plans. It would cut across the primacy of locally prepared development plans. That is not what any of us want. The amendment would also mean that the policies of the NPPF would have to relate to addressing climate change. We all agree that that is crucial, but it is entirely unnecessary to legislate in this manner. There already exists a climate change duty on local plan-making. Local communities preparing plans can be in no doubt about planning’s important role in climate change, and about the Government's commitment to this issue. The draft NPPF makes it crystal clear that this is the situation as regards primary legislation. We propose that planning should fully support the transition to a low-carbon economy in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change. There is no need to go any further than this.
The noble Lord’s amendment also requires the planning framework to be subject to a formal appraisal of sustainability—here is that word again. The argument has been made by a number of organisations and we take it seriously. However, we are clear that the framework does not trigger the requirement for a strategic environmental assessment or a sustainability appraisal. It is not a plan or programme required by legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions, as set out in the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004. However, alongside the draft NPPF, the Government have undertaken to publish a draft impact assessment. We have invited comments on this, and will update and publish a final impact assessment.
In conclusion, the Government are entirely willing to enter discussions with all interested parties on the content of the framework to ensure that we get it right. We do not want to deliver a document which raises doubts about what we are trying to do, or one which leaves any doubts in the minds of those who have to work with it. Its status is clear so it does not require statutory provision. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel willing to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
The Bill currently provides for the revocation of the eight existing regional strategies outside London and any remaining county structure plan policies saved as part of the transitional arrangements following the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Government Amendments 203M, 203N, 203P and 203Q provide the Secretary of State with the power to revoke the existing regional strategies and saved county structure plan policies by a free-standing order-making power. Amendments 203S, 203T, 248ZD, 248ZF, 248ZG, 248ZH, 248ZJ, 248ZK and 249F are consequential amendments. These are largely technical amendments that will provide the Secretary of State and Parliament with an opportunity to consider the environmental assessments of the revocations that we are undertaking before decisions are made on whether to revoke the existing regional strategies and remaining saved structure plan policies.
The Government intend to lay orders in Parliament revoking the existing regional strategies and saved structure plan policies as soon as possible after Royal Assent of the Bill, subject to the outcome of the environmental assessment process. In the mean time, councils should press ahead in preparing up-to-date local plans. These plans will be important in defining strategic priorities and setting the context for neighbourhood plans. Up-to-date local plans also provide councils with the opportunity to control how development and growth are planned in their area and they provide the basis for planning decisions. Until they are revoked by order, local plans must be in general conformity with regional strategies which remain part of the development plan.
Amendment 204E is a technical amendment that closes a loophole to ensure that the local plan meets the statutory requirements and is sound. This is an important amendment, otherwise councils could adopt a local plan without complying with the duty to co-operate. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I was taken with the Minister’s venture into the area of astrology earlier. However, I think she called herself a “Librarian”. I think a librarian is someone who works in a library. I think she meant “Libran”, which is rather different. I hope she will forgive me if I assume the role of a scorpion when we look at this amendment, as Scorpio is my astrological sign.
I am slightly puzzled by the explanatory letter that the noble Baroness circulated a couple of days ago. Perhaps, in her reply, she will be kind enough to elucidate it further because the letter refers to,
“an environmental assessment of the regional strategy”.
I am not sure what that means. Are only the environmental aspects of regional strategies being assessed? Could she explain how the process of assessment is taking place? The letter also says that this is on a “voluntary basis”, which I take to mean that it is a non-statutory exercise and that the Government will be consulting on these documents shortly. I do not know whether those documents are yet available or, if so, where they might be obtained, but I would also be grateful if she could indicate the nature of the consultative process. For example, we now have local enterprise partnerships, so will those partnerships be consulted? I assume local authorities will be, but one could also assume that those partnerships would be involved in all that.
Like other Members of your Lordships' House, I regret the demise of all the regional development agencies, although I accept that in some areas they were not particularly effective or popular. However, I suspect that we may see, just as in health, the quiet restoration of something rather similar—perhaps more at the sub-regional level, but no doubt under another name. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that that approach of looking at sub-regions will be part of this assessment and will also take note of some of the other developments in policy over the past few months; for example, the creation of enterprise zones and the operation, such as it has been, of the regional growth fund. These matters are clearly relevant to the planning regime, but it is not clear whether and to what extent they will be part of this assessment.
This group also refers to the position of transitional arrangements. The noble Lord, Lord Best, will no doubt be speaking about that, and I do not want to anticipate what he will say, but I strongly support the terms of his amendment because there is a considerable danger of a gap which would create difficulties in the light of the arrangements that the Bill contains. I hope the Minister will consider sympathetically the amendment that the noble Lord will, no doubt, move shortly. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify, if not today, then subsequently, the questions I have raised.
Baroness Andrews
Perhaps I can buy the Minister some time while she looks at her notes by asking another question about the nature of the order. Why is an order necessary? Does this help to deal with the issues we raised in Committee about transitional arrangements that would have involved saving part of the regional strategies where they were relevant to the LDFs, so that local authorities would not have to repeat all the work that went into making that part of whatever strategy had been located in the regional strategy? If so, it would be very welcome.
Baroness Hanham
In reply to the noble Baroness’s question, the noble Lord, Lord Best, has an amendment on transitional arrangements that we will get to later, so perhaps we can deal with that when we get to it.
I will answer as many questions as I can and then, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I will write on those I have not answered. The public consultation is 12 weeks. Local enterprise partnerships will be able to respond if they wish. They are not required to, but they will be consulted as one of the organisations that will be expected to have an interest. It is an environmental assessment from the regional strategies, exactly as it says it is. Initially, if there is a major objection with one strategy that has to be looked at under the environmental assessment, it will not be able to go forward in a bulk order. At the moment, the expectation is that that order will come forward separately or they might all come forward on the same day. It is the negative process at the moment.
The intention is to revoke the regional strategies and all eight strategies as soon as possible after Royal Assent to stop muddle of any sort occurring. We can do it separately or together. The face of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, always delights me because it is so revealing. I know when I am saying something he does not agree with. The provisions are simply to make sure that those orders can be revoked. The local development frameworks still have to conform to the regional spatial strategies until they are revoked. Anything in them that is required, even if they are developing them at the moment, will have to be taken into account.
I did not pick up all the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I will make sure that he gets an answer. He has the puzzled look of one who is going to ask me again.
Lord Beecham
I congratulate the Minister on her anticipation. Am I right in thinking therefore that although an environmental assessment is being undertaken, upon which there will be a consultation, the revocations will go ahead anyway?
Baroness Hanham
I did not say that. I said that they will be put forward as soon as possible after Royal Assent. The consultation on the environmental assessment is taking place. You cannot do anything without having taken account of the consultation, so the revocations will be only after the consultation has been considered.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am sorry to ask the Minister again, but I think it is important we get to the bottom of this. Can she tell us why there is this change in approach? This was not the original plan, was it? If it was, this group of amendments would not be necessary. How does the presumption in favour of sustainable development work in the interim? For so long as those local plans and the regional spatial strategies which support them are in place, will they hold sway? That will obviously change the minute the plug is pulled, if it is, on the regional spatial strategies. I am interested to understand why and at what point it was decided to undertake these environmental assessments. Can the Minister confirm that what is being assessed is the consequence of the revocation of those strategies? It seems a fairly significant change in where we all thought we were heading and did not want to head.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I think I am right in saying that there was a legal challenge that required these environmental assessments to be carried out. It is a necessity to make sure that they are all carried forward properly. The noble Lord asked about the relevance to the presumption in favour of sustainable development. There will be no change to that until the local development frameworks are developed and the national planning framework comes in.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
If the noble Baroness would forgive me, I am trying to understand the status of the NPPF in the interim before—or if—these strategies are revoked. Where does that leave the presumption over that period? It seems from what she said that there has been a legal challenge which, essentially, has forced the Government to go down this route. I therefore presume that this is not just a cosmetic exercise but is real; and the consequence could be that some strategies might be revoked and others not. Is that right? It seems to me to leave an entirely chaotic situation. Does the Minister recognise that it could lead us into a situation which nobody has contemplated or to date recognised?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the national planning policy framework is being consulted upon and, once it is an approved document, it will be the document to which people will refer and will replace the regional strategies. The consultation on the environmental impact assessments is a consultation, as I have said, and we will need time to consider it. If all the orders can be dealt with at, or nearly, the same time, they will be. All I can say is that a consultation is a consultation and there are always results; you cannot ignore them so we will have to wait and see the response and the impact of it. I will not know that until the 12-week period is over and the consultation can be considered.
As for regional spatial strategies, their effect stays until they are revoked. The national planning policy framework will then either have been put forward just before that or very shortly afterwards. By that stage, anyway, it will be capable of being the primary document.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I will not press the Minister again but, given what I think is a quite significant development, could I ask for the chance of discussions before Third Reading, so we fully understand all its ramifications?
Baroness Hanham
I am sorry that I have not succeeded in convincing the noble Lord but, yes, of course we are happy to discuss this issue further and we will make arrangements to do that.
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
“(3) The Secretary of State may by order revoke the whole or any part of a regional strategy under Part 5 of that Act.
(3A) An order under subsection (3) may, in particular, revoke all of the regional strategies (or all of the remaining regional strategies) under Part 5 of that Act.
(3B) The Secretary of State may by order revoke the whole or any part of a direction under paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 8 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (directions preserving development plan policies) if and so far as it relates to a policy contained in a structure plan.
(3C) An order under subsection (3B) may, in particular, revoke all directions (or all remaining directions) under paragraph 1(3) of that Schedule so far as they relate to policies contained in structure plans.”
Baroness Hanham
(2) Omit section 38(3)(a).”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Young’s amendments are entirely reasonable and I see the thrust of them, but I thought that they were about removing the term “sustainable” from provisions in the Bill and not adding it.
On the duty to co-operate, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, makes an interesting point about knowing how to be local. However, to be local on a sustainable basis in some respects needs co-operation and engagement not only with near neighbours but on a broader front. Some of us have ongoing concerns about the demise of regional spatial strategies. They were not necessarily the answer to everything and were perhaps not perfect, but with those gone the only thing that exists between the regional strategies that were there hitherto and local authorities is this duty to co-operate.
It seems to me that there should be requirements on local authorities to co-operate. Part of the problem is knowing how extensive that co-operation would and should be—for example, on transport or waste issues. Unless there is recognition that this must be an integral part of the way forward, then I think this really is going to be a recipe for isolationism, that we are going to draw up the barriers around our little location, irrespective of what happens around us. As regards definitions of the eastern region, I can say as somebody who lives in Luton—long since known as the urban bottom of the county—that Luton and the rest of Bedfordshire do not always do things the same way. I must apologise—I have been referring to the noble Lord, Lord Gummer, and it should be Lord Deben. I do apologise. Thank you for that correction.
I hope that I have made my point. It seems to me that my noble friend is addressing the strength and importance of the duty to co-operate, and in that we support her.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I, too, am guilty of the terrible solecism of not referring to the noble Lord as Lord Deben. I have known him so long as John Gummer that Gummer naturally slipped out. None the less, I apologise.
Lord Deben
Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to say that one remembers the name when one remembers that Suffolk is not flat. I look down over the River Deben, and it is quite a long way down.
Baroness Hanham
Well, I did not make the point that it was flat. Never mind, we shall get around that.
I must say at the outset that we are committed to promoting sustainable development through the duty to co-operate. I do not want to take a confetti approach to sustainable development in every single sentence—as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, suggests we are doing—but to some extent I am going to have to in reply to this amendment.
We looked at Clause 98 in Committee to see whether there was scope to give sustainable development even more emphasis. The noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Newton, are concerned about the localism aspect, but there are clearly times when it is important that local authorities and others work together to ensure that there is a proper plan.
We have gone on to consider this matter carefully during the months since Committee, and Amendments 203U and 203W provide me with an opportunity to explain why I do not think further amendments are necessary. There is already a duty to co-operate on councils preparing local plans, with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. The duty is contained in Section 39 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. It will also now apply to local and county councils and all the other bodies covered by the duty to co-operate as they plan for strategic cross-boundary matters in local plans. This is the important aspect—not to negate localism, but to make sure it can be carried out where strategic plans are being developed because the proper people have been consulted at the proper time.
Councils are already required to promote sustainable development through the duty to co-operate. We have also made it clear in the title of Clause 98 that the duty relates to the planning of sustainable development, and we have put sustainable development at the heart of the strategic matters on which we expect councils and other public bodies to co-operate in preparing local and marine plans.
I hope that my description of the duty to co-operate and its relationship to the wider duty in Section 39 of the 2004 Act illustrates why we do not need to amend this Bill. We believe this policy is a more appropriate way to emphasise the important role of the duty to co-operate in promoting sustainable development, and we will consider further, as part of the consultation responses on the National Planning Policy Framework, whether that is necessary. We shall also consider whether it would be helpful to emphasise the importance of sustainable development in any guidance that the Secretary of State issues on the duty.
I understand that Amendments 203X, 203Y and 203Z are intended to ensure that co-operation between councils and other public bodies is not limited to co-operation on sustainable—and I put that in inverted commas—development. The key issue here is that the duty applies to the preparation of local plans and where they relate to strategic cross-boundary matters. Local plans will set out policies for the sustainable development and use of land.
As I said earlier, councils and other bodies covered by the duty will already have to work jointly on local plans, with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. Given these requirements, we do not consider that Amendments 203X, 203Y and 203Z are necessary. However, we shall consider whether this needs to be addressed in guidance issued subsequently on the duty to co-operate.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. As one would expect, it ended up with a wider discussion on housing. We have had that on earlier parts of the Bill, which does not mean that we do not have to listen again to the important points that were made. Before I start on the amendments, two areas of thought were triggered in my mind. A concern was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, that with localism and local neighbourhood planning, no one would accept having housing in their area and that they keep trying to shovel it off to somewhere else. That will not be possible because the neighbourhood plans will have to conform to the local development plans, which will have a clear indication of, first, the number of properties and housing they expect to be built and, secondly, the general area. The neighbourhood plans will be able perhaps to say, “Well, we would rather not have it there but we could have it there”. There will be no possibility that they will not deliver what the local development framework requires. That should be helpful.
The Government are committed to 150,000 new homes before the next election, which will be a great deal more than we have seen over the past few years. My honourable friend Grant Shapps at the other end is actively pursuing policies to ensure that housing is developed. The new house bonus is meant to contribute to and encourage both the building of new housing and the improvement of properties. It covers affordable rents and encourages other capital expenditure. The pressure to produce more housing will be there from the Government.
We are asked to talk here about the possibility of a mandatory housing assessment, which we have already discussed a couple of times. I have tried to persuade the House, so far without success, that it is unnecessary to put this in the Bill formally. As my noble friend Lord Greaves has just helpfully pointed out and as I was going to say, the draft national planning policy framework has very clear policies on how much housing must be built and what the local authority’s responsibility will be. That has been combined with the guidance on strategic housing market assessments, which already sets out a framework for local authorities to take account of need and demand for both market and affordable housing, and to keep this under review over the plan period.
Local authorities already need to prepare an annual monitoring report covering housing delivery, which they must publish locally and which sets the context for reviews of plan policies. Preparing evidence is part and parcel of the plan-making process that has its own robust requirements for publication and consultation. Making local authorities publish assessments prior to undertaking local plan preparation would add yet another layer of unnecessary bureaucracy. I fully agree that local authorities should understand and plan properly for housing and affordable housing requirements. However, since existing requirements perform the functions intended by these amendments, I cannot support them. They are already being carried out.
An important point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and much supported by my noble friend Lord Boswell, on Gypsies and Travellers. I am sure noble Lords are aware that local authorities have a statutory responsibility for assessing Travellers’ needs. Every local authority, when undertaking a review of housing needs for its district, is required to consider the needs of Travellers under Section 8 of the Housing Act 1985. Local authorities are also required to prepare a strategy to demonstrate how they will meet the accommodation requirements of Travellers. All the requirements are there; it is up to the local authorities to make sure that they fulfil them and carry out their obligations under the various aspects of legislation.
With the explanation that these amendments are not needed, and that there are good, robust policies to ensure that there is housing assessment as well as to make sure that affordable housing and other housing will be built, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response, although I do not agree with some of what she said. More than 150,000 new homes a year—
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am sorry—over four years. However, even 150,000 a year is less than what the previous Government achieved. If you go back a couple of years, the number of housing starts was the highest for around 20 years. The Government constantly quote a later figure, which was affected by the financial crisis. However, if you look at the data over the period you will see something else.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, it has had a slightly longer shrift than I thought it would. I think this amendment was slipped in on the basis that there would be a two-minute discussion on it. I might have known that it would generate a bit more than that. I hope that I can deal with it quite swiftly. In the draft national planning policy framework there is a very clear description of what is expected in terms of the planning responsibility. The Government’s objective is that the planning mechanism should fully support the transition to a low-carbon economy in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change. That requirement is contained in the national planning framework, which is subject to the consultation.
There is already a climate change duty on plan-making. That duty seems sensible and was introduced by the previous Administration. I do not think that we are likely to change that at present. It is not worth rehearsing how the duty works but a local council’s development plan policy documents taken as a whole—that is, their local plan—include policies designed to contribute to mitigating and adapting to climate change. The neighbourhood plans have to fit in with the local development plans, so the neighbourhood plans cannot duck the issue. Therefore, there is a clear line between the local development plans and the national policy framework as one leads into the other—it goes down from the national to the local to the very local and there is a requirement to take it all into account. Local communities when they are preparing plans will be in no doubt about the planning requirement.
We have proposed in the framework that the planning system should aim to secure, consistent with the Government’s published objectives, radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. These objectives include the carbon budgets set in law which now cover the period to 2027. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, is correct to say that the emphasis on how you do this will differ in different places. Kensington High Street in my borough is one of the worst areas in this regard but then all the traffic in the world comes past our front door. It is difficult to see how one borough can make the full contribution that is required but it has to contribute to the target. That is clearly understood in the national policy framework. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, has raised wind farms previously and I am sure that he will do so again but at the moment the planning is pretty clear on what is required. I hope that with that explanation the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Baroness as I think she has understood what we were seeking to do—to get these issues taken into account. I thought that when the amendments were moved at a previous stage we were on the right track but that we did not quite tie up the loose ends. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation. Like her, I was surprised that the debate took the direction it did but I should know that at any mention of climate change the noble Lord, Lord Reay, will always talk about renewable energy and wind farms. However, that was not the intention behind the amendment. It was exactly as the Minister described. As I say, I am grateful to her for her helpful explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Localism Bill
Baroness Hanham Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hanham
“CHAPTER 6ACommission for Local Administration in EnglandArrangements for provision of services and discharge of functions
(1) After section 33ZA of the Local Government Act 1974 insert—
“33ZB Arrangements for provision of administrative and other services
(1) Arrangements involving the Commission may be entered into by persons within subsection (4) for the provision of administrative, professional or technical services by any one or more of the parties for any one or more of the parties, whether for consideration or otherwise.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), arrangements for the provision of services involve the Commission if the Commission is one of the parties to the arrangements and at least one of the following conditions is met—
(a) the Commission is the party, or one of the parties, by whom the services are to be provided;(b) the Commission is the party, or one of the parties, to whom the services are to be provided.(3) The arrangements that may be entered into under subsection (1) include arrangements for—
(a) the Commission, or(b) the Commission jointly with any one or more of the parties,to have the function of discharging, on behalf of a party, any function of that party which is of an administrative, professional or technical nature.(4) The persons within this subsection are—
(a) the Commission,(b) the Parliamentary Commissioner, (c) the Health Service Commissioner for England, and(d) the person administering a scheme approved under Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1996 (scheme for enabling complaints to be investigated by a housing ombudsman).”(2) In paragraph 13 of Schedule 4 to the Local Government Act 1974 (delegation by Local Commissioners) after sub-paragraph (2) insert—
“(3) Any function of the Commission may be discharged on the Commission’s behalf—
(a) by any person authorised by the Commission to do so, and(b) to the extent so authorised.(4) Sub-paragraph (3) does not affect the responsibility of the Commission for the discharge of the function.””
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, the three government amendments in this group give the Local Government Ombudsman the power to operate shared services with other public sector ombudsmen and clarifies the organisation’s ability to delegate functions to its staff.
Making provision for our public sector ombudsmen to share back-office functions makes sound, practical sense, providing as it does scope for better, efficient working. Moreover, making provision for public sector ombudsmen to share services, like a single point of contact for complaints from the public about public sector service failures such as social housing, has clear advantages for the public.
The amendment provides assurance that the Commission for Local Administration in England, as a corporate body, has the power to delegate functions to its officers—for instance, the ability for a member of staff to negotiate and let a contract for cleaning the office. This in no way relates to the delegation powers of the commissioners themselves, who have clear powers of delegation that allow officers of the commission to investigate cases.
The other two amendments in this group, first, make provision for the commencement of the provision that I have just described and, secondly, amend the title of the Bill to give the Commission for Local Administration in England its proper title.
Lord Beecham
All of us on the opposition Benches are happy to concur with the amendment moved by the Minister.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing that interesting short debate on this matter. I have a lot of sympathy with what she has to say about the importance of engaging young people in what is going on. If she will forgive me saying so, though, her amendments are not necessary, and I will tell her why.
The amendment would ask all local authorities to establish a youth council and prescribe in some detail how that youth council should be engaged with. As my noble friend Lord Tope has said, there are already youth councils and youth parliaments in many local authorities. Indeed, I recall that the former Lord Speaker—maybe the current Lord Speaker will do the same—has welcomed young people into this Chamber for a youth parliament to debate things about democracy. It is understood across Government that it is vital to engage young people in what is going to be their future. I do not think that there will be any disagreement about that.
The Government are already committed to these issues. The Department for Education has recently awarded grant funding of £850,000 to the British Youth Council for 2011-13 to provide support for young people’s voice and involvement in decision-making at both local and national level in England. In addition, there is already a statutory duty on local authorities to provide sufficient educational and recreational activities for 13 to 19 year-olds, which includes a duty to take steps to ascertain the views of young persons on services and facilities and to secure that the views of qualifying young persons in the authority’s area are taken into account.
The Department for Education will be consulting shortly with a view to producing new strategic guidance on this duty, which will reflect the findings of the recent Ofsted report on the commissioning of youth services, so there is a great commitment not only to the provision of these services but to young people’s voice being heard. Those findings include the recommendation that rather than prescribing from the centre which services should be provided and to what level, the Government should look to local authorities to publish their own local offer of services to young people.
It is for that reason that, while I agree with much of what the noble Baroness has said, I am not able or minded to accept the amendment. As other noble Lords have said, it does not fit neatly into this legislation at this rather late stage. We do not want to be prescriptive about how local authorities provide services for young people, nor about how local authorities engage them in decision-making or how they create space for young people to have a collective voice. I reiterate that I know that a great many authorities already do this and value the views that they get.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I apologise for interrupting the Minister’s flow but, as she enumerates what the Government are doing to support citizenship, I cannot resist asking her whether she will make powerful representations to her colleagues in government not to take citizenship out of the compulsory secondary curriculum, as is now being anticipated.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I think I hear what my noble friend has to say. I will note that what he says is recorded. It is not a matter for my department, unfortunately, but I am sure that his views will be well received.
Regarding petitions, it is not right to make young people a special case in the way that has been proposed. If young people, then why not retired people, people from ethnic minorities or those with disabilities? It is difficult to group people and say that they can apply for a referendum. Young people and youth councils will, rightly, have every right to campaign and get involved in local democracy, as any other individual or group does.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, rightly drew attention to the fact that, while they would not be able to vote in a referendum on a neighbourhood plan, young people will be encouraged to be involved in the formation of what will affect their lives from what is happening round about.
I hope that, with that, the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment, on the understanding that there is a real commitment to understanding and engaging young people not only at national level but across the local authorities.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response and to all noble Lords who have participated in this short but important debate.
I have two or three responses. With regard to petitions, there is a specific reason why I tabled the amendment. I understand that the Minister would not wish to have separate sets of rules for elderly people, disabled people or whoever. The rules pertaining to petitions are for electors—therefore, people over 18. I am suggesting that there should be some means for people younger than 18 to be able to petition.
On youth councils, I was delighted to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said about what is happening in his council, and clearly there are things happening up and down the land. The fact is, though, that this is good practice but it is not everywhere. The Minister on behalf of the Government, we as the Opposition and indeed society should be doing more to ensure that young people are aware of what is happening. So often it is the same young people who participate in youth parliaments as participate in youth councils. I do not denigrate what they are doing—it is fantastic—but there are many other young people who we need to draw into this magic circle. We need to look together at innovative ways to do that. I trust that the Minister might go away and ask her officials to think about how we can ensure that there is a wider store of people whom we can enthuse about democratic engagement and engagement in our society.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, was right that so often we claim that we are going to listen to what people say, especially young people, but do not act upon it. We have to exhort decision-makers at every level, including at local council level, to take into account what young people are saying.
I am afraid that I have to return to a political point. I realise that the Government want to do their utmost to consult young people about the services that they want in their local areas, but the fact is that the cuts are such that there is no longer any money for this to be carried out by local authorities. Young people have needs that they can and do identify, but the answer that comes from local councils is, “We’re afraid we can’t do this because the money simply isn’t there”. As I said earlier, quite often local councils turn to charities and volunteers. I salute the fantastic work done by charities and volunteers, but we cannot rely on them alone. We have to have a proper youth service, properly financed up and down the country.
I plead with the Minister to go back to her officials and try to ensure that local authorities take youth services into account when they are looking at their budgets for next year. Youth services are too easily cut. At the moment, young people in our society are often not heard when they are making their arguments to people in authority, and I plead with the Minister to try to ensure that local authorities listen both to the arguments put by young people and to their needs in our society. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Greaves in all that he has said. He has made a very persuasive case, and I would summarise it in words that we hear so often from the Dispatch Box: “My Lords, these provisions are not necessary”. As my noble friend has said, local authorities are already able to hold referendums if they so choose. The provisions elsewhere in this Bill will widen that possibility—that scope—in a number of ways.
I believe that there are better ways of testing public opinion fairly than using the very suspect means of a referendum. Perhaps in the current financial climate, even more persuasive is the fact that they are very expensive to hold. They are misleading to members of the public, who will not unnaturally think that if the local authority has gone to all the trouble of establishing a referendum using the full electoral process, then they will actually implement whatever the result is. Yet the provisions here are not binding; a local authority, if it is so minded—and brave enough—may well then decide not to abide by the outcome of the result of the referendum.
I will end where I began, in the words that I know the Minister believes to be most persuasive, because they are the words that she and her colleagues use so often to the rest of us when we are moving amendments: “My Lords, these provisions are simply not necessary”.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, before we go any further it may be in the interests of the House if I indicate probably what is now the worst kept secret—that the Government will be minded to accept these amendments, and there may be further debate.
Lord True
My Lords, I do not wish to inject a note of dissent entirely, because noble Lords who were in Committee will know that I was one of those who was extremely critical of many of the prescriptive aspects of what was laid out in the Bill. Indeed I have laid amendments with my noble friend Lord Howard to raise the question of whether referendums might be binding in certain circumstances.
I do not fear the use of referendums; they will be possible, and I hope that in endorsing the decision of the Government, the message will not go out from the House that somehow referendums are in all circumstances undesirable or unwanted. I know that that is not the Government’s intention otherwise they would not have presented us with the Bill in the first place, but in the general maelstrom of enthusiasm that I am sure will follow this announcement, it is important for someone to place it on the record that in terms of localism and popular voice, a referendum can be a powerful and legitimate weapon of public power and authority.
One of the problems with what was drafted by the Government was not only its prescriptiveness but of course the ease with which it could be used, which led to all the problems of cost and potential abuse, and that is where we got into a number of difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, withdrew an amendment which was effectively going to restrict the ability of one or two councillors to interfere or manipulate the process of these referendums.
Since we are going to discuss this matter late here tomorrow in relation to neighbourhood orders, Amendment 207, which gives the power to individual ward members to exercise a stopping power, is not desirable. That reason why the Government’s referendum provisions are not desirable is a good reason why I support the Government’s action in withdrawing this. It is important to state that, from my perspective as the leader of a local authority, a referendum is a weapon that can and should be used and should be accepted by those in local government.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I do not know that there is an awful lot more to say. It is interesting that at this stage of the proceedings we have a rather limited number of people here to debate what, in Committee and at Second Reading, was a significant and major issue, with barely a friendly voice in place for these provisions. I therefore say to a rather muted House that we have listened to the concerns and anxieties that were raised over all those aspects put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Tope, and others, about the expense. We have decided with regard to towns that the local referendums do not need to have a place within this Bill.
If I may just briefly address my noble friend Lord Lucas, who—if he will forgive me saying so—has strayed a little bit away from what these amendments would do. This is no attack on the cities. It is nothing to do with the cities. It is a general point of view and a general provision that would have allowed anybody—urban, rural, whatever—to have referendums. It has nothing to do with planning, either, as the planning referendums are not affected by this Bill, and we will be returning—probably on Wednesday—to the whole area of provisions for neighbourhood planning and neighbourhood referendums.
As other noble Lords have said—as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, pointed out in his introduction and as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has said as well—there are going to be other opportunities for referendums. Not only are there the council tax referendums, there are the right-to-build referendums and the neighbourhood planning referendums. Those complement the provisions for referendums which are already open to councils to carry out on governance. Any council may carry out parish polls and informal polls which are to do with its services and functions. We believe that there is pretty good coverage of this, and that there is the chance for people to have their voice heard without these provisions.
We have accepted what has turned out to be the will of the House at a much earlier stage, namely that these provisions should be reconsidered. We have reconsidered them, and therefore I tell the House that we will accept the amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Tope.
Lord Beecham
Before the noble Baroness sits down, first of all I hope that she will forgive me for not thanking her, as I should have done, for responding, as she has just said, to the will of the House. It has been another very constructive contribution, and I am sure the whole House is grateful to her. Could I ask in respect of the issue raised by the Electoral Commission, which I appreciate is a slightly wider issue, whether the Government will be looking at that before we get to Third Reading, as there will be areas in which it might be relevant?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I have seen the Electoral Commission’s submissions in relation not only to the costs, but to questions and to how it should be involved. I cannot give the noble Lord a direct answer but it does seem to me to be inconceivable that we should not take quite serious note of the Electoral Commission’s representations on this. I am sure we will come back to that issue.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, if I may intervene before the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, winds up: am I to take it from what the Minister said that we will not be debating any amendments which involve the clauses up to at least Clause 59, as these are in fact going to leave the Bill? If that is so—and the Minister is nodding her head—may I say that the amendments which I was going to move arose because of the serious gap in understanding between the Common Council of the City of London and her department about the size of the Corporation of the City of London’s voting arrangements? I hope it will be possible—if she could perhaps give me a nod again—to deal with these matters in correspondence, simply in order to remove the misunderstandings which clearly still exist in the Bill.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I confirm that Clause 59 would go, along with all the other clauses, because what the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, effectively do is to take out the whole of Part 4. If there are still areas that need clarity—and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has said that there are—then I will of course write to him to clarify the amendments he has tabled, although I am bound to say that I do not think that they can be of relevance any more under the circumstances.
Baroness Hanham
“31A In section 113(3) (orders and regulations to be subject to annulment by either House of Parliament, except in certain cases) after “except in the case of” insert “regulations under section 52ZQ above or”.”
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
(a) in sub-paragraph (i) omit “general fund or (as the case may be)”, and(b) ”
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
“(4) A relevant authority must specify—
(a) the minimum period that will elapse between—(i) the date of the relevant authority’s decision to accept an expression of interest, and(ii) the date on which it will begin the procurement exercise required by subsection (2) as a result of that acceptance, and(b) the maximum period that will elapse between those dates.(4A) The relevant authority may specify different periods for different cases.
(4B) The relevant authority must publish details of a specification under subsection (4) in such manner as it thinks fit (which must include publication on the authority’s website).
(4C) The relevant authority must comply with a specification under subsection (4).”
Baroness Hanham
“(3) A relevant authority must specify the maximum period that will elapse between—
(a) the date on which it receives an expression of interest submitted by a relevant body, and(b) the date on which it notifies the relevant body of its decision in respect of the expression of interest.(3A) The relevant authority may specify different periods for different cases.
(3B) The relevant authority must publish details of a specification under subsection (3) in such manner as it thinks fit (which must include publication on the authority’s website).
(3C) A relevant authority that receives an expression of interest from a relevant body in accordance with this Chapter must notify the relevant body in writing of the period within which it expects to notify the relevant body of its decision in respect of the expression of interest.
(3D) The relevant authority must give the notification under subsection (3C) —
(a) where the expression of interest is one to which a specification under section 70(2) relates and is made within a period so specified, within the period of 30 days beginning immediately after the end of the period so specified, or(b) otherwise, within the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which the relevant authority receives the expression of interest.”
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, this is the first time in my parliamentary life that I have found myself moving two initial amendments to be followed by 19 government ones, which in turn secrete in their midst a single Cross-Bench one, to be moved by the highly experienced noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. I am also conscious that when today’s business started, this group of amendments was the haven towards which the Government were sailing.
I am moving my two amendments on behalf of the British Retail Consortium, the BRC, which supports in principle greater localism in decision-making and welcomes the Localism Bill. It has been active throughout the Bill’s passage and has supported the Government’s focus on facilitating greater business participation within the decentralisation process. Although significant improvements have been made, though, there are still areas of substantial concern for retailers that, if left unresolved, will increase uncertainty for business and could reduce the potential for economic growth.
Your Lordships’ House will be familiar with the state of retail markets at present. Although my only home is now in rural Wiltshire, only a blind man could miss the effects of a struggling economy on the nation’s high street. In the eyes of the BRC, the clauses covering the community right to buy have the potential to distort markets for property and land, as well as having unintended consequences on the performance of businesses impacted by assets being placed on a statutory list. I am using this more clumsy definition because listed buildings, or listed assets, have another, more specific definition.
The BRC is calling for maximum certainty about what is and is not a “community asset”. In its view, there should be a clear national framework within which local decisions are taken. It is calling for minimum uncertainty for current owners and would-be investors. Assets such as undeveloped land and buildings, or assets with only potential future community value, should be excluded. The BRC is also seeking full and genuine opportunities for businesses to be consulted and listened to during the development of this legislation and when the listing process is established.
In short, the BRC is seeking amendments to the Bill to help provide clarity as to what “community value” may encompass and to ensure that potential building usage and undeveloped land are excluded. To this end, I hope that Amendment 201A is self-explanatory.
I realise that Amendment 202A may also be inelegant and clumsy, but its purpose is to avoid distorting markets for property and land and the legendary incidence of the law of unintended consequences and to protect the proper behaviour of markets—that is, to accelerate economic growth. I understand and concur with the Government in their emphasis on growth in their planning arguments but sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander, and attention should be paid to business interests in their analysis of what will happen if the legislation serves in any way to impede economic growth taking place at this time. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I apologise at this time of night, but I am going to take a little time both in responding to the first amendment and in going through the amendments that are down in my name.
In Committee we discussed a lot the concerns of noble Lords in relation to some aspects of the provisions within these clauses, and I agreed to take those away and consider them further. I do not think that the noble Lords were on the whole opposed to the principles of the provisions; they were just concerned about the implementation.
There were particular concerns that the provisions could act as a disincentive to landowners who are currently making their land available for community use, and could impact on their ability to dispose of their land to family members or through inheritance. There were also concerns that the provisions could have a detrimental impact on the sale of going-concern businesses, and that the provisions were open to vexatious nominations from individuals with no real desire or ability to purchase the asset in question. There were also calls for greater certainty to be put on the face of the Bill regarding the definition of an asset of community value and the length of the moratorium periods.
We have been working over the Summer Recess with interested parties to address these concerns, and I am therefore going to beg to move a series of amendments that will provide greater certainty and clarity and will minimise any unintended consequences. As I said, I hope the House will forgive me for taking a little time to go through these.
As for the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, I say now that I do not think that the response I have got is adequate, and I am hoping that by the time I get to the end of what I am saying the Box will have provided an answer for me. If not, I am going to have to write to him.
In summary, these amendments will place a definition of community asset on the face of the Bill; clarify that individuals will not be able to nominate assets to go on the list; set out a number of exempted disposals, including transfers of land within families and by inheritance, and business-to-business going-concern sales; put the length of the moratorium periods on to the face of the Bill; and remove various delegated powers.
We placed in the Library a policy statement which we sent to everybody on 8 September and which explains these amendments and sets out our thinking about the content of the regulations in more detail.
Perhaps I may pass over the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for the moment. I hope that I get an answer that is nearer to what he was dealing with than the one that I have at the moment. I hope he will forgive me for that.
I turn to the government amendments. Amendments 202B and 202F place a definition of asset of community value on the face of the Bill. A building or other land is to be defined as an asset of community value if the following requirements are met: first, if its actual current use furthers the social well-being and interests of the local community, or a use in the recent past has done so; secondly, that that use is not an ancillary one, such as where farmland is used for the annual village bonfire; and thirdly, it is realistic to think that there will be a use which furthers social well-being in the future, whether or not this is exactly the same as existing use. This means that for an asset which already furthers social well-being or interest, it must be realistic that it will continue to do so. And for one which did so in the recent past, it must be realistic to think that there will be community use again within the next five years—and that is the period for which a listing would last.
Amendment 202F clarifies that social interests can include cultural, recreational and sporting interests. Each local authority operating the scheme will refer to this definition when deciding whether a building or other land should be listed as an asset of community value, and in the light of these amendments we are proposing to remove, through Amendment 202E, the power for the Government to set out matters that local authorities must take into account in deciding whether a nominated asset should be listed. These amendments are in line not only with concerns that noble Lords have raised but, importantly, with the results of our recent consultation exercise, in which 80 per cent of respondents agreed that local authorities should have the power to decide what constitutes an asset of community value based on a broad definition and the list of exclusions.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, we have had an interesting debate at this late hour on this group of amendments. I can offer the Government some measure of support tonight, as there is lots to welcome in their proposals here, and they have clearly listened to the concerns expressed in the House.
The origin of some of the proposals can, of course, be found in the previous Administration. Amendment 201A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, is not an amendment that we on these Benches can support, although his Amendment 202A , requiring the Secretary of State to publish criteria by which an asset must be assessed in order to be defined as being of community value, could be of some merit, as is the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the more or less general support for what we have done, and, in my turn, I thank all those who have diligently attended meetings—not only the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, but my noble friends Lord Gardiner, Lord Cathcart and Lord Howard of Rising. I fear that I may have forgotten someone but there have been great consultations, mostly over the summer, and I am very grateful for the time that noble Lords have put in to ensure that these provisions do not have the unintended consequences that were anticipated.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, was the only person to pose questions and perhaps I may turn to those. His amendment would give landowners 60 days to request the local authority to carry out an internal review of its decision to list an asset. We are now going to move from 28 days to six weeks, which is a bit longer, but we think that that will give a landowner time to decide whether he needs to appeal the decision. The details of the procedures for carrying out an internal review, including who can do it, will, I am afraid, be in regulations. I am sure that we will have an opportunity to talk about this further before then, but it is anticipated that that is what will happen.
The process will be that the landowner will first be contacted by the local authority if the land has been nominated by a community group. Therefore, in practice, landowners will have been aware of the process well before they receive the formal notice of the local authority’s decision. Once a review has been requested, it is proposed that the local authority will have six weeks to conduct the review. We also intend to provide in the regulations that, if a local authority and the landowner agree, this period can be extended. Therefore, I think that flexibility is built into that system.
I was also asked who can nominate an asset and about the voluntary and community body. Conditions will be set out in the regulations to demonstrate a local connection. The intention is to ensure that such groups are genuinely concerned with the social well-being benefit of their community and that they are based in the relevant community or neighbourhood. This may include unincorporated groups, so as to allow groups that have recently been set up to help save an asset. There are many examples that have already taken place where people have set up a group to try to save their pub or an asset. We know that that can and has happened. We do not feel that we ought to stand in the way of such groups. However, we will look to see whether we need to place stricter requirements on them as to whether they need to be incorporated or recognised, very much as the noble Lord has said. I will come back to him on that as we make those regulations.
I am extremely grateful to all those who have given their time to do this. I hope that we have more or less answered their concerns. I know you can never be 100 per cent sure—there is bound to be somebody round about who does not think we have quite gone far enough—but I think we have addressed all of the concerns that were raised.
Baroness Hanham
(a) an actual current use of the building or other land that is not an ancillary use furthers the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community, and(b) it is realistic to think that there can continue to be non-ancillary use of the building or other land which will further (whether or not in the same way) the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community.(1A) For the purposes of this Chapter but subject to regulations under subsection (2), a building or other land in a local authority’s area that is not land of community value as a result of subsection (1) is land of community value if in the opinion of the local authority—
(a) there is a time in the recent past when an actual use of the building or other land that was not an ancillary use furthered the social wellbeing or interests of the local community, and(b) it is realistic to think that there is a time in the next five years when there could be non-ancillary use of the building or other land that would further (whether or not in the same way as before) the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community.(2) The appropriate authority may by regulations—”
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
“but where it appears to the authority that it is not reasonably practicable to give a notice under this subsection to a person to whom it is required to be given, the authority must instead take reasonable alternative steps for the purpose of bringing the notice to the person’s attention.”
Baroness Hanham
(a) may (but need not) be removed from the list by the authority after it has been in the list for 5 years, and(b) while it is in the list,”
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
(a) if the disposal is by way of gift (including a gift to trustees of any trusts by way of settlement upon the trusts),(b) if the disposal is by personal representatives of a deceased person in satisfaction of an entitlement under the will, or on the intestacy, of the deceased person,(c) if the disposal is by personal representatives of a deceased person in order to raise money to—(i) pay debts of the deceased person,(ii) pay taxes,(iii) pay costs of administering the deceased person’s estate, or(iv) pay pecuniary legacies or satisfy some other entitlement under the will, or on the intestacy, of the deceased person,(d) if the person, or one of the persons, making the disposal is a member of the family of the person, or one of the persons, to whom the disposal is made,(e) if the disposal is a part-listed disposal of a description specified in regulations made by the appropriate national authority, and for this purpose “part-listed disposal” means a disposal of an estate in land—(i) part of which is land included in a local authority’s list of assets of community value, and(ii) part of which is land not included in any local authority’s list of assets of community value,(f) if the disposal is of an estate in land on which a business is carried on and is at the same time, and to the same person, as a disposal of that business as a going concern,(g) if the disposal is occasioned by a person ceasing to be, or becoming, a trustee,(h) if the disposal is by trustees of any trusts—(i) in satisfaction of an entitlement under the trusts, or(ii) in exercise of a power conferred by the trusts to re-settle trust property on other trusts, (i) if the disposal is occasioned by a person ceasing to be, or becoming, a partner in a partnership, or(j) ”
Localism Bill
Baroness Hanham Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is not seeking to get me out of my job just yet. I thank him for that. There is a little overexcitement about Clause 5(1)—not that the noble Lord ever raises his voice excitedly. However, there are concerns that are not necessary. Amendment 109A would prevent the Secretary of State making any orders under Clause 5(1) and (2). That would mean that he could not even amend the long list of legislation set out in Amendment 119E. However, it would give him order-making powers to add to the legislative list; he would be able to add but not to take away.
The power in Clause 5(1) is a power to remove restrictions and limitations to the legal capacity of local authorities that prevent them exercising the general power of competence. I think that we all want to see them have this general power. The clause must be read in the context of that power, which is a power to do things that an ordinary individual can do. It is not a power to remove any duty or obligation placed on local authorities, such as many of those listed in Amendment 119E, where such duties or obligations do not restrict or limit the capacity of the local authority to do things that the individual can do.
Noble Lords must hang on to the word “individual”; that is the important aspect. We do not consider that Clause 5(1) could be interpreted—the noble Lord addressed this and understands it—as allowing the Secretary of State to amend the requirements of, for example, the Equality Act or the Human Rights Act as they apply to local authorities. These Acts place broad duties on public authorities, including individuals, so they cannot be part and parcel of this power of competence. These Acts are not a restriction or limitation on the legal capacity of the local authority, so the power could not be used in the way suggested for these or any other similar legislation, just as it could not be used to exempt local authorities from prohibitions contained in criminal law.
We have listened to concerns, and amendments were brought forward in the other place, which are now in Clause 6, to place restrictions and limitations on the power in Clause 5(1). We believe these provide additional safeguards so that there can now be no doubt about the scope of the power. It does not permit the removal of essential duties, protections or rights from the Secretary of State. I also confirm that, as part of the consultation required by Clause 5(7), it will be appropriate to consult every person or group of persons, or their representatives, who will be substantially affected by the proposal. The results of any such consultation would have to be presented to Parliament, and then Parliament could veto the order.
The noble Lord asked me whether Parliament would be involved in this. As I said, Clause 5(7) is also modelled on what is in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act. The procedure to be followed would be negative, affirmative or superaffirmative, and that would be ultimately determined by Parliament. This matter has been put to the Delegated Powers Committee, which has no difficulty with that and has expressed itself on side with the procedure.
We believe that these amendments are unnecessary. We are trying to give local authorities as much power as we can, but we realise that some of that is going to come eventually from Parliament. There are restrictions on the powers of the Secretary of State in these procedures. Local authorities are not going to have completely unfettered power with the general power of competence, but it will be much wider than it is at the moment.
I hope that I have answered the noble Lord satisfactorily about the involvement of Parliament if the Secretary of State were to use these powers, so I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beecham
I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I accept that there now appears to be at least a parliamentary procedure here. I still think it is difficult to accept the notion that primary legislation imposing duties that were imposed for a purpose on local authorities and others should be varied or revoked in the way set out in the Bill. Having noted the point about the affirmative procedure, however, I accept her assurances and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
Amendments 109B and 109C relate to the same provision under the Secretary of State’s powers, but in this case they seek the deletion of the power of the Secretary of State in effect to nullify the power of competence which the Bill purports to represent. This is really quite an exceptional provision and is not at all acceptable. The Secretary of State takes upon himself, having conferred or purported to confer this very broad power, the right to,
“by order make provision preventing local authorities from doing, in exercise of the general power, anything which is specified, or is of a description specified, in the order”,
or, under Clause 5(4), to make that subject to conditions. That is a very far-reaching incursion on the principle that the Bill seeks to advance, and it is simply not acceptable.
Amendment 109C in this group deals with the rather strange phrase, “any necessary protection”, which is contained in the clause and is in no sense defined. It is presumably left to the Secretary of State to determine what a necessary protection is. These are the limits under the power contained in Clause 6. In the absence of any sensible definition, I do not think this is an acceptable power to confer on the Secretary of State. I invite your Lordships to agree that these provisions should be left out of the Bill, and I move Amendment 109B accordingly.
Baroness Hanham
Amendment 109B, as the noble Lord said, would remove subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 5. These subsections provide reserve powers to allow the Secretary of State to prevent authorities from exercising the general power or to set conditions around the use of this power. We believe that these powers provide a necessary and proper safeguard, given the breadth of the new power—to ensure, for example, that risks to both local government finances and the Exchequer are properly managed. The Government have no plans—I think I said this earlier on—to use the powers in subsections (3) and (4). At present, there is nothing in mind; the Secretary of State is not sitting there with great excitement, his pen poised, waiting to take away what he has already given. The Government actually expect them to be used very rarely, if at all. They are, however, an insurance policy. They might, for instance, have to be used to deal with any risks that might arise from authorities’ use of the new general power—I think I said this in Committee—to engage in novel financial transactions using public money. That might require the Secretary of State to step in. The use of the power is subject to consultation and to the affirmative procedure, which would ensure suitable parliamentary scrutiny. I just want to stress that, occasionally in legislation, we need to provide for the very end of the road when something might go wrong, and that is all the clause is for.
Amendment 109C would remove one of the conditions that place restrictions and limitations on the use of Clause 5(1). The provision in question must not remove, as the noble Lord said very clearly in his opening remarks, “any necessary protection”. This condition ensures that protections—which might relate, for example, to the economy, health and safety, civil liberties, the environment or national heritage—are not removed. A similar condition is used in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, so this is not new to legislation. It is quite deliberately wide. Any Secretary of State seeking to make an order under Clause 5(1) must be satisfied that the condition is met and must explain why to Parliament. We believe, therefore, that this and the other conditions in Clause 6 are a useful additional safeguard and should be retained.
Before the noble Lord or others intervene, I will speak to government Amendments 234, 235 and 236, because it might help the debate coming afterwards. Amendment 234 gives effect to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in relation to Clause 5(2). Clause 5(2) is entirely benign; it can be used only to remove wholly overlapped, and therefore unnecessary, powers. It cannot be used to remove duties. The amendment ensures that orders made under Clause 5(2), if not made in conjunction with orders under Clause 5(1) and subject to special procedures set out in Clause 7, will have to be subject to an affirmative procedure. We believe that those safeguards, coupled with the intense level of parliamentary scrutiny provided, give sufficient protection.
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, government Amendments 110, 111 and 113 accept the recommendations of the DPRRC to change the procedures to be followed when making orders relating to the general powers of fire and rescue authorities. Amendments 110 and 111 make orders to expand the scope of an existing order subject to the affirmative procedure, as recommended by the DPRRC.
In response to the amendment tabled on 20 June by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, I said that it was never the Government’s intention to enable charging for all community fire safety or prevention activities and that I would reflect on the best way of achieving that aim. Amendment 113, tabled in respect of England and Wales, retains the existing position that fire and rescue authorities cannot charge for the giving of advice, on request, about preventing fires and means of escape in any premises. The amendment retains the existing ability of fire and rescue authorities to charge for the giving of advice in relation to non-domestic premises unless that advice is requested under Section 6(2)(b) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 which sets out the criteria for fire safety; the noble Baroness will know more about this than I do. Fire and rescue authorities will not be able to charge for the giving of advice in relation to domestic premises in any circumstances. Charging is optional and up to full cost recovery, not for profit. This amendment will replicate existing arrangements on charging for giving advice as set out in the 2004 Act. I await the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I rise to speak to our Amendment 112 and comment on the government amendments in this group.
I welcome the Government’s amendments and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments. I appreciate that it caused some confusion when I first raised this. As the noble Baroness generously said, when she first wrote to me, her officials and government Ministers had understood that the legislation as drafted would not allow for charging. It was completely inadvertent, as she said, and they had not appreciated that a consequence of the Government’s proposals to expand and increase charges would lead to community fire safety being charged for. Indeed, she wrote to me to that effect. I thank her because, when it was recognised that our concerns on this were justified, she raised the matter in the House and immediately wrote to me as well to clarify the position and agreed to bring forward government amendments to correct the error. I am grateful to her for doing that.
I have to say to her that this is a fairly large Bill, about 500 pages long. It is very detailed and quite technical in parts, and some of the discussions we have had have sometimes seemed quite complex. We have concerns that some parts of this Bill may have been rushed through to the House before they were fully and properly drafted. It is to the great credit of the noble Baroness that she has been ready to engage and debate on these issues, and at times has been prepared to concede and bring forward amendments to try to improve this legislation. So I am grateful to her for the amendments she has brought forward today, in so far as they go.
I am sorry to raise the matter in this way, but I am looking at the difference between the amendment in my name and the amendment from the Government, which refers to Section 6(2)(b) of the 2004 Act. Our Amendment 112 would not allow charging for community safety or fire prevention work, whereas the government amendment refers to Section 6(2)(b) of the 2004 Act, which is purely about the fire safety work that a fire authority must undertake as part of its core functions. I entirely agree that that is right and proper in so far as it goes. The last Government recognised that fire safety should be a core function, and therefore placed a duty on fire authorities to undertake fire safety. No fire authority should be allowed to charge for that core function, as the noble Baroness rightly agrees. Where I think there is a grey area—and some clarification on this would be helpful, as this is another unintended consequence—is that many fire authorities have extended this work to the related, but slightly wider, community safety remit.
I have some particular examples of this work, which I am sure the noble Baroness would never want to see lost to the community. For example, my authority in Essex runs a number of courses for young people, such as one called “Firebreak” and another called “Young Firefighters”, and there are similar schemes in other authorities. They do promote fire safety—there are clearly benefits for fire safety—but there are much wider benefits to the individuals taking part and to the community. In Basildon, Essex fire service uses these projects, working with local authorities, councils and other bodies, as part of a team tackling crime and disorder. The fire service is part of the crime and disorder reduction partnerships, and it is very proud of this work. I looked at its website earlier today for examples. It seems to me—the noble Baroness can assure me on this—that from the wording that is taken from the 2006 Act this does not exactly fall under fire safety.
For example, there is a page on the Essex County Fire and Rescue Service website about Darren, 18, of Ashingdon Road in Hawkwell. He has just joined the crew of his local fire station as the newest recruit, and he said:
“It was Firebreak which really showed me what I wanted to do with life and how I could do it. I had got into the wrong crowd and was getting in trouble with the police and then bringing that trouble with me into school and getting into worse trouble”.
His head teacher referred Darren to the “Firebreak” course—it is a long quote but I will read it—and, as Darren says,
“When I got back to school I ditched my mates and really buckled down. Almost straight away I saw my grades improving and my predicted exam results shot up. Firebreak made me realise that there is more to life than getting in trouble and mucking about and gave me something to work towards”.
That is not technically fire safety, but the benefits to the community are enormous. Another person mentioned is Craig, who is 20 and attended this course in 2005. He says:
“I was taking drugs, drinking and stealing cars. Basically I was completely off the rails. Firebreak has changed my life, I no longer drink or take drugs and am now working to become a firefighter myself”.
The Cheshire fire service signs up to missdorothy.com. I do not know whether the noble Baroness is aware of missdorothy.com. When I was Fire Minister I went to see some of the work that it is doing, which is about community safety for younger children. Given the trust placed in firefighters, and their very respected position in the community, they were engaging very young children in community safety. Part of that was about fire safety and being safe, but also about being safe in their broader lives. The Cheshire fire service is also one of the employers involved with the Prince’s Trust programme. I certainly think that nobody in your Lordships’ House would want to lose the fire service’s involvement with the Prince’s Trust. There is a 12-week personal development course, and the fire service is one of the employers doing that.
Devon and Somerset is another authority that has a personal development scheme, also called “Firebreak”, for key stage 4 pupils from 14 to 16. Its website says that it provides a
“themed educational diet designed to complement and enhance the school curriculum. It aims to raise achievement, improve self motivation, increase educational engagement”,
and aims to develop,
“practical skills, life skills, communication skills, team work”.
Looking around the country, I see that Suffolk authority is another one to engage actively with children and young people. One of its objectives is to prevent and reduce fire crime and fire, but it also wants to engage young people, and has professional staff working with the authority, to identify good practice in working with children and young people. East Sussex has a “LIFE” project and Chester has a “Respect” project.
All of those have proven successes in deterring young people not only from a life of crime but from social disorder as well. My fear is, if it was the Government’s intention, which I suggest it probably was not, that these should be charged for—and I think that, under the Government’s amendments, they would be able to be charged for—then those very young people who can benefit most from these courses would not be able to do so.
Another issue is that, if these courses were chargeable, who would pay? In many cases it would be another public authority. What we would be doing is introducing a bureaucracy to move money around the system. So it would be helpful if the Minister, perhaps not today, could reflect on the advice she was initially given that this would not be covered by fire safety. Perhaps there may be some kind of guidance that could be issued. I think that this is the kind of work that so many people in the community benefit from.
In my own authority, at Basildon fire station, Martin Trevillion leads the community safety programme, and it is an exceptional programme. Having spoken to so many young people that have benefitted from it, I would be reluctant for us to lose that programme simply through inadvertent drafting of legislation.
Finally, I want to raise one other issue, which is that of carbon monoxide safety and awareness. I am also not clear that Section 6(2)(b) of the 2004 Act, which talks about advice on how to prevent fires and on means of escape from buildings, would cover carbon monoxide safety. This is a particular issue: there have been a number of deaths and serious injuries due to carbon monoxide, and it is something that fire authorities are able to take on and work with, and I know that some of them already do so. I would not think that the noble Baroness intended that that should be charged for as well.
When at Second Reading I first raised the issue of charging for community safety, it was clear that the Government had not thought about the implications, quite inadvertently, and this had slipped through. The Minister was able to respond to those concerns very positively. I hope she understands that my raising these tonight is in exactly the same tone, as this is a service provided by the fire authorities, working with their community, which we really would be very loath to lose, if they had to charge for it. I ask the Minister—I think she has had time to reflect, or to receive enlightenment on this issue quite soon—even if she cannot give me a full answer today, to reflect on that so some guidance can be issued, because this resource that is provided by our fire and rescue services is very valuable for the community.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am struggling to get a response on both matters. I understand that we are working within the framework of the fire and safety Act, so whatever that includes will be included. I am very reluctant to answer the noble Baroness today. I do not have the answer. It is quite wide in terms of what we are seeking to do. The same applies to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I always hate having to say that I do not know the response to something, but I will have to do so today. If the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will forgive me, I will write to them before Third Reading to make sure that there is a clear understanding of the answer to both questions. My gut feeling is that probably there is wriggle room here for the fire authorities to decide whether or not to charge, but we should be clear about that. I will write and will make sure that that response is in the Library so that we can come back to it before Third Reading, if necessary.
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
“(5A) Subject to subsection (5B), section 18A(1) does not authorise charging for action taken under section 6.
(5B) Subsection (5A) does not prevent charging for the giving of advice, other than advice of the kind mentioned in section 6(2)(b), in relation to premises where a trade, business or other undertaking is carried on (whether for profit or not).”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord McKenzie on moving the amendment, working very hard to ensure that it is in an acceptable form and persuading the Minister that it represents the right policy. I must congratulate the Minister and the Government on making the most significant concession, if you will, that we have had so far in terms of the Bill. This is the most localist part of the entire Bill, and the Minister and her colleagues deserve to be congratulated on that. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, also should be congratulated. We have had an almost biblical experience tonight. The voice was the voice of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, but the words were the words of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley—however, they were none the less persuasive for that.
Incidentally, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has done well to be in Manchester today. Were he travelling down by the east coast main line this afternoon he would not get here. I understand that winds have blown down trees on the east coast line and things are massively disrupted. Perhaps one day somebody will do something about the rail network and make sure that these incidents are less apt to cause damage.
However, I must say in reference to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that it was my pleasure to work with him, up to a point, when he chaired the Inner City Partnership committee as Secretary of State in Newcastle and Gateshead in the 1980s. I was then the leader of the council, a position that I relinquished—not before time, many people thought—some 17 years ago. It would have been helpful to have had the kind of powers conferred by this amendment—assuming it is passed, as I take it it will be—on local government.
As some of your Lordships will be aware, I am not an enthusiast for elected mayors by any means. I am therefore glad that the original restriction has been abandoned because it seems to me important that councils with the more conventional model of leader and executive should have this opportunity. Indeed, they have earned this opportunity. I refer particularly to the leader of Manchester City Council and his authority, which has blazed a trail in terms of urban regeneration and activities, not just for its authority but as one of the leading authorities in the Greater Manchester area of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, which now has parliamentary authority for a unique structure so far in terms of English local government.
Certainly the conferment of these wider powers is very welcome, particularly as I fear that some of the other changes in government policy will have an adverse effect on what everybody intends to happen, which is that the economic prosperity of these areas should be reinforced and, we hope, expanded.
I think that the Government erred in dismantling the regional structures, acknowledging that much of the work has to be at the sub-regional level, and therefore led by local authorities, in particular by the core cities. The disappearance, certainly in the north-east region of the Regional Development Agency has not been helpful. LEPs may be working in some places, but I do not think that they necessarily fill the gap. While I cannot speak for other parts of the country, certainly in the north-east I am bound to say with regret that an outbreak of parochialism, if not tribalism, is actually diminishing the capacity of what is a fairly compact region to deal with these issues. One hopes that the conferment of powers under this Bill will to a degree remedy that deficiency, but it is not axiomatic that authorities which are not so far being regarded as core cities will either seek these powers or use them in a collaborative way.
Later in the Bill we will talk about the duty to co-operate. It is a political duty rather than a legal one at the moment, so it remains to be seen how, in terms of planning, that duty can be strengthened. If the good intentions of this amendment are to be implemented, that will require a more constructive attitude on the part of some authorities than has been evident in the recent past. However, more than that is needed; it also requires a buy-in from a range of government departments and agencies. The Department for Communities and Local Government has set out its stall, but it remains to be seen whether other departments will, as it were, shop at that stall. There are some reasons to be concerned about that. One stems from the decision of the Government to abolish the regional offices and take back into Whitehall those civil servants up and down the country who became part of the dialogue between local areas and the Government in Whitehall. In my and others’ view, that local intelligence cannot simply be replaced by people sitting, in the case of Newcastle, in an office nearly 300 miles away, although the distances will differ. These people will not have a day-to-day acquaintance with the needs of an area or with local leaders, whether they be political or business leaders. In the north-east and no doubt elsewhere we found over many years that those who served in the Government offices became powerful and useful advocates for the regions and cities with the main departments in Whitehall. That, I think, is currently missing.
Beyond that, there is the question of what is happening to the community budgets. These are the replacement for the Total Place programme initiated at the suggestion of the Local Government Association, but adopted by the previous Government. The intention has been to pool resources across government departments and work to a common agenda which would differ according to each locality. That is the principle which has been piloted with some success. However, I have been making inquiries through Parliamentary Questions about the degree to which there has in fact been any buy-in by government departments to this agenda. It is totally unclear how much of the expenditure being authorised by departments at the local level has been applied to the concept of the community budgets. Apparently no one is even collating this information, let alone trying to ensure that departments are working with each other and their local partners on this programme. If that is the case for the policy that has been deployed until now, one has to wonder whether other departments will, in practice, fulfil the Government’s intentions—I repeat, I applaud them on adopting the policy set out in the amendment—in terms of the actual devolution of functions. If they are not prepared to co-operate and pool budgets in a joint way, will they seek to devolve functions to and through local government?
One can imagine a range of such functions, not least in the area in which my noble friend will have the good fortune to lead for the Opposition tomorrow and for some time hence, that of welfare reform. There are clear possibilities for much of the work being carried out in terms of employment, benefits and getting people from welfare into work to be done through local government and for responsibilities to be devolved in that respect. I hope that the Government will not simply wait for departments to come forward with proposals, but will positively promote the idea of piloting different approaches and services in authorities with a track record and whose capacity will in any event have to be recognised under the terms of the amendment.
It seems that this amendment has great potential for changing the way we respond to local needs and circumstances in a manner that reflects the strengths and opportunities as well as the weaknesses of a local and regional economy, and indeed those who make the decisions within it. But it needs to be driven across Whitehall. I do not know whether that would be a function of the Minister for Cities. Potentially it might be one, and I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is an unpaid adviser in that department. After spending many years in opposition and a few years in power in Newcastle, he is well qualified to assist the Minister, if that is the position. But again, this really does need to be driven from the top of Government, let alone by the Department for Communities and Local Government, however worthy it is in this respect. It is early days of course, and I do not know whether the Minister will be able to indicate whether there have been any discussions across the departments about how these matters might be progressed. Of course, we have only just had the amendment put before us so these are early days, but it would be reassuring if the Minister could say whether, at the very least, the Secretary of State would seek to work with Cabinet colleagues, the Local Government Association and perhaps a selection of the local authorities to explore in a coherent way how, while allowing for variation and experimentation, the intentions of this very worthy amendment could be implemented. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am delighted to have been able to put my name to these amendments. There is no doubt that the core cities have worked extraordinarily hard to make sure that what they are hoping to achieve is well understood. The amendments were originally moved by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, at the previous stage, and we have worked on them ever since. It is very appropriate that something like this is done on a cross-party basis. As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said, these are big powers that are very localist in nature and will do precisely what local government has wanted for a long time. It is therefore appropriate that they are now being presented in a way that enables us all to join in.
I am grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Tope, and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for all the questions he has asked me. I hope that I shall be able to answer some of them. However, we have learnt from him that the railway line to Newcastle is not operating because of fallen trees. That is useful to know at this stage in case we all suddenly want to run off and go there. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkin for expressing his support. We recognise that things have moved on a long way from the days when he was a very distinguished Secretary of State who was extremely supportive of local government. But I do not think that even he at that stage could have envisaged that we would have been able to do this.
As has been said, the new clauses proposed in the amendments allow for the transfer of public functions and the delegation of ministerial functions to local authorities and other permitted authorities. They combine the amendments that allowed for the transfer and delegation of functions to local authorities as originally tabled by the opposition Front Bench in Committee with a power a transfer functions to elected mayors as set out in new Section 9HA which, as a consequence, we are now withdrawing.
Baroness Hanham
“Passenger Transport Executives
(1) In Part 2 of the Transport Act 1968 (integrated transport authorities etc) after section 10 insert—
“10A Further powers of Executives
(1) The Executive of an integrated transport area in England may do—
(a) anything the Executive considers appropriate for the purposes of the carrying-out of any of the Executive’s functions (the Executive’s “functional purposes”),(b) anything the Executive considers appropriate for purposes incidental to the Executive’s functional purposes,(c) anything the Executive considers appropriate for purposes indirectly incidental to the Executive’s functional purposes through any number of removes,(d) anything the Executive considers to be connected with—(i) any of the Executive’s functions, or(ii) anything the Executive may do under paragraph (a), (b) or (c), and(e) for a commercial purpose anything which the Executive may do under any of paragraphs (a) to (d) otherwise than for a commercial purpose.(2) Where subsection (1) confers power on the Executive to do something, it confers power (subject to section 10B) to do it anywhere in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
(3) The Executive’s power under subsection (1) is in addition to, and is not limited by, the other powers of the Executive.
10B Boundaries of power under section 10A
(1) Section 10A(1) does not enable the Executive to do—
(a) anything which the Executive is unable to do by virtue of a pre-commencement limitation, or(b) anything which the Executive is unable to do by virtue of a post-commencement limitation which is expressed to apply—(i) to the Executive’s power under section 10A(1),(ii) to all of the Executive’s powers, or(iii) to all of the Executive’s powers but with exceptions that do not include the Executive’s power under section 10A(1).(2) If exercise of a pre-commencement power of the Executive is subject to restrictions, those restrictions apply also to exercise of the power conferred on the Executive by section 10A(1) so far as it is overlapped by the pre-commencement power.
(3) Section 10A(1) does not authorise the Executive to borrow money.
(4) Section 10A(1)(a) to (d) do not authorise the Executive to charge a person for anything done by the Executive otherwise than for a commercial purpose, but this does not limit any power to charge that the Executive has otherwise than under section 10A(1)(a) to (d).
(5) Section 10A(1)(e) does not authorise the Executive to do things for a commercial purpose in relation to a person if a statutory provision requires the Executive to do those things in relation to the person.
(6) Where under section 10A(1)(e) the Executive does things for a commercial purpose, it must do them through—
(a) a company within the meaning given by section 1(1) of the Companies Act 2006, or(b) a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 1965 or the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969. (7) In this section—
“post-commencement limitation” means a prohibition, restriction or other limitation imposed by a statutory provision that—
(a) is contained in an Act passed after the end of the Session in which the Localism Act 2011 is passed, or(b) is contained in an instrument made under an Act and comes into force on or after the commencement of section (Passenger Transport Executives)(1) of that Act;“pre-commencement limitation” means a prohibition, restriction or other limitation imposed by a statutory provision that—
(a) is contained in an Act passed no later than the end of the Session in which the Localism Act 2011 is passed, or(b) is contained in an instrument made under an Act and comes into force before the commencement of section (Passenger Transport Executives)(1) of that Act;“pre-commencement power” means power conferred by a statutory provision that—
(a) is contained in an Act passed no later than the end of the Session in which the Localism Act 2011 is passed, or(b) is contained in an instrument made under an Act and comes into force before the commencement of section (Passenger Transport Executives)(1) of that Act;“statutory provision” means a provision of an Act or of an instrument made under an Act.
10C Power to make provision supplemental to section 10A
(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision preventing the Executive from doing under section 10A(1) anything which is specified, or is of a description specified, in the order.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the exercise by the Executive of power conferred by section 10A(1) to be subject to conditions, whether generally or in relation to doing anything specified, or of a description specified, in the order.
(3) The power under subsection (1) or (2) may be exercised in relation to—
(a) all Executives,(b) particular Executives, or(c) particular descriptions of Executives.(4) Before making an order under subsection (1) or (2) the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) such representatives of Executives,(b) such representatives of local government, and(c) such other persons (if any),as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to an order under subsection (1) or (2) which is made only for the purpose of amending an earlier such order—
(a) so as to extend the earlier order, or any provision of the earlier order, to a particular Executive or to Executives of a particular description, or(b) so that the earlier order, or any provision of the earlier order, ceases to apply to a particular Executive or to Executives of a particular description.(6) Power to make an order under this section includes—
(a) power to make different provision for different cases, circumstances or areas, and(b) power to make incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional or transitory provision or savings.(7) A statutory instrument containing an order to which subsection (8) applies (whether alone or with other provisions) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(8) This subsection applies to—
(a) an order under subsection (1), other than one that is made only for the purpose mentioned in subsection (5)(b); (b) an order under subsection (2), other than one that is made only for that purpose or for imposing conditions on the doing of things for a commercial purpose.(9) A statutory instrument that—
(a) contains an order made under this section, and(b) is not subject to any requirement that a draft of the instrument be laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament,is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”(2) In section 10(1) of the Transport Act 1968 (powers of a Passenger Transport Executive)—
(a) in paragraph (xxvii) (power to invest sums not immediately needed) for “any sums which are not immediately required by them for the purposes of their business” substitute “their money”, and(b) in paragraph (xxviii) (power to turn unneeded resources to account) omit “so far as not required for the purposes of their business”.(3) In section 22 of the Transport Act 1968 (orders under Part 2 of that Act to be subject to annulment) after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Subsections (1) and (2) of this section do not apply in relation to orders under section 10C of this Act (but see subsections (7) to (9) of that section).”
(4) In section 93(9) of the Local Government Act 2003 (authorities with power under section 93 to charge for discretionary services) before paragraph (b) insert—
“(ab) the Passenger Transport Executive of an integrated transport area in England;”.(5) In section 95(7) of the Local Government Act 2003 (power to authorise certain authorities to do for commercial purposes things that they can do for non-commercial purposes) in the definition of “relevant authority” before paragraph (b) insert—
“(ab) the Passenger Transport Executive of an integrated transport area in England;”.”
Baroness Hanham
“Economic prosperity boards and combined authorities
(1) In Part 6 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (economic prosperity boards and combined authorities) after section 113 insert—
“General powers of EPBs and combined authorities113A General power of EPB or combined authority
(1) An EPB or combined authority may do—
(a) anything it considers appropriate for the purposes of the carrying-out of any of its functions (its “functional purposes”),(b) anything it considers appropriate for purposes incidental to its functional purposes,(c) anything it considers appropriate for purposes indirectly incidental to its functional purposes through any number of removes,(d) anything it considers to be connected with—(i) any of its functions, or(ii) anything it may do under paragraph (a), (b) or (c), and(e) for a commercial purpose anything which it may do under any of paragraphs (a) to (d) otherwise than for a commercial purpose. (2) Where subsection (1) confers power on an EPB or combined authority to do something, it confers power (subject to section 113B) to do it anywhere in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
(3) Power conferred on an EPB or combined authority by subsection (1) is in addition to, and is not limited by, its other powers.
113B Boundaries of power under section 113A
(1) Section 113A(1) does not enable an EPB or combined authority to do—
(a) anything which it is unable to do by virtue of a pre-commencement limitation, or(b) anything which it is unable to do by virtue of a post-commencement limitation which is expressed to apply—(i) to its power under section 113A(1),(ii) to all of its powers, or(iii) to all of its powers but with exceptions that do not include its power under section 113A(1).(2) If exercise of a pre-commencement power of an EPB or combined authority is subject to restrictions, those restrictions apply also to exercise of the power conferred on it by section 113A(1) so far as that power is overlapped by the pre-commencement power.
(3) Section 113A(1) does not authorise an EPB or combined authority to borrow money.
(4) Section 113A(1)(a) to (d) do not authorise an EPB or combined authority to charge a person for anything done by it otherwise than for a commercial purpose (but see section 93 of the Local Government Act 2003 (power of EPBs, combined authorities and other best value authorities to charge for discretionary services)).
(5) Section 113A(1)(e) does not authorise an EPB or combined authority to do things for a commercial purpose in relation to a person if a statutory provision requires it to do those things in relation to the person.
(6) Where under section 113A(1)(e) an EPB or combined authority does things for a commercial purpose, it must do them through—
(a) a company within the meaning given by section 1(1) of the Companies Act 2006, or(b) a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 1965 or the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969.(7) In this section—
“post-commencement limitation” means a prohibition, restriction or other limitation imposed by a statutory provision that—
(a) is contained in an Act passed after the end of the Session in which the Localism Act 2011 is passed, or(b) is contained in an instrument made under an Act and comes into force on or after the commencement of section (Economic prosperity boards and combined authorities)(1) of that Act;“pre-commencement limitation” means a prohibition, restriction or other limitation imposed by a statutory provision that—
(a) is contained in an Act passed no later than the end of the Session in which the Localism Act 2011 is passed, or(b) is contained in an instrument made under an Act and comes into force before the commencement of section (Economic prosperity boards and combined authorities)(1) of that Act;“pre-commencement power” means power conferred by a statutory provision that—
(a) is contained in an Act passed no later than the end of the Session in which the Localism Act 2011 is passed, or (b) is contained in an instrument made under an Act and comes into force before the commencement of section (Economic prosperity boards and combined authorities)(1) of that Act;“statutory provision” means a provision of an Act or of an instrument made under an Act.
113C Power to make provision supplemental to section 113A
(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision preventing EPBs or combined authorities from doing under section 113A(1) anything which is specified, or is of a description specified, in the order.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the exercise by EPBs or combined authorities of power conferred by section 113A(1) to be subject to conditions, whether generally or in relation to doing anything specified, or of a description specified, in the order.
(3) The power under subsection (1) or (2) may be exercised in relation to—
(a) all EPBs,(b) all combined authorities,(c) particular EPBs,(d) particular combined authorities,(e) particular descriptions of EPBs, or(f) particular descriptions of combined authorities.(4) Before making an order under subsection (1) or (2) the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) such representatives of EPBs or combined authorities,(b) such representatives of local government, and(c) such other persons (if any),as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to an order under subsection (1) or (2) which is made only for the purpose of amending an earlier such order—
(a) so as to extend the earlier order, or any provision of the earlier order, to a particular EPB or combined authority or to EPBs or combined authorities of a particular description, or(b) so that the earlier order, or any provision of the earlier order, ceases to apply to a particular EPB or combined authority or to EPBs or combined authorities of a particular description.(6) Power to make an order under this section includes—
(a) power to make different provision for different cases, circumstances or areas, and(b) power to make incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional or transitory provision or savings.”(2) For section 117(2) and (3) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (affirmative procedure applies to orders under Part 6 other than certain orders under section 116) substitute—
“(2) An order to which subsection (2A) applies may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order (whether alone or with other provisions) has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(2A) This subsection applies to an order under this Part other than—
(a) an order under section 113C(1) that is made only for the purpose mentioned in section 113C(5)(b),(b) an order under section 113C(2) that is made only for that purpose or for imposing conditions on the doing of things for a commercial purpose, or(c) an order under section 116 that amends or revokes provision contained in an instrument subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament. (3) A statutory instrument that—
(a) contains an order under this Part, and(b) is not subject to any requirement that a draft of the instrument be laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament,is subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament.””
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we debated both these amendments in Committee. We accept that most proposals for additional governance models will come from local authorities. That will be how the impact will go given their expertise as practitioners. However, Amendment 119F still fails to recognise that ideas and proposals about new governance models may also come from other sources. The amendment says that the Secretary of State cannot do anything without having a proposal put to him. We need to make it clear that those proposals could come not only from local government but from local government representatives, think tanks or research units. Therefore, they might not be sufficiently well formed for the Government to take them on board. Saying that the Secretary of State may implement something only after a suggestion has been put forward may be restrictive, although the noble Lord is also saying that the Secretary of State should not be able to dream up a form of governance and then try to implement it. That is not the sense of this legislation. I hear what the noble Lord says, but that is not the intention.
In any case, if the Secretary of State decided to do that, he would be forcing local authorities to do something that they may not want to do and that is not the intention behind these provisions. We are not going to force local authorities. They would not have to adopt arrangements set out in any regulations made under this provision. This is an empowering clause not a diktat clause.
In Amendment 119G, the conditions that the noble Lord suggests are, if I may put it politely, less useful for local authorities than the existing ones. It does not seem unreasonable that there should be an explicit requirement that any proposed new arrangements should be an improvement on what is already there. There are three areas of governance listed in the Bill and anything else would have to be an improvement on what is there. I believe that the existing conditions give clarity for local authorities that may be considering submitting a proposal and we would not want to change that.
Finally, I remind noble Lords that any regulations made under this provision would simply extend the range of choice of governance models available to local authorities. They would not have to adopt those arrangements. They would be one more in addition to that list of three if somebody can think of something remarkable to do.
I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beecham
I am grateful to the Minister although it is entirely unclear who would judge and on what basis whether the change was an improvement or not. However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Localism Bill
Baroness Hanham Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hanham
“(1A) The Mayor must, subject to sub-paragraph (3), exercise the Mayor’s power under sub-paragraph (1) so as to secure that the members of an MDC include at least one elected member of each relevant London council.
(1B) For the purposes of this Schedule—
(a) “London council” means a London borough council or the Common Council of the City of London, and(b) a London council is “relevant” in relation to an MDC if any part of the MDC’s area is within the council’s area.”
Baroness Hanham
“(ca) the member has since being appointed ceased to be an elected member of a relevant London council and the Mayor wishes to appoint an elected member of that council to be a member of the MDC in the member’s place,”
Baroness Hanham
“(ba) its members not including at least one elected member of each relevant London council,”
Localism Bill
Baroness Hanham Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I can be extremely brief. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, indicated, we have put our name to the amendment and support it for the reasons that have been advanced by the noble Lords, Lord Palmer and Lord Jenkin. It is about getting long-term security of what has been agreed and what is seemingly in place into primary legislation. I am bound to say that we do not expect that Ken would overturn these arrangements any time soon. I can well understand that people may want security just in case it might cross his mind.
It is good to hear the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, again in our debates. His long-standing engagement with housing in Luton under the old system was seen as one of the more important committees. It was 10 years before I was allowed on it. He has a great deal more experience than I do. I support the amendments and urge the Government to take them forward. We do not need to be apart on this. There is agreement on what is happening. It is the right thing to do.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this. One of the most enlightening things that we have heard today is that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, took up the Housing Committee at the age of 35, as he has admitted that it was exactly 50 years ago and we know that today is his birthday. On behalf of the House we wish him a very happy birthday. Patrick, thank you for all that you do and the contribution that you make.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, this is important. We do not believe that it is necessary to prescribe in statute the requirement on the Greater London Authority to establish a London housing and regeneration board. The letter of July 2010, to which others have referred, assumed a decision-making board. However, there were concerns over accountability. I will come further on to that.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, put the case very well. For the benefit of noble Lords who might not have picked up the letter that I wrote following the withdrawal of the amendments last time, I should say that we believe that setting a board in statute would give London minimal flexibility in determining its own arrangements for governing housing and regeneration activities. We want to keep prescription by central government to a minimum and ensure that the Greater London Authority is free to respond to changing times and circumstances without having to resort to changing primary legislation to do so.
The Mayor of London, the Assembly and London Councils are already deciding how they want to run things. They are already in the process of change, without any input from the Government. They are able to set up a board structure such as the amendment suggests—should they want to. They do not have to wait for us to tell them how to do it, they can do it themselves. I think that is one of the main reasons why we do not particularly want to put this on to the statute book. They can do it, they are able to do it, so there is no reason to tell them to do it, and they do do it.
A decision-making board will ultimately determine the GLA’s housing and regeneration activities, but the GLA was created on a model of a democratically elected executive mayor to provide strong leadership and do things on behalf of London. Therefore it is important that the mayor has the final decision on housing and regeneration matters, but he has to take into account the views of the boroughs as well. Of course, the checks and balances on the mayor should remain with the London Assembly, which is there to hold the mayor to account.
We do not think that it is a good thing to put the mayor in the position of having to have a board. We are absolutely clear that he is working very co-operatively with London Councils and the local government group. Therefore I think that we would resist very much putting that on to the face of the Bill. In light of what I said in my letter and what I have said today, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hanham makes my points for me. She points out that the GLA and the mayor will evolve; things will happen. That is exactly what frightens me. Under whichever mayor, of whichever colour, whether it is next year, four years hence or eight years hence, as the Minister says, the GLA can evolve and change, and that is its virtue. In fact, it is the opposite. What we are trying to do is to enshrine in primary legislation a protection for the 32 London boroughs and for the GLA, a partnership of which we all approve, rather than rely on the good will and resolve of the mayor of the time, whenever that may be. The idea that it should evolve, put forward by the Minister, makes the case for it being in primary legislation. However, at this stage, with the mass of people in this place having tested the water, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Localism Bill
Baroness Hanham Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, it has been a very interesting and helpful debate, mostly coming from people who understand the process in place at the moment. There has been a lot of talk about arbitration. However, this is not about arbitration; it is about resolution. It is about somebody having a problem and needing it resolved. They need somebody to write a letter to the housing chairman. They need somebody to write a letter because they have been through the process and they have not got a reasonable answer. As former councillors, we have all done precisely this and made sure that there is some means of resolving a problem for tenants. To say that councillors, MPs, and now tenants cannot do this seems absurd.
One of the reasons for suggesting that people take their complaints through one of those filters—if that is what they are—is, as my noble friend Lord Tope said, that there is a strong belief that removing housing by and large from the direct control and interest of councils and taking it to ALMOs and housing associations means that councillors and MPs become disconnected from the problems. Councillors in particular ought to know what is going on in the housing stock in their borough. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, knows exactly what she is doing and has a very good complaints procedure. I am not sure that is true of every ALMO or even of the way council properties are run. So we want to reconnect councillors and MPs with what is going wrong within their area. Can we dump the suggestion of arbitration? Nobody is asking them to arbitrate. We are asking them to resolve a problem. If they cannot resolve the problem, they would be required to pass the matter on to the Local Government Ombudsman with the agreement of the complainant.
I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. We recognise that the Housing Ombudsman does an extremely good job. There is no doubt about that. It is responsive and it knows what it is doing. This is not about trying to exclude the ombudsman from the system. But the Housing Ombudsman has an enormous case load which went up by 72 per cent between 2007-08 and 2009-10. Maybe that reflects the fact that there are more complaints coming forward about housing, which could be dealt with locally if there was the opportunity to do so. An additional 11 per cent of complaints have been made in the past year.
We want to ensure that the ombudsman is not the first port of call. We do not want the immediate response to be, “Oh, I’m going off to the ombudsman”. There should be a step before that; namely, going to one’s tenants panel, a councillor or an MP and seeing whether the matter can first be resolved through them.
A dual-track model currently applies to complaints to the Local Government Ombudsman. In practice, although the ombudsman does not collect detailed statistics, complaints are almost always submitted directly to the ombudsman and not via local councillors. Therefore, we are not convinced that this model will help local complaint resolution.
I have listened carefully to what has been said and I know that these matters have been raised over a number of weeks. I understand what has been said about discussions passing a last barrier point between the council or tenants panel to the ombudsman. I am not clear that dual track increases the number of ways of resolving complaints, but I have heard what has been said. Bearing in mind what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Tope, and my noble friends Lord True and Lady Eaton, who all see the advantage of an initial stage, I am happy to look again at the second stage and how a matter would get to the ombudsman. I give a commitment to do that before the next stage of the Bill so that we can discuss how we think that could take over. We feel that this would be a good way to proceed. I hope that both my noble friends and the noble Lords opposite will be content for us to see whether there is a way through here without absolutely undermining the provisions that the Government wish to introduce. The Government believe that local people who are associated with local housing and have become disconnected from it should be aware of what is going on and be capable of dealing with a lot of the problems that tenants have without them having to approach the ombudsman.
My offer is one of discussions to see whether there is a way through. If we have not found one by Third Reading, we will be able to deal with the matter then. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, does the Minister accept that what has been proposed would enable tenants to keep their right to decide whether they want to go through their councillor or MP or go directly to the ombudsman? What the Government are proposing denies them that choice. That is the problem that we have on this side of the House.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I do not think that it denies them the choice. I am happy to look into how the passing from one to the other can be done. We think that there should be an initial stage. Often, those initial stages work: a councillor intervenes; they see what is going on; and the matter is resolved at that level. If that does not happen and somebody goes directly to the ombudsman, it is very difficult for councillors and tenants panels to know exactly what people are thinking. People do not always want to go to the ombudsman and would quite like somebody to deal with the matter at a local level. That is why we think the initial responsibility for getting matters put right lies with one of those three groups. I am very happy to look at how we can deal with the question of whether it is a requirement for the MP or local councillor to be the final arbiter of when a matter is passed on to the local ombudsman.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and, indeed, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. We all support the idea that the service provider should be the first person to solve the matter and that there should be good ways of doing so. We all prefer local resolution and we all want councillor involvement. I do not think that there is anything between us on that. The only difference is in whether an extra layer should be added and whether we want a veto regarding whether people can, after that extra layer, go to the Housing Ombudsman.
Obviously I am addressing myself to those who I think have already reached a compromise. I hope that they have not, because some problems remain with the amendments, which may not now be moved. One, which has not yet been covered, is that the complaint is still required to be made in writing. Part of our amendment was intended to remove that requirement. I realise that we are on Report rather than in Committee, and therefore that may be a possibility. However, it would be a new statutory requirement. It would go against good practice and, indeed, the Law Commission has specifically recommended against it. Its latest report on public service ombudsmen states:
“We recommend that all formal, statutory requirements that complaints submitted to the public service ombudsmen be written are repealed”.
That is because of vulnerable consumers.
Baroness Hanham
“Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 17)59A The Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 is amended as follows.
59B In section 18(2) (co-operation with other regulators: definition of “relevant regulators”) in paragraph (a) for “the Office for Tenants and Social Landlords” substitute “the Regulator of Social Housing”.
59C In section 68(3) (determination of accounting requirements for registered social landlords: consultation with other bodies) in paragraph (c) for “the Office for Tenants and Social Landlords” substitute “the Regulator of Social Housing”.
Equality Act 2010 (c. 15)59D In Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010 (public authorities) omit the entry for the Office for Tenants and Social Landlords.”
Lord Greaves
My Lords, we discussed this issue at some length when debating a previous group of amendments. The Minister gave a clear assurance that we can have discussions before Third Reading. I hope that we can come to some consensus. On that basis, there is nothing more that I need to say.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am in an interesting position. I offered discussions when debating the last group of amendments, but the offer was rejected forcibly by the vote. I have now been asked whether I will have discussions on these amendments, and I am happy to say that I am content to have them.
Lord Greaves
I think that that was an acceptable answer. I understand that we cannot bring back the amendment that was defeated in the vote, but there are plenty of things in these amendments that we can talk about in relation to what the Bill states. That gives us sufficient leeway to talk about what we want to talk about. Whether the Government will extend their offer of discussions to the Opposition, who rudely threw it back in their face on the previous group of amendments, I do not know. I would welcome their participation, but that is up to the Government.
Lord Greaves
These are all interventions on my speech, but that is quite all right. I happily give way to the Minister.
Baroness Hanham
I will try to dig us out of this muddle. I am happy to have discussions and to include the Opposition. The discussions might be overshadowed slightly by the way in which we proceed on these amendments. However, it is perfectly proper that we should have them and include everybody.
Localism Bill
Baroness Hanham Excerpts(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, it is now 3.09 pm, the House is arranged to close at 7 pm today, it being a Thursday—
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
We had every intention of debating it and, as noble Lords will know, I complained about having to wait day after day in the hope of getting to this amendment. Yesterday it was quite clear that we were running out of time. This Bill is terribly important and it is important that we get to Report stage. It was because of the degree of importance that we decided to take action and seek an assurance from the Minister that we would be guaranteed sufficient time to debate it on Report. It will be debated then.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, just about everything that could be said has been said on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked about gas extraction. I will have a letter written to him before the next stage so that he knows the situation.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
We had a canter round this yesterday—at least it seems like it was yesterday. We are very supportive of these amendments.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we did indeed discuss this yesterday and we had a bit of discussion on the subjective nature of design decisions. I think we all agree that design is an enormously important part of planning, as indeed it is an important part of developing and ensuring how a community looks and what an area is like.
I have great admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Best, but I think this amendment is unnecessary. As he has already pointed out, planning authorities get independent expert advice from the Design Council, and local planning authorities are already able and indeed encouraged to submit applications to design review panels and to heed their impartial, expert advice. I am not sure that putting any more legislation forward on this will do anything. However, we will undertake to give encouragement to local authorities to make sure that they understand that design review panels are a good thing. So there really is no reason for this. We need to keep it out of legislation. I understand the purpose behind it but there are already proper ways of dealing with this. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the noble Lord has introduced an interesting amendment which rustles between two responsibilities. If this were a very big application, such as those in the first part of the amendment—sites, ports, airfields—that would not be the responsibility of local authorities, that would be for the new planning inspectorates or commission. On the other applications, I think that that would happen already—it is all part and parcel of our planning considerations—and while we understand the concern about balancing the transport system in favour of sustainable transport, which the noble Lord mentioned, he should understand that is only part of what is included.
Many of these areas are already taken into account—I am trying to go back to my own limited experience from years ago—and most are things that the planning committee would be interested in, while the bigger applications will be dealt with by other means, although local authorities will, of course, be able to comment on them as they go along. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Berkeley
I am very grateful to the Minister for that response. She is absolutely right that on big projects, these things should be taken into account in the whole, but I still have a concern about something falling between two stools, if that is the right analogy. Perhaps I can have a discussion with her between now and Report, or read Hansard. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for his kind words from the Government Front Bench. They are much appreciated. The Opposition fully support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty. The proposal is strategic and practical. It sets up a context for the debate and other sections of the Bill. It provides both the Government and the local authority with valuable information for assisting the planning for housing need in the future. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to accept my noble friend’s amendment. If not, I hope that she will feel able to take it away and look at it over summer, maybe in the terms referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, in the previous amendment.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. He was sharp, swift and brief—brilliant. We will have more of the noble Lord, if we might. On the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, I am once again going to say that we do not need it. While I admire the verve with which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has presented his case, there are already statutory provisions.
Local authorities are already under statutory provisions to provide plans for the housing needs of their population and to discharge their housing functions in accordance with their strategic priories as detailed in their housing strategies. Section 13 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires local planning authorities to keep under review matters that are likely to affect the development of their area, including size, composition and distribution of the housing for their population. In addition, planning policy statement 3 and the associated guidance on strategic housing assessment make clear that local authority plans should be informed by a robust evidence base of housing need and demand in its area for market and affordable housing.
Section 87 of the Local Government Act 2003 provides a power for the Secretary of State to require all local housing authorities to have a housing strategy, so the provision is there already. It is well understood that local authorities should be more than clear about the requirements in their area in this regard. The current guidance on local housing strategies in England stresses that the local housing strategy is the local housing authority’s vision for housing in its area. It should set out objectives, targets and policies on how the authority intends to manage and deliver its strategic housing role, and provides an overarching framework against which the authority considers and formulates other policies on more specific housing issues. That is the strength of my argument in saying that we do not need the amendment. However, I understand the concern that lies behind it and behind the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. We are dramatically underhoused.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has drawn attention to the limited housebuilding that has occurred over a number of years. Last year we had one of the lowest housebuilding programmes since 1923. We are trying to boost housebuilding. We have introduced the new homes bonus and are trying to encourage building through various means such as shared ownership and buy now pay later schemes. There are all sorts of plans to increase housing but you cannot do it overnight; it takes time to develop. However, there is no misunderstanding on the part of this Government that housing and a housing strategy are needed. With the assurance that this amendment is not necessary for the reasons I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and my noble friend Lord Kennedy for their support for the amendment. I also thank the Minister for at least appreciating what lies behind the amendment. I understand that bits and pieces of the requirement for a strategy are in various bits of existing legislation. However, the most coherent expression is to be found in the planning guidance. Indeed, I have sought to gather some of the themes of the planning guidance in one place and to give it statutory backing. The noble Baroness says that the amendment is not necessary. I may return to it but for the moment I accept that. As she rightly says, this is a long-term problem. It has arisen over a long time and will take a long time to resolve. Those of us who are veterans of the housing debate know that I was not particularly supportive of various aspects of the previous Government’s policy in this regard. I have yet to be convinced that the new Government’s policy is likely to deliver more housing, particularly affordable housing for the kind of people I have talked about.
There is a need for a strategic framework here. The Localism Bill, in so far as it redefines the decisions that are to be taken locally, is probably the right place for it. I will consider carefully what the noble Baroness has said. However, at some point in this whole housing policy debate and in the Localism Bill we will have to re-emphasise the fact that the national drivers—in so far as they worked—have largely gone, and that the real driving force in solving what is admittedly a long-term housing problem now rests with our local authorities. If I have at least got that message across and the Government follow it through, I will have achieved something. I have taken 20 minutes over this amendment, for which I apologise. I may return to it at Report, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I too have heard these speeches although I have not been present in the Chamber. I wanted to comment on Amendment 173A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, relating to the suitability of accommodation. It would be terrific if we could do it. However, going back 40 years, when I had housing responsibility, we found that the only thing we could offer homeless people then was bed and breakfast. We ran out of central London bed-and-breakfast accommodation and people had to travel quite a lot further out. So although “suitable accommodation” is the ideal, I do not know how it can ever be realistically achieved. That is the worry about what the future might be for this.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, this is clearly a debate that needs a lot more time than we have got tonight. I have listened to some very moving and knowledgeable speeches on the amendments and I understand fully the points that people have been making. The trouble is the time constraints—the way these have been grouped in this large bunch makes it almost impossible for me to deal with all the many points that have been raised in the manner in which I would have wished to do so. As a result, I will probably be quite general in my comments, but if there are issues which I think need further application, and I have not dealt with them properly, I will look at those in Hansard and will try to make sure there is a response. I think my response will be dry—it is not meant to be and I do understand all the points that have been made. I know that my colleagues in the House of Commons have made some quite sympathetic statements and I am not going to undermine any of those. However, in the interests of time, at this stage, I am going to respond to the amendments briefly. I ask people to forgive me for not going into great detail on what they have said, since it is inevitable that I shall not be able to do so.
I shall start quickly with Amendments 171D, 172A, 173ZE, 173ZF, 171B, 171C and 173. We all understand that the people who face homelessness need suitable accommodation, but they do not always require social housing. Therefore, local authorities should have the flexibility to take case-by-case decisions. The changes in these amendments would undermine the intention of the proposed measures. This would be unfair to households on social housing waiting lists, who would have to wait longer to have their housing needs met. This is a balance that housing authorities have to make all the time. It would be unfair to the taxpayer who would have to fund expensive temporary accommodation that is often completely unsatisfactory, as noble Lords know. By housing people in social housing who might manage in the private rented sector, we would stop somebody who needs social housing, probably on a lifetime tenancy, from getting it.
Our reforms strike a sensible balance between the additional safeguards for homeless households offered in the private rented sector accommodation, ending the main duty, and fairness to other households in need. It is not practical to expect private landlords to be prepared to offer tenancies for an initial fixed term of more than 12 months to tenants they do not know, although it will be possible and very probable that local authorities will want and need to negotiate longer tenancies where they can, if 12 months does not prove to be sufficient time.
I turn to Amendments 172, 173A, 173AA, 171D and 172A, and apologise for not attributing them to the relevant noble Lords. Existing safeguards will apply before the duty can be brought to an end with a private rented sector offer. The authority must be satisfied that the accommodation is suitable for the applicant and his or her household. In considering suitability, authorities must by law consider whether a specific property is suitable for the applicant and their household's individual needs. This includes considering whether the accommodation is affordable for the applicant, as well as its size, condition, accessibility and location. A lot has to be taken into account before the offer is made. On affordability, the local authority must by law consider the applicant's financial resources and the total cost of accommodation in determining whether the accommodation is suitable.
Statutory guidance, to which local authorities must have regard by law, sets out the factors on location and standards that should be taken into account. It also states that housing authorities should consider that a property would not be affordable if a claimant's residual income after rent and associated costs would be less than the level of means-tested benefit. Tying down criteria in legislation would restrict the ability of the local authority to make decisions on what is reasonable affordability, balanced against the availability of properties.
I understand the concerns about the issue of physical standards. I have laid a Statement in the House Library confirming that we are prepared to use existing order-making powers and setting out the factors that could be included in such an order. In doing so, we will work closely with organisations such as Shelter and Crisis to make sure that that is all workable.
Amendments 173ZZD, 173ZBA, 173ZA, 173ZB, 173ZD 173ZC and 173AB would place specific requirements on local authorities to provide advice and assistance and to collect data. This is too bureaucratic and I will resist the amendments for that reason.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of Amendment 173B moved by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and on other welcome amendments in this group.
Amendment 173B adds an important protection to exempt vulnerable and older people from flexible tenancies. Amendment 173CA in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, adds an additional protection to extend those terms from two to seven years. Amendment 173CB in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, seeks to have protection regarding previous tenancy arrangements. In his Amendment 173D the noble Lord, Lord Best, also seeks to add a protection for the review decision so that it proceeds,
“on the basis of a presumption that a new flexible tenancy for a term at least equivalent to the current or previous”,
terms of the tenancy. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, highlighted in his amendment the exemptions for vulnerable or older people from flexible tenancies.
As I said in my previous remarks, the Opposition are very concerned about this Bill, and particularly this housing section. We very much hope that the Government are listening to what has been said in the House today. I hope that the Minister can either accept these amendments or give the House an assurance that she is going to take them away, reflect on them, and bring these matters back at Report.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, before I respond to the debate, I move the government amendments that are in my name—
The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)
If the noble Baroness forgives me, you can only move amendments at the point at which they come in the Marshalled List. You can speak to them with the greatest of pleasure.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I shall learn after another few years if I have not learnt before. My apologies to the House.
I will speak to the amendments in my name. Government Amendments 174N and 174P are small amendments which remove requirements on landlords to register a tenancy with the Land Registry and execute the tenancy by deed. They reflect concerns from the National Housing Federation that requirements to register tenancies with a term of more than seven years and execute by deed those with a term of more than three years would discourage landlords from granting longer-term tenancies. There are, in these circumstances, no practical advantages to a social tenant from either the tenancy being registered or executed by deed since they cannot deal in their tenancy—that is, tenancies in social housing may not be bought and sold. These amendments simply put fixed-term social tenants on the same footing as secure or assured social tenants in this regard.
I turn to government Amendments 173CAA, 173CC, 173CD, 174B, 174C, 174D, 174E, 174F, 174G, 174H, 174J, 174K, 174L and 174M. These amendments make small corrections to the existing text of the Bill and provide additional clarification where parliamentary counsel considers this helpful. They make no change to our policy intention. Those are the government amendments; I now turn to the debate on this part of the Bill which, as I expected, was again half understanding but also slightly quarrelsome. I will again seek to answer the amendments as well as I can.
The amendment spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, would be an unhelpful restriction on local authority landlords’ flexibility to use their social housing stock in a way which best meets the needs of individual households and their local area. This question was about the two-year minimum-term offers. I need to explain that we believe that there is some advantage in seriously exceptional circumstances—and I stress these will be very exceptional circumstances—for landlords to be able to provide for a short period of housing when it is felt it is needed and proper protection.
We have consulted landlords on this and they have made it clear that the great majority would only issue two-year tenancies under exceptional circumstances. As we expect and mean that to be exceptional, as I will say later on, we will look to see what we need to do to underline that. We continue to affirm that we expect longer tenancies of five or 10 years, and of course lifetime tenancies, to be the norm. Those are particularly for vulnerable households or those with children.
Of course the vulnerable will be protected. We intend to require landlords in their tenancy policies to take specific account of the needs of those who are vulnerable through the provision of tenancies that provide a reasonable degree of stability. Two-year tenancies might be appropriate in particular and probably quite exceptional circumstances—for example, helping young people to enter employment; for a family who need a larger home for the short term; or perhaps for someone who has had a serious accident, cannot manage in their own home for a short period and needs access to accessible housing for a short term before they return home. As regards larger housing requirements, people’s children often leave home and therefore the tenancy may not be needed any more. We know that some local authorities are considering how fixed-term tenancies could help them to develop support packages for recovering drug addicts, for example.
I want to underline firmly that we are looking for these provisions to be applied in exceptional circumstances and, in the light of today’s debate, I will reflect on how we can ensure that social landlords grant only tenancies with a term of less than five years in exceptional circumstances. We probably will not be able to put that in the Bill because it may not make sense; but there will be strong guidance about what we mean by exceptional two-year tenancies. I will discuss this matter with officials and consider the best way of dealing with it because I want to make it absolutely clear so that people are not concerned any more. I know that they have been.
Amendments 173B, 174A and 174 propose new clauses that would create categories of individuals and families who could not be offered a flexible tenancy. They would always have to receive a lifetime tenancy. We recognise that the needs of older people and the needs of those with a disability, for example, are likely to remain broadly constant over the long term. Lifetime or long-term tenancies are, of course, likely to be appropriate for these households in the vast majority of cases. More importantly, landlords recognise that too. In only the most exceptional cases will two-year tenancies be granted, but they will usually be for significantly longer or a lifetime for those with ongoing needs. As a safeguard, our draft direction to the social housing regulator sets out our intention to require landlords in their tenancy policies to take specific account of the needs of the vulnerable. Indeed, we have strengthened our proposed terms for the tenure standard, having listened carefully to the views expressed. That is a better way forward than seeking to prescribe centrally categories of people who should always be granted a lifetime tenancy.
The new clauses proposed by Amendments 173B and 174A include a new ground for possession to be available for secure tenancies and provided to some new tenants if a property is more extensive than is reasonably required by the tenant and if the landlord can supply a suitable alternative. I support the intention behind these amendments. We need to do more to make best use of social homes, but we do not believe that these amendments are the right way forward. Flexible tenancies will be a far better means of tackling overcrowding and underoccupancy. They offer a straightforward deal between landlords and tenants, particularly on underoccupancy. A landlord could, for example, offer a family a large family home on a 15-year tenancy on the clear understanding that they would be required to move to a smaller social property at the end of that term when their children had left home and, therefore, they had more space than was necessary.
Amendment 173CB seeks to put into legislation for some existing tenants the guarantee of continued security on moving home. We by contrast are putting in place through regulation a guarantee of continued security for all existing tenants who move to a social rented home. I hope that that answers the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. We are upholding our promise that existing tenants’ rights would be protected and respected, and that includes guaranteeing the same level of security to existing tenants who move to another social rented property. We will do that through a direction to the housing regulator on the new tenancy standard, which we have now published for consultation. All social landlords will be required to meet the tenancy standard, which will guarantee continued security to existing secure and assured tenancy, unlike this amendment.
We do not believe Amendments 173D and 173E are necessary. A review of the original decision must be carried out by a more senior officer not previously involved to ensure that the decision was fair and in line with the landlord’s published tenancy policy. Should the reviewing officer conclude that the decision is not in line with the landlord’s policy then the landlord will have to reconsider. If he does not then a tenant can approach a local councillor, MP or tenancy panel for assistance and have their case referred to the Housing Ombudsman. The Bill makes clear that where a landlord seeks possession of a tenant’s property, despite a review concluding that they were not acting in line with their own policy, then of course the court will refuse that application. The inclusion of a reference to comply with human rights is therefore not necessary. Landlords will need to ensure their decisions on tenancies are proportionate in human rights terms. Recent judgments make clear that a tenant of a local authority will be able to raise a proportionality defence in possession proceedings.
Amendment 173CE would widen the scope of the review available to a tenant or prospective tenant on the length of a tenancy being offered by a local authority. As the Bill stands, the review gives the individual an opportunity to request a review if they consider that the length of the tenancy they are being offered is not in line with the landlord’s published tenancy policy. That policy must set out the kinds and length of tenancies the landlord will grant in different circumstances. If a decision by the landlord appears to be out of line with the policy then it is absolutely right that a prospective tenant should be able to challenge it. If a prospective tenant has concerns that the tenancy policy is not fair, they are free to pursue the issue through the landlord complaints procedure.
Amendment 173CF changes the wording of the Bill to request a review on the length of tenancy. We are covered with that; as it stands, a person seeking a review could argue that their tenancy should be for life.
I will respond to Amendment 174AA although I am not sure whether it was spoken to. While I agree it makes sense that when a tenancy will be for life, a tenant should be compensated when the tenancy is for a fixed term, a right to compensation makes less sense. Perhaps we did not discuss compensation but I will finish nevertheless. This is about flexibility for the landlord, making sure they can make best use of their stock. Forcing a landlord to pay for improvements made by a tenant who may shortly be moving on is just not practical.
I have spoken in some detail—perhaps more than anybody would have wished— but I hope that having done so it will set the base for future debate. I ask that, with those responses, noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Best
My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the Minister for that very long and valuable exposition of the many ways in which things may turn out for the best at the end of this process. I welcome her reassurance that lifelong tenancies will still be very much the bread and butter of what social housing is all about; not just for those with extremely important ongoing needs, such as older people and those with disabilities, but for families with children, for whom a tenancy for life—a proper family home—is so important. Where social landlords do use flexible tenancies, she makes it clear that these will seldom be for less than the full five years. In any case, they will be relatively exceptional.
The noble Baroness mentioned the guarantee that those who move or transfer their home will take with them the same security of tenure. That is very important. She made a lot of reassurances that we will be able to read at our leisure during the summer, which I hope we will find satisfactory. The Minister explained that a lot of those ministerial intents will be put into practice through the regulator having the power to issue firm requirements on social landlords in relation to tenure. That is an extension of the way in which the regulator works at present. None of the three noble Lords whose names were above mine who were to oppose the Question that Clause 133 should stand part of the Bill rose to do so—I do not suggest that they do now. The noble Baroness explains the value of the regulator having that role. She gives me a dilemma because, as a matter of principle, many people are opposed to the Secretary of State giving more and more instructions to the regulator and are aware of the dangers that that has of taking away the independence of the social housing landlords. Perhaps we could debate those matters when some of us oppose Clause 134 standing part of the Bill. In the mean time, with all those reassurances from the noble Baroness, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Best
My Lords, I apologise for speaking again, but I shall do so only briefly. Amendment 173C is supported by the Local Government Association and the National Housing Federation. Clause 131 places a duty on every local authority to draw up a tenancy strategy for its area. The social landlords, the registered providers of social housing, must then have regard to that tenancy strategy in formulating their tenancy policies. Neither local authorities nor housing associations are in favour of that idea. Pursuing a theme affecting the whole Bill, I oppose the centralist tendency at work here in dictating the process and instructing local authorities on how to act—in this case, making them produce a new strategy.
Local authorities do not want to be told what to do in their procedures. Equally, housing associations are not keen on that prescriptive approach when they know that better results can be achieved by forging locally tailored partnerships. Bodies such as the Chartered Institute of Housing have strongly encouraged local authorities to reduce tenant strategies for some time, and those voluntary arrangements are working well. Therefore, the replacement clause in my amendment is intended to get local authorities and social housing providers to work together, with councils taking the strategic role in identifying housing requirements and the tenancy policies that flow from understanding those data. Such an approach goes with the grain of localism and recognises the very different housing strategies already been brought together by a number of local authorities, from the Derbyshire Dales to the London Borough of Hackney, to create mutually agreed approaches with their partners. This is how it should be. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I have a swift answer for the noble Lord. A tenancy strategy will not be onerous. There is no requirement for it to be in a specific format or of a particular length or particular content. Many local authorities have indicated that they want to build on the existing policies and strategies, and Clause 131 rightly requires the authority to consult housing associations before adopting strategy. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
“Creation of tenancies of social housing
(1) In section 52 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (requirement that conveyances of land and interests in land be made by deed) in subsection (2) (exceptions) after paragraph (d) insert—
“(da) flexible tenancies;(db) assured tenancies of dwelling-houses in England that are granted by private registered providers of social housing and are not long tenancies or shared ownership leases;”.(2) After that subsection insert—
“(3) In this section—
“assured tenancy” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Housing Act 1988;
“dwelling-house” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Housing Act 1988;
“flexible tenancy” has the meaning given by section 107A of the Housing Act 1985;
“long tenancy” means a tenancy granted for a term certain of more than 21 years, whether or not it is (or may become) terminable before the end of that term by notice given by the tenant or by re-entry or forfeiture;
“shared ownership lease” means a lease of a dwelling-house—
(a) granted on payment of a premium calculated by reference to a percentage of the value of the dwelling-house or of the cost of providing it, or (b) under which the lessee (or the lessee’s personal representatives) will or may be entitled to a sum calculated by reference, directly or indirectly, to the value of the dwelling-house.””
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, before responding, I wonder whether I may speak to the amendments in this group that stand in my name—Amendments 178ZA, 178ZB, 178ZC and 178ZD. Amendments 178ZA and 178ZB are minor and technical, and tidy up Clause 139.
Amendment 178ZC ensures that there will be no statutory succession in the case of shared ownership properties, as this could conflict with the rights of a beneficiary in a deceased shared owner's will. Amendment 178ZD ensures that where there is no eligible successor but someone inherits the balance of a fixed-term tenancy as part of the deceased tenant's estate, the landlord can recover the property. Amendment 178ZD helpfully deals with an issue raised by the Opposition in the other place. When someone who is not a spouse or partner succeeds to a local authority property which is larger than they reasonably need, the landlord can move them to a more suitably sized property between six and 12 months after the death of the original tenant.
The amendment deals with cases where the successor tenant withholds news of the death of the tenant from the landlord until after the recovery window has closed, thereby preventing the landlord reclaiming the property. It does this by allowing a court to decide whether the window is deemed to have opened six months after the original tenant died or six months after the landlord became aware of the death. I hope that is reasonably clear.
I can reply to the amendments quite quickly. Our proposals guarantee one succession to a spouse or partner and importantly also allow landlords a freedom to grant more successions, as they see fit; for example, allowing a succession to someone as the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has said, who has given up their own home to move in and care for the tenant. We believe that the proposals are clear, simple and fair: one guaranteed succession to a spouse or partner and anyone else if the tenancy agreement says so. That will allow landlords to ensure properties go to those in actual need and Amendments 175 to 178, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, would reintroduce a prescriptive approach which would prevent landlords considering individual circumstances in reaching sensible decisions. Once again, social landlords are social landlords and are meant to be considering the best interests of those who live in their properties. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will be willing to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
“(7) This section does not apply to a fixed term assured tenancy that is a lease of a dwelling-house—
(a) granted on payment of a premium calculated by reference to a percentage of the value of the dwelling-house or of the cost of providing it, or(b) under which the lessee (or the lessee’s personal representatives) will or may be entitled to a sum calculated by reference, directly or indirectly, to the value of the dwelling-house.””
Baroness Hanham
“Secure and assured tenancies: recovery of possession after tenant’s death
(1) In section 90 of the Housing Act 1985 (devolution of fixed term secure tenancy) after subsection (4) insert—
“(5) The following provisions apply where a tenancy that was a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England—
(a) has been vested or otherwise disposed of in the course of the administration of the secure tenant’s estate, and(b) has ceased to be a secure tenancy by virtue of this section.(6) Subject as follows, the landlord may apply to the court for an order for possession of the dwelling-house let under the tenancy.
(7) The court may not entertain proceedings for an order for possession under this section unless—
(a) the landlord has served notice in writing on the tenant—(i) stating that the landlord requires possession of the dwelling-house, and(ii) specifying a date after which proceedings for an order for possession may be begun, and(b) that date has passed without the tenant giving up possession of the dwelling-house.(8) The date mentioned in subsection (7)(a)(ii) must fall after the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the date on which the notice is served on the tenant.
(9) On an application to the court for an order for possession under this section, the court must make such an order if it is satisfied that subsection (5) applies to the tenancy.
(10) The tenancy ends when the order is executed.”
(2) In Part 3 of Schedule 2 to that Act (grounds on which court may order possession of dwelling-house let on secure tenancy if reasonable and if alternative accommodation is available) after Ground 15 insert—
“Ground 15AThe dwelling-house is in England, the accommodation afforded by it is more extensive than is reasonably required by the tenant and—(a) the tenancy vested in the tenant by virtue of section 89 (succession to periodic tenancy) or 90 (devolution of term certain) in a case where the tenant was not the previous tenant’s spouse or civil partner, and (b) notice of the proceedings for possession was served under section 83 (or, where no such notice was served, the proceedings for possession were begun) more than six months but less than twelve months after the relevant date.For this purpose “the relevant date” is—(a) the date of the previous tenant’s death, or(b) if the court so directs, the date on which, in the opinion of the court, the landlord (or, in the case of joint landlords, any one of them) became aware of the previous tenant’s death.The matters to be taken into account by the court in determining whether it is reasonable to make an order on this ground include—(a) the age of the tenant,(b) the period (if any) during which the tenant has occupied the dwelling-house as the tenant’s only or principal home, and(c) any financial or other support given by the tenant to the previous tenant.”(3) In section 7 of the Housing Act 1988 (orders for possession of assured tenancies) after subsection (6) insert—
“(6A) In the case of a dwelling-house in England, subsection (6)(a) has effect as if it also referred to Ground 7 in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to this Act.”
(4) In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that Act (grounds for possession of dwelling-houses let on assured tenancies: grounds on which court must order possession) in Ground 7 (devolution of tenancy under will or intestacy)—
(a) in the first unnumbered paragraph, after “tenancy)” insert “, or a fixed term tenancy of a dwelling-house in England,”,(b) in the second unnumbered paragraph—(i) omit “periodic”, and(ii) after “period” insert “or length of term”, and(c) after that paragraph insert—“This ground does not apply to a fixed term tenancy that is a lease of a dwelling-house—(a) granted on payment of a premium calculated by reference to a percentage of the value of the dwelling-house or of the cost of providing it, or(b) under which the lessee (or the lessee’s personal representatives) will or may be entitled to a sum calculated by reference, directly or indirectly, to the value of the dwelling-house.””
Baroness Hanham
“Tenants’ depositsTenancy deposit schemes
(1) The Housing Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 213 (requirements relating to tenancy deposits)—
(a) in subsection (3) (landlord’s requirement to comply with initial requirements within 14 days of receipt of deposit) for “14” substitute “30”, and(b) in subsection (6)(b) (landlord’s requirement to give tenant information within 14 days of receipt of deposit) for “14” substitute “30”.(3) Section 214 (proceedings relating to tenancy deposits) is amended as follows.
(4) In subsection (1) (grounds for an application to a county court) for paragraph (a) substitute—
“(a) that section 213(3) or (6) has not been complied with in relation to the deposit, or”.(5) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) also applies in a case where the tenancy has ended, and in such a case the reference in subsection (1) to the tenant is to a person who was a tenant under the tenancy.”
(6) In subsection (2) (conditions for a remedy)—
(a) in the opening words—(i) for “Subsections (3) and (4)” substitute “Subsection (3) (subject to subsection (3A)) and subsection (4)”,(ii) omit “such”, and(iii) after “application” insert “under subsection (1)”, and(b) for paragraph (a) substitute—“(a) is satisfied that section 213(3) or (6) has not been complied with in relation to the deposit, or”.(7) After subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) Subsection (3) does not apply in a case where the tenancy has ended at the time of the application under subsection (1), and in such a case the court may order the person who appears to the court to be holding the deposit to repay all or part of it to the applicant within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.”
(8) In subsection (4) (amount of penalty payment)—
(a) omit “also”, and(b) for “equal to” substitute “not less than the amount of the deposit and not more than”.(9) Section 215 (sanctions for non-compliance) is amended as follows.
(10) In subsection (1) (prevention of service of notice under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988)—
(a) at the beginning insert “Subject to subsection (2A),”, and(b) for paragraph (b) substitute—“(b) section 213(3) has not been complied with in relation to the deposit.”(11) In subsection (2) (prevention of service of notice under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988) at the beginning insert “Subject to subsection (2A),”.
(12) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in a case where—
(a) the deposit has been returned to the tenant in full or with such deductions as are agreed between the landlord and tenant, or(b) an application to a county court has been made under section 214(1) and has been determined by the court, withdrawn or settled by agreement between the parties.”(13) In Schedule 10 (provisions relating to tenancy deposit schemes) in paragraph 5A(9)(b) (modification of section 213(3)) for “14” substitute “30”.”
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
“Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c.29)35A The Greater London Authority Act 1999 is amended as follows.
35B (1) Section 38 (delegation) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) (persons to whom functions exercisable by the Mayor may be delegated) before paragraph (e) insert—
“(db) the Homes and Communities Agency;”. (3) In subsection (3) (cases where delegation to body requires its consent) after “In the case of” insert “the Homes and Communities Agency,”.
(4) In subsection (7) (power to exercise delegated functions where no existing power to do so) before paragraph (c) insert—
“(bb) the Homes and Communities Agency,”.(5) Before subsection (9) insert—
“(8B) An authorisation given by the Mayor under subsection (1) above to the Homes and Communities Agency in relation to a function does not prevent the Mayor from exercising the function.”
35C (1) In section 73(6), in the substituted subsection (2) of section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (reports by monitoring officer), the definition of “GLA body or person” is amended as follows.
(2) Before paragraph (d) insert—
“(ca) the Homes and Communities Agency, when exercising any function of the Greater London Authority in consequence of an authorisation under section 38 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999;”.(3) Before paragraph (h) insert—
“(gb) any committee or sub-committee of the Homes and Communities Agency when exercising any function of the Greater London Authority in consequence of an authorisation under section 38 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999;”.(4) Before the closing words insert—
“(mb) any member, or member of staff, of the Homes and Communities Agency when exercising, or acting in the exercise of, any function of the Greater London Authority in consequence of an authorisation under section 38 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999;”.”
Baroness Hanham
“4A In section 38(8) (application of section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972) after paragraph (a) insert “or”.”
Baroness Hanham
“(aa) subsection (4) does not apply to the exercise of a function by an MDC in consequence of an authorisation under section 38 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (delegation by Mayor),”
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
“Local Government Act 1974 (c. 7)2A In section 25(1) of the Local Government Act 1974 (authorities subject to investigation by a Local Commissioner) after paragraph (bd) insert—
“(bda) a Mayoral development corporation,”.”
Baroness Hanham
“Part 7ACompensation for compulsory acquisitionTaking account of planning permission when assessing compensation
(1) The Land Compensation Act 1961 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 14 (assumptions as to planning permission)—
(a) before subsection (1) insert—“(A1) This section applies only if the relevant land is in Wales.”, and (b) in the side-note for “permission” substitute “permission: land in Wales”.(3) After that section insert—
“14A Taking account of actual or expected planning permission: England
(1) This section is about assessing the value of land in accordance with rule (2) in section 5 for the purpose of assessing compensation in respect of a compulsory acquisition of an interest in land in England.
(2) In consequence of that rule, account may be taken—
(a) of planning permission, whether for development on the relevant land or other land, if it is in force at the relevant valuation date, and(b) of the prospect, on the assumptions set out in subsection (5) but otherwise in the circumstances known to the market at the relevant valuation date, of planning permission being granted on or after that date for development, on the relevant land or other land, other than—(i) development for which planning permission is in force at the relevant valuation date, and(ii) appropriate alternative development.(3) In addition, it may be assumed that planning permission is in force at the relevant valuation date for any development that is appropriate alternative development.
(4) For the purposes of this section, development is “appropriate alternative development” if—
(a) it is development, on the relevant land alone or on the relevant land together with other land, other than development for which planning permission is in force at the relevant valuation date, and(b) on the assumptions set out in subsection (5) but otherwise in the circumstances known to the market at the relevant valuation date, planning permission for the development could at that date reasonably have been expected to be granted on an application decided—(i) on that date, or(ii) at a time after that date.(5) The assumptions referred to in subsections (2)(b) and (4)(b) are—
(a) that the scheme of development underlying the acquisition had been cancelled on the launch date,(b) that no action has been taken (including acquisition of any land, and any development or works) by the acquiring authority wholly or mainly for the purposes of the scheme,(c) that there is no prospect of the same scheme, or any other project to meet the same or substantially the same need, being carried out in the exercise of a statutory function or by the exercise of compulsory purchase powers, and(d) if the scheme was for use of the relevant land for or in connection with the construction of a highway (“the scheme highway”), that no highway will be constructed to meet the same or substantially the same need as the scheme highway would have been constructed to meet.(6) In subsection (5)(a) “the launch date” means whichever of the following dates applies—
(a) if the acquisition is authorised by a compulsory purchase order, the date of first publication of the notice required under section 11 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 or (as the case may be) paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to that Act,(b) if the acquisition is authorised by any other order—(i) the date of first publication, or(ii) the date of service,of the first notice that, in connection with the acquisition, is published or served in accordance with any provision of or made under any Act, or (c) if the acquisition is authorised by a special enactment other than an order, the date of first publication of the first notice that, in connection with the acquisition, is published in accordance with any Standing Order of either House of Parliament relating to private bills;and in paragraph (a) “compulsory purchase order” has the same meaning as in the Acquisition of Land Act 1981.(7) In subsection (5)(d) references to the construction of a highway include its alteration or improvement.
(8) If there is a dispute as to what is to be taken to be the scheme mentioned in subsection (5) (“the underlying scheme”) then, for the purposes of this section, the underlying scheme is to be identified by the Upper Tribunal as a question of fact, subject as follows—
(a) the underlying scheme is to be taken to be the scheme provided for by the Act, or other instrument, which authorises the compulsory acquisition unless it is shown (by either party) that the underlying scheme is a scheme larger than, but incorporating, the scheme provided for by that instrument, and(b) except by agreement or in special circumstances, the Upper Tribunal may permit the acquiring authority to advance evidence of such a larger scheme only if that larger scheme is one identified in the following read together—(i) the instrument which authorises the compulsory acquisition, and(ii) any documents published with it.(9) For the purposes of the references to planning permission in subsections (2)(a) and (b)(i) and (4)(a) and section 14B(1)(c), it is immaterial whether any planning permission was granted—
(a) unconditionally or subject to conditions, or(b) on an ordinary application, on an outline application or by virtue of a development order,or is planning permission that, in accordance with any direction or provision given or made by or under any enactment, is deemed to have been granted.14B Planning permission to be assumed for acquiring authority’s proposals
(1) In a case where—
(a) the relevant land is in England,(b) the relevant interest is to be acquired for purposes which involve the carrying out of proposals of the acquiring authority for development of the relevant land or part of it, and(c) planning permission for that development is not in force at the relevant valuation date,it is to be assumed for the purposes of section 14A(2)(a) and (b)(i) and (4)(a) that planning permission is in force at the relevant valuation date for the development of the relevant land or that part of it, as the case may be, in accordance with the proposals of the acquiring authority.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), no account is to be taken of any planning permission so granted as not to enure (while the permission remains in force) for the benefit of the land and of all persons for the time being interested in the land.”
(4) In section 15 (assumptions not directly derived from development plan) before subsection (1) insert—
“(A1) This section applies only if the relevant land is in Wales.”
(5) In section 16 (special assumptions in respect of certain land comprised in development plans)—
(a) before subsection (1) insert—“(A1) This section applies only if the relevant land is in Wales.”, and(b) in the side-note after “land” insert “in Wales”.(6) In section 17 (certification of appropriate alternative development)—
(a) in subsection (1) after “an interest in land” insert “in Wales”,(b) omit subsections (10) and (11) (which relate to the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads), and(c) in the side-note for “development” substitute “development: Wales”.(7) After section 17 insert—
“17A Certificate of appropriate alternative development: England
(1) Where an interest in land in England is proposed to be acquired by an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers, either of the parties directly concerned may (subject to subsection (2)) apply to the local planning authority for a certificate containing whichever of the following statements is the applicable statement—
(a) that in the local planning authority’s opinion there is development that, for the purposes of section 14A, is appropriate alternative development in relation to the acquisition;(b) that in the local planning authority’s opinion there is no development that, for the purposes of section 14A, is appropriate alternative development in relation to the acquisition.(2) If—
(a) the authority proposing to acquire the interest have served a notice to treat in respect of the interest or an agreement has been made for the sale of the interest to that authority, and(b) a reference has been made to the Upper Tribunal to determine the amount of the compensation payable in respect of the interest,no application for a certificate under this section may be made after the making of that reference by either of the parties directly concerned except with the consent in writing of the other party directly concerned or the permission of the Upper Tribunal.(3) An application for a certificate under this section—
(a) must contain whichever of the following statements is the applicable statement—(i) that in the applicant’s opinion there is development that, for the purposes of section 14A, is appropriate alternative development in relation to the acquisition concerned;(ii) that in the applicant’s opinion there is no development that, for the purposes of section 14A, is appropriate alternative development in relation to the acquisition concerned;(b) must, if it contains a statement under paragraph (a)(i), specify—(i) each description of development that in the applicant’s opinion is, for the purposes of section 14A, appropriate alternative development in relation to the acquisition, and(ii) the applicant’s reasons for holding that opinion; and(c) must be accompanied by a statement specifying the date on which a copy of the application has been or will be served on the other party directly concerned.(4) Where an application is made to the local planning authority for a certificate under this section in respect of an interest in land, the local planning authority must not, without the agreement of the other party directly concerned, issue a certificate to the applicant before the end of 22 days beginning with the date specified in the statement under subsection (3)(c).
(5) If a certificate under this section contains a statement under subsection (1)(a) it must also—
(a) identify every description of development (whether specified in the application or not) that in the local planning authority’s opinion is, for the purposes of section 14A, appropriate alternative development in relation to the acquisition concerned, and (b) give a general indication—(i) of any conditions to which planning permission for the development could reasonably have been expected to be subject,(ii) of when the permission could reasonably have been expected to be granted if it is one that could reasonably have been expected to be granted only at a time after the relevant valuation date, and(iii) of any pre-condition for granting the permission (for example, entry into an obligation) that could reasonably have been expected to have to be met.(6) If a certificate under this section contains a statement under subsection (1)(a)—
(a) then, for the purposes of section 14A, development is appropriate alternative development in relation to the acquisition concerned if, and only if, it is of a description identified in accordance with subsection (5)(a) in the certificate, and(b) the matters indicated in accordance with subsection (5)(b) in the certificate are to be taken to apply in relation to the planning permission that under section 14A(3) may be assumed to be in force for that development.(7) If a certificate under this section contains a statement under subsection (1)(b) then, for the purposes of section 14A, there is no development that is appropriate alternative development in relation to the acquisition concerned.
(8) References in subsections (5) to (7) to a certificate under this section include references to the certificate as varied and to any certificate issued in place of the certificate.
(9) On issuing to one of the parties directly concerned a certificate under this section in respect of an interest in land, the local planning authority must serve a copy of the certificate on the other of those parties.
(10) In assessing any compensation payable to any person in respect of any compulsory acquisition, there must be taken into account any expenses reasonably incurred by the person in connection with the issue of a certificate under this section (including expenses incurred in connection with an appeal under section 18A where any of the issues are determined in the person’s favour).
(11) For the purposes of this section and sections 18A to 20, the Broads Authority is the sole district planning authority for the Broads; and here “the Broads” has the same meaning as in the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988.”
(8) After section 18 (appeal to Welsh Ministers against certificate under section 17) insert—
“18A Appeal to Upper Tribunal against certificate under section 17A
(1) Where the local planning authority have issued a certificate under section 17A in respect of an interest in land—
(a) the person for the time being entitled to that interest, or(b) any authority possessing compulsory purchase powers by whom that interest is proposed to be acquired,may appeal to the Upper Tribunal against that certificate.(2) On any appeal under this section against a certificate, the Upper Tribunal—
(a) must consider the matters to which the certificate relates as if the application for a certificate under section 17A had been made to the Upper Tribunal in the first place, and(b) must—(i) confirm the certificate, or(ii) vary it, or(iii) cancel it and issue a different certificate in its place,as the Upper Tribunal may consider appropriate.(3) Where an application is made for a certificate under section 17A, and at the expiry of the time prescribed by a development order for the issue of the certificate (or, if an extended period is at any time agreed upon in writing by the parties and the local planning authority, at the end of that period) no certificate has been issued by the local planning authority in accordance with that section, the preceding provisions of this section apply as if the local planning authority has issued such a certificate containing a statement under section 17A(1)(b).”
(9) In section 19 (extension of sections 17 and 18 to special cases)—
(a) in subsection (1) (surveyor may apply for certificate) for the words after “certificate” substitute “under section 17 or 17A; and the provisions of sections 17 and 18 if the land is in Wales, or the provisions of sections 17A and 18A if the land is in England, apply in relation to an application made by virtue of this subsection as they apply in relation to an application made by virtue of section 17(1) or, as the case may be, section 17A(1).”,(b) in subsection (3) for “the said section seventeen” substitute “whichever of sections 17 and 17A is applicable”, and(c) in the side-note after “17” insert “, 17A”.(10) In section 20 (power to prescribe matters relevant to Part 3)—
(a) in the opening words after “seventeen” insert “, 17A”,(b) in paragraph (a) after “seventeen” insert “or 17A”, and(c) in paragraph (c) after “seventeen”, in both places, insert “or 17A”.(11) In section 22(2) (interpretation of sections 17 and 18) after “eighteen” insert “and 17A and 18A”.”
Baroness Hanham
(h) an order or regulations under section 210 which, in consequence of provision made by section (Taking account of planning permission when assessing compensation), amend or repeal a provision of an Act other than a local or private Act.”
Baroness Hanham
Localism Bill
Baroness Hanham Excerpts(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, I would just say that in the Library are a number of documents which have been laid for the attention of the Committee.
Clause 42 : Duty to hold local referendum
Amendment 120B
Baroness Hanham
“(ba) where the principal local authority is the Greater London Authority, it is duly signed—(i) by the required percentage of local government electors in each London borough, and(ii) by the required percentage of local government electors in the area of the Common Council of the City of London,”
Baroness Hanham
(a) where the principal local authority is not the Greater London Authority, the petition does not comply with subsection (1)(b), or(b) where the principal local authority is the Greater London Authority, the petition complies with neither or only one of paragraphs (b) and (ba) of subsection (1).”
Baroness Hanham
Localism Bill
Baroness Hanham Excerpts(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving this amendment. We were not quite clear what was behind it but he has been very clear about the thrust of the amendment. We support its general direction, which is about protecting open space, particularly urban open space. I do question the use of the phrase “equally advantageous to the public”. I do not know if that is an existing term used in other legislation, but one of the requirements of the amendment is that it must be “not less in area”—understood; that is quite easy to determine—and is “equally advantageous to the public”. There will not necessarily be a single approach by the public as to the advantage of a particular piece of open space: it might be the tranquillity of the view or the opportunity for some recreation pursuits or indeed somewhere to walk the dog, whereas an alternative piece of open space may not be able to satisfy people in the same proportion or mix. I am sure that that issue could be overcome but I would be grateful if the noble Lord, when responding to the Minister, might expand a little on that test; the Minister may also have some views on that. However, I do see the thrust and the benefit of this amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for those short contributions—short, I suspect, because I have indicated that I would be happy to have discussions with the noble Lord about this. This amendment has appeared quite late on in proceedings. I do not quite understand its place in the Bill. I think it has found its way in by a devious route. It would be more helpful for the House to see exactly what lies behind the anxiety of the Open Spaces Society about this.
In acceding to speaking to the noble Lord about it, I have to say that we have particular reservations about paragraph (c). As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has just pointed out, that requires a council to provide land in exchange for that appropriated or disposed of unless they can provide reasons under subsection (2) of the proposed new section. This is a difficult area. In order to provide an alternative piece of land, it is possible that the local authority would have to compulsorily purchase another bit of land in order to fulfil this obligation. So we would have considerable doubts and that is one area that I would expect to have a sharp discussion on. Having said that, I am happy to talk about this and come back to it at a later stage if the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment for the moment.
Localism Bill
Baroness Hanham Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this quite long debate on the amendment, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, on introducing it succinctly.
The Bill seeks to remove the current prescriptive and overly burdensome rules and procedures for local authority governance arrangements. I am not sure that I am quite on line with my noble friends behind me because, for instance, the Bill allows councils greater freedom to determine their governance arrangements. We have been asked to allow a committee system ever since the previous legislation, when it was arbitrarily removed by the previous Government. We accept that local authorities, as practitioners, are experts in the field of governance, and that most proposals for additional governance models will come from them.
Amendment 34, on the Secretary of State’s power in Schedule 2 to make regulations on this issue, fails to understand that ideas for new governance models may also come from other sources—from government, local government representatives or other bodies. There seems to be some sort of idea that everything has been forced on local authorities. We are not forcing them to do anything; they do not have to adopt the arrangements set out in these regulations for a committee system and can carry on as they are. These regulations—with the prospect of other, newer forms of governance; I cannot think what they are at the moment but there might be some—give them the opportunity to carry them out if they wish.
The restated conditions in Amendment 35 would do little if anything more than recast the existing provisions in the language of today, rather than the language of a decade ago. They are arguably less demanding, since the explicit requirement that the new arrangements must be an improvement on what is already there has been removed. However, it is hard to imagine prescribing a new arrangement unless it achieved something more than what was currently on offer. In short, I do not believe that these amendments would make a substantive difference in how the powers in this section might be operated.
Amendment 36 significantly weakens the conditions, apparently allowing new arrangements that did not provide for decision-taking in an efficient, transparent and accountable way. I am sure that no one would wish to see this. Certainly we do not.
Amendment 37, as the noble Lord, Lord True, said, is all about allowing a district council, for example, to make proposals for governance arrangements that would improve the accountability of the county council to the people of that district. I think that he also mentioned London boroughs as part of that. Effective collaboration between tiers, shared services and shared chief executives, which are coming about more and more, might all be effective ways of improving local governance. I am not certain that we need more central regulation to achieve this. I noted exactly what my noble friend Lord Howard said, that in his area that did not seem to operate. On the other hand, it is a mechanism that I would strongly recommend.
Amendment 37A would disempower local authority leaders by allowing authorities to resolve that the full council, rather than the leader, should appoint the members of the executive cabinet. I remember dealing with the previous local government legislation, where this was accepted as rather a good move, so I am not certain why we now want to get rid of it again.
Lord Greaves
I, too, remember the previous legislation, which brought in this new system. I do not know whether it was accepted as a good move, or by whom, but it was certainly not accepted as a good move by the Liberal Democrat Benches in this House, because we challenged it at the time. The point is that if it is such a good move, surely most authorities will continue to do it that way. But if we are talking about localism, why should they not have the choice?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we believe that the leader and cabinet model is a good one. We also believe that the leader should be able to select those whom he wishes to have with him. It is a very close relationship, and it is very important that it works well. We think it right for a leader to be able to appoint his own executive team.
Amendment 38 would prevent the maximum size of an executive being set at a figure lower than 10 members. I accept that current experience with 10 members is about right, but I would not accept that future circumstances will be such that, while it might be right to increase the maximum limit of the size of an executive, it might not be right to have a lower limit. I think that that is what the noble Lord’s amendment suggests. Experience demonstrates that 10 is about the right number, and that a lower number may be too little and a higher number too much. Most of these cabinet systems are working quite well as they are. One might also point out that the more cabinet members you have, the more you have to pay. I hope that that resolves some of the questions.
Lord Beecham
I thank the Minister for her reply and thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for the support that he gave to some of the amendments. In relation to Amendment 37A, in practice there would be little advantage in going along that route. It would be a foolish leader who endeavoured to appoint an executive without the support of his colleagues. He would not last long in leadership, I suspect. In reality, I do not think that this particular provision is required.
On Amendment 38, however, the Minister rather skates over the implications of the Bill as it presently stands. I cannot see any reason why the determination of the size of the executive should not be entirely at the discretion of the local authority. At the very least, it would be wrong to leave the Secretary of State with power arbitrarily to reduce the size of the executive to, potentially, one or two members. Generally speaking, 10 is about the right figure; in the case of my own authority and that of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, the new administration has actually reduced the number of cabinet members, to use the phrase adopted, from 10 to six. That is legitimate and a matter of decision for the authority. In my submission, it would not be legitimate for the Secretary of State to prescribe that. Given the increasing spread of responsibilities, the partnership arrangements that now exist and the structures that now surround local government, it may well be creating an onerous burden on members of executives if their numbers were to be confined. I hope that the Government look again at this really rather purposeless provision.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, raised the question of principle, which it may be as well that we dispose of today. He asks very legitimately where the power of general competence is in all this. I had the pleasure of working with, or perhaps beneath, the noble Lord when he was Secretary of State for the Environment and chaired the Inner City Partnership committee in Newcastle. He was always clearly committed to local government. The problem is not so much around the concept of general competence as that the Bill, or much of it, rests on an assumption—certainly on the part of civil servants, and perhaps of Ministers of all Administrations—of general incompetence in local government and those who serve in it. I fear that that suspicion lies behind many of the manifold provisions in the Bill which purport to increase the degree of regulation that the Secretary of State can impose, if he sees fit. I hope that on reflection, as we go through the Bill, the Minister and her noble friends will think again about the degree to which they are taking upon themselves a burden that is effectively unnecessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wade of Chorlton
My Lords, listening to this discussion, I am prompted to remind the House that in 1994 the then Conservative Government established an ad hoc Select Committee of the House of Lords to reveal the relationship between central and local government. I was privileged to be a member of that committee. We took a great deal of evidence at the time from local authorities, government officials and Ministers to review whether the top-down control of local government was in everyone’s interests. The recommendations that we came up with looked closely at the establishment of the cabinet system and the establishment of mayors, and we looked at how local government should not necessarily be thought of, as it was then by central government, to be all the same.
We recommended in our report—it is a long time since I have looked at it—that we should see local government evolving as it was decided by the local community rather than by the centre. I remember that we were struck, when we took evidence from the principal secretaries of the departments, by the fact that they were anxious to see uniformity within local government and not to allow local people to establish different ways of governing as it suited them—indeed, they were anxious to prevent that. That applied to planning, development and local government’s relationship with all sorts of services.
When I first saw the detail of the Localism Bill, I thought that it was another step forward in accepting the recommendations that we had made and that it gave an opportunity to local government to be different and respond to what local people needed rather than to what central government needed. However, I am rather concerned, from the way that this argument is going, that the views expressed in the Bill are not going to provide the freedom that we recommended way back in 1994. Many of those recommendations have now been accepted by central government, but I feel that this might be a step backwards rather than forwards.
Baroness Hanham
I think that I replied earlier because I had not realised that other people were going to take part in this. I hear what is being said by my noble friends Lord True, Lord Howard, Lord Jenkin and now Lord Wade. When we look at the measures in the Bill, I think that most of them will turn out to be liberating for local government. It gives them a general power of competence and greater flexibility in what they can do. On some of the areas that we are legislating about now, we think that it is appropriate that there should be some regulations about how things should be done.
I worry a bit about my noble friend Lord True’s amendment. It asks the Secretary of State to prescribe a route along which the noble Lord and others have been telling us that we should not be going on any other matter, so it does not quite follow. I think that we have discussed across the Chamber before that there are not always good relations between the three tiers of government, particularly if you start with a parish council, but I am not sure that that poor relationship is something that this Government should try to prescribe a route through.
There are many changes taking place in the way in which local government is run. Many new arrangements are having to be made, as I said earlier, about management, about sharing chief executives across councils and districts and about sharing services, all of which ought to make it much easier for local government to avoid the elephant traps that my noble friend is talking about. In the light of the concern that there is, I will reflect on this issue before the next stage. I do not think that I would hold my breath that we will be able to accept my noble friend’s amendments, but I certainly hear the sentiments that have been expressed in the House today.
Lord True
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the final part of her response. I take some hope and encouragement from that. I hope that she will reflect on the matter; I certainly will. I had no expectation that my amendment was going to be a perfectly framed answer on this subject. However, I earnestly submit that there is a strong localist argument behind this point. I am content to withdraw my modest localising amendment if perhaps at a later stage the Government might return to me with the withdrawal of some of their rather immodest centralising proposals. I thank my noble friend for her response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tope
My Lords, briefly, I support my noble friend Lord Greaves. He certainly has more experience of rural areas than I do, but I speak from the perspective of what he referred to as a “compact urban area” or, more accurately, a suburban area: a fairly small—in terms of area—London borough. We have six local committees on the council as a whole. There are 43 Liberal Democrat councillors and only 11 Conservative councillors. However, because of the political demography, one of those six local committees is still controlled by a Conservative majority.
Each of those local committees has limited executive powers, which we hope will be extended further, and each operates in quite different ways, partly because of the councillors on them and the way in which they choose to react, and partly, and more particularly, because of the nature of the areas that they represent. All of the councillors for those areas are members of those local committees, to a varying extent, and the local residents in those areas come to those meetings certainly to a far greater extent than they attend meetings of our executive. They take part in those committees and, to varying extents, they feel that they are part of the deliberations.
As a council we have not felt it necessary to prescribe in great detail what each of those local committees shall, or shall not, do or how they will, or will not, behave. They behave sensibly, even the one run by the Conservatives behaves moderately sensibly. We demonstrate, in a very obvious way, the difference between a Conservative-run committee and a Liberal Democrat-run committee. That is what democracy is about; it is what we ought to be doing. As a council, we have not felt the need to prescribe it, nor have we ever thought that we should have prescribed it. I commend to the Government the fact that they too should trust local authorities in this case, as we trust local committees.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, on this debate, I hear what noble Lords say. I shall reflect carefully on what has been said and I shall ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments for the time being.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I commend the reply of the Minister on this group of amendments. I advise her to use that exact wording for every group of amendments that we put forward throughout the rest of the Bill; however, I do not say that very optimistically. There are clearly some discussions to be had.
I would just like to respond to the amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and particularly to Amendment 43, which I disagree with fundamentally. In a sense, the amendment reflects the diversity and variety of local government and the representation of local government in your Lordships' House and in this Committee. It is a big-city view, a view of big authorities: in a big city, an area committee of 40 per cent would, in almost any conceivable situation, be ridiculous. However, that is not necessarily the case in smaller authorities.
Perhaps I can tell the Committee the position in my own authority in Pendle. We have five area committees and they range from 32 per cent—these figures are based on mid-year population estimates for 2008—down to 10.7 per cent. The 32 per cent is for the town of Nelson, which has an estimated population of 28,745, which, by big-city standards, is not excessive—it might be just two wards or one and a half wards in some big cities. It would be ridiculous to split Nelson because it is a community with a town centre. You walk from the middle of the town centre and you get to the edge of the town and Nelson stops and you are in the countryside and into smaller communities. I believe that the figure of 40 per cent is right. Quite clearly, there needs to be sensible reflection on the basis of local knowledge in a particular area.
Lord True
My Lords, I do not wish to prolong proceedings, but I have not had an opportunity to say how much I agree with the general thrust of many of the things that are being said. It may be that, at a later stage, it will be possible, through Amendment 84DA, to leave out a “must” and put in a “may”. Those who advise the Secretary of State, and who have the pleasure of writing all sorts of guidance for local authorities, could continue to do so and we could pay due respect to the importance of that guidance and to guidance that came from other sources. Then perhaps everyone would be delighted and a little localism might reign.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we are back again to the same arguments that we had on the previous amendment on area committees. It relies on the regulations. I thank my noble friend Lord True for suggesting a way in which amendments might come. I think we need to look carefully at what has been said. Perhaps I need to review this before the next stage to see whether anything needs to be done about these provisions.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that very helpful response. We are now into the realm of guidance. It seems to me that guidance is a more acceptable face of regulation—or its better looking twin, as it were—but there is a little bit too much of that as well in the Bill. Matters like this can perfectly sensibly be left to individual local authorities and the guidance that other bodies, such as the Local Government Association, would be prepared to offer. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. As we go through the Bill, I think there will be many examples where all sides of the House would wish to see precisely that accommodating attitude reflected so that we do not end up on Report with many detailed amendments which should not be dividing us at all.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 49 and 49C, and I support the comments of my noble friend Lord Tope about district councils. Whether the prescription on scrutiny should exist is a matter for discussion. If it should, then it should apply to district councils as well as to everyone else.
There is a view across parts of the legislation that was brought in 10 years ago that district councils’ overview and scrutiny functions are in some way less important than those of bigger councils. However, for some of the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord True, talked about earlier, because district councils are smaller councils and there are more councillors per elector—often a lot more—scrutiny of local services generally, as well as of their own services, is something that they can do very well indeed.
That leads me to Amendment 49, which removes more classic words. The new subsection states that an “excluded matter”, which I shall describe in a minute,
“means any matter which is … a matter of any description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section”.
What major national imperative is there that the Secretary of State should make an order excluding matters from discussion? The matters to be discussed are defined as “local government” matters. This exclusion allows the Secretary of State to produce a list of things that the Secretary of State says are not local government matters and, therefore, under this new section, cannot be referred to an overview and scrutiny committee by a member of the council. This is silly.
I do not know what other provision we are using to do it, or if we are just doing it, but my council has decided on and is getting on with scrutiny of part of the local health service within east Lancashire. It provides a vital service that is not provided by the local authority, although it has some limited influence and joint schemes. However, the local authority is performing some scrutiny. Clearly, it will have to do it with the co-operation of those parts of the health service that are being scrutinised, but that can take place. It may or may not be a local government matter. I do not know whether the Secretary of State wants to exclude it under this provision, but it is the sort of situation in which you should let the local authority get on and do what it wants to do in the interests of the people in the area.
The purpose of the second amendment, Amendment 49C, is probing. It refers to new Section 9FF(1)(b) on page 202 of this compendium Bill and to recommendations relating,
“to a local improvement target which … relates to a relevant partner authority, and … is specified in a local area agreement of the authority”.
I have never really understood local area agreements or got too involved in them, but my impression was that this Government were scaling back on the importance of such agreements and perhaps were looking to abolish them. Perhaps the Minister can tell me where we stand on that.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I shall start by saying that I recognise a lot of what I have heard from noble Lords regarding how councils operate. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, would make it compulsory for scrutiny committees to be chaired by the leader of the opposition party on a council. This amendment is unnecessary. I know of many councils that do precisely that, whereby a leader or senior member of the opposition party chairs review and scrutiny meetings. That is absolutely proper, but such a provision does not need to be couched in either guidance or legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, pointed out, there may be some areas where there are no opposition members, but the amendment would make such a provision mandatory. There are some areas where all members are Conservatives and the issue is the same. I hope that from the tenor of the debate noble Lords will agree that such a provision is neither appropriate nor necessary, and that we should not return to it. The annual scrutiny survey, which, I must say, I did not know existed, shows an upward trend, with 42 per cent of authorities allocating scrutiny chairs to members outside the majority group. This idea is clearly taking off well enough, without any interference from Parliament.
Amendments 46 and 47 would change the arrangements on designated scrutiny officers, particularly to make it clear that a designated officer could lead other officers in the discharge of scrutiny functions, as well as requiring district councils in two-tier areas to designate a scrutiny officer. Again, the amendments proposed are not necessary. Of course, we envisage that scrutiny will involve a number of officers to support a scrutiny committee. That already happens, it is part and parcel of the way scrutiny committees are run, and indeed in some councils they are completely separate from the rest of the administration so that they are completely independent. It is unimaginable that one scrutiny officer could not appoint somebody to help him. It is certainly not necessary to make that mandatory because I am quite certain that in most local authorities that is precisely what happens. There is nothing to prevent a district council in a two-tier area designating a scrutiny officer but statute does not require this. Noble Lords have made the point that district councils perhaps do not have quite such onerous responsibilities as county councils and therefore it is not mandatory for them to have a designated officer, although of course if they choose to have one they can. That is perfectly in order.
Amendments 48 and 49 remove the requirement on members to have regard to the guidance and the regulation-making powers of the Secretary of State in relation to referral of matters to a scrutiny committee. These powers enable the Secretary of State to ensure that certain important safeguards are in place. Regulations made under the power that noble Lords are seeking to remove protect against vexatious or discriminatory matters from being placed on the scrutiny committee meeting agenda. They also exclude matters for which there are already statutory processes and rights of appeal, such as planning and licence decisions or matters relating to an individual. It is not unreasonable that those matters should be placed before scrutiny committees in the course of their business.
We believe that the existing framework is working pretty well without removing the requirement for scrutiny committees to make reports and recommendations relating to partner authorities and local area agreements. Having said that, I have some sympathy with Amendment 49C, which is seeking to remove the link between local improvement targets and local area agreements—that might indeed become otiose. We are absolutely clear that where authorities operate executive governance arrangements, scrutiny arrangements must be in place. We recognise that scrutiny plays an important role in holding the executive to account and contributing to policy development in authorities. I certainly support what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, says—that overview and scrutiny committees, like planning committees, should not be whipped. They are clearly committees where scrutiny and challenge should take place and that should not be done against a background of being told what to do.
Amendment 69 would make it mandatory for councils with committee systems to have an overview and scrutiny committee. That is not necessary. The committee system in itself should have a scrutiny role and always did in the past—that was one of the benefits of the committee system. Therefore, that amendment is not necessary.
With the various explanations and assurances I have given, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Beecham
I am grateful to the Minister for her response. In relation to Amendment 69, which I did not address before, scrutiny ought not to be just a matter of looking at the internal workings and policies of the council itself. It should be used, and in many cases is being used, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, mentioned, to look beyond what other organisations are doing—or not doing, more to the point—in the locality beyond the statutory requirements, for example, that would apply to the health service for authorities with adult service responsibilities. The amendment does not quite address the issue in the terms that perhaps it should have done but I would welcome some encouragement from the Minister for authorities which do not necessarily have a scrutiny committee to use their own committee system for that purpose, and to encourage those to whom application is made for some explanation of what they are doing in a locality to respond as if this were a request from a scrutiny committee. It would be helpful if Ministers said something to support such activity on the part of councils, particularly district councils, which perhaps do not have a full-blown scrutiny process but which may seek to follow the example of other authorities which do have that process to explore the workings of organisations, be they public sector or private sector, and the impact they have on their community.
Baroness Hanham
There is quite a lot of common sense in what the noble Lord has said. I am not going to make any commitments but I would like to talk to the noble Lord before the next stage because I accept that things have changed a lot since the previous committee system was in place, not least partnership working and working across public bodies. It may be that as part of the committee system we at least ought to give tacit acknowledgement to the fact that there may be joint issues they need to discuss. I am not sure whether that needs to be a full scrutiny role or whether it should simply be that the local health authority, or whatever it is, turns up if invited by the committee. Perhaps the noble Lord and I could discuss that before the next stage.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, the Minister said that there might need to be some modification in relation to local improvement targets and local area agreements. Perhaps she could write and tell me exactly where we are with these now, what their status is and what the Government’s intentions are.
Baroness Hanham
I will happily do that and I will lay a copy of the answer in the Library.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, before I formally withdraw my amendment, I would like to make two brief points. First, I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord True that in scrutiny there has to be a clear role for back-benchers, particularly those of the controlling party, but there can of course be vice-chairs, and that system works well. Secondly, I hope that the Minister is right that legislation here is unnecessary and will simply bear in mind my amendment should it prove not to be the case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord True
My Lords, I support in some measure the remarks of my noble friend Lord Tope. I hear what is said about the Centre for Public Scrutiny and all its recommendations. Equally, I hear all that the Government want to say about scrutiny. I am sure that there are two very worthy industries involved here that may well come together. I support the recommendation that my noble friend has made to come forward with thickets of advice to local authorities on these subjects—may the twain meet.
However, as this debate goes on, I sometimes wonder whether the end result might be that parts of the Government involved in providing guidance and regulations could be hived off as a social enterprise, perhaps co-operating with other areas in local government. They could sell the benefits of their advice to local authorities and we might be able to reduce the size of government and perhaps, in partnership, improve the quality of advice. That is a slightly impish suggestion but, on the other hand, it is not entirely without seriousness.
I particularly support Amendment 47A, which addresses the point made by my noble friend Lord Greaves. I think that it would allow issues that were not technically local government matters to be referred to scrutiny. I support Amendment 48A on a probing basis. It would delete from the Bill the words:
“Guidance under subsection (3) may make different provision for different cases”.
This means that if a member of an authority wants to say to a scrutiny chairman, “I think this is something you need to look into”, first, he has to refer to the existing legislation, which is before us, and look up the bible of guidance that will be issued by the government department. He may then find that that guidance makes different provision for different cases, with scrutiny into this or that or some other circumstances, and he is therefore entering a potential nightmare world. I know that my noble friend, local government and outside advisers do not want to go there, but I return to my general point. I hope that those discussions can take place but I hope that the presiding principle in all this will be to minimise the requirements on local authorities to read, mark, learn, inwardly digest and obey. Let us please have localism.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their amendments, and I start by saying that I shall be helpful in relation to some but not to others. As noble Lords have said, the various amendments in the group seek to remove the guidance or regulation-making powers of the Secretary of State—a common theme this afternoon. In each case, the powers enable certain safeguards to be in place. Although noble Lords are critical of regulation, sometimes it is necessary at the same time to protect other aspects with which they are concerned.
Amendment 45A would remove the ability to issue guidance on important matters such as scrutiny chairs, as we discussed on the previous group. Amendments 48A, 48B and 48C would remove the requirement for members to have regard to guidance and the Secretary of State’s regulation-making power in relation to the referral of matters to a scrutiny committee. However, as I said, these powers enable the Secretary of State to ensure that certain important safeguards are in place. We have discussed some of them, such as vexatious or discriminatory matters being placed before a scrutiny committee, which we talked about on the previous amendment. I do not think that it is unreasonable that that sort of aspect should be ruled out of the scrutiny committee’s responsibilities. Some might take that view and some might not but I think it is sensible that they are left with no option about that. As well as rights of appeal, the amendments would also exclude matters that are already statutory processes, such as planning and licensing decisions or matters relating, for example, to an individual. Therefore, I shall not be able to accept those amendments.
Amendments 49U and 49V would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to make regulations to guard against the duplication of requests by scrutiny committees to other partner bodies. They are regulations that seek to minimise the burden on such authorities and make best use of the available information.
Amendments 47A, 49A, 49B and 49D to 49T also look to reform existing scrutiny provisions by simplifying and expanding the definition of “partner bodies”. They would expand the matters in relation to which scrutiny committees may rely on their powers, removing the link to local area agreements—which we have already agreed I should look at—and extending the powers of district council scrutiny committees, among other things, as we have already discussed.
As I said in the debate on the previous group, we do not believe that the existing framework hampers innovative practices by scrutiny committees. However, I have some sympathy with the aims of some of the amendments, and, again, I shall draw them into the discussions that we need to have. They seek to bring up to date the scrutiny regime that sits across various Acts of Parliament in light of recent changes, so it is right that we should look at them.
I am happy to consider Amendments 47A, 49A, 49B, and 49D to 49T. In debating previous amendments, we also discussed committee system authorities and the operation of scrutiny. Our view is that such authorities should be able to choose to have overview and scrutiny committees. Proposed new Section 9JA makes this clear. Removing the section entirely would create confusion. It would be unclear whether committee system authorities could operate scrutiny committees, and what the role and powers of such committees would be if they did. Therefore, the amendment is proposing that is unnecessary.
The provisions that Amendments 87ZB to 87ZD seek to change replicate existing provisions in the Local Government Act 2000, which reflect the important interests that the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church have in the provision of education, given the significant number of voluntary-aided schools in most if not all local authorities. It is correct that these significant partners in education should by right have representation on the relevant scrutiny committees. Therefore, we do not support the amendments.
With those explanations, the realisation that we discussed some issues when debating the previous group of amendments, and my acceptance of further discussions on some of the amendments, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, again I found that a very helpful answer, and I agreed with most of the comments and responses that the noble Baroness gave. I offer a suggestion about where an assurance at some stage would be helpful. In exercising his powers to proffer guidance, the Secretary of State might wish to consult either or both—preferably both—the Local Government Association and the Centre for Public Scrutiny. One would not want to write the Centre for Public Scrutiny into statute, but an indication that there would be those discussions, particularly with the Centre for Public Scrutiny, which is quite independent, would be helpful in ensuring that the guidance was broadly acceptable to the local government world and beyond. I take the point that it is necessary, in order to ensure public confidence and that minorities within local government are protected—given that the politics can be a little difficult at times—that there should be some guidance on this range of issues. If the guidance were informed by the Centre for Public Scrutiny and consulted on with the LGA, that would be a way forward. The provision does not need to be statutory, but an indication would be very helpful. I do not ask the Minister to respond immediately.
Baroness Byford
Perhaps my noble friend would clarify the position. I would like to see a presumption that the meetings will be open, but obviously under certain circumstances access will be restricted. As things stand, it is a case of either/or; there is no presumption that open meetings will be the norm and that meetings held in private will be exceptional. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the current presumption of meetings being held in public comes under the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000, with which I am sure the noble Lord is entirely familiar. The general principle of that is that there is a presumption in favour of openness, where key decisions of executives are made.
We are—I hardly dare to say the word—aiming to make new regulations which will remove some of the current prescription that make it clear that there is a presumption in favour of public meetings. As the noble Lord has already said, it is essential that there is some ability for a committee to close its proceedings for private or confidential reasons, but those must not be outwith what would normally be discussed in public. We are going to retain the parts in the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000—I will not go through that again—to ensure that written records of certain decisions must be available to the public. We are also going to regulate how they must be made available so, as a result of what we are proposing, there will not be any deterioration in the right of access to meetings. We will just tidy up to make it clear that, as the noble Lord and other noble Lords have said, the presumption in favour of open meetings is absolutely understood.
Lord Beecham
I accept the Minister’s helpful suggestions, as ever, and I shall refer to the 2000 local government regulations. I shall look them up tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wills, for his fairly extensive exposition on the Freedom of Information Act and its relationship with local government. I am sure that he will forgive me if I say that, not having had any detail of his speech beforehand, I simply am not out of my own head going to be able to answer all the important points that he raised, but I will do my best to cover some of them. If, later, we find something of significance, I will make sure that we write to him in response.
We have already discussed Amendment 52A, as the noble Lord acknowledged. I cannot say anything more than that we are very much in favour of open access to meetings of local authorities, but we recognise that there are occasions when confidential information has to be discussed—for example, information on contracts and members of staff. Meetings have to be closed sometimes, but we will make it clear that there has to be a presumption in favour of openness. We think that it is there anyway but we will underscore it.
My noble friend Lord McNally had hoped to be here because he has an overall eye on freedom of information. While I am very happy to take on anything, that seems to be one step too far, but he has asked me to say, in response to this, that the Government are committed to increasing transparency and that, almost without exception, central and local government are proactively publishing information about their contracts online. As noble Lords know, it is a requirement of government to do that and many local authorities have now taken that up and are doing it, which means that access to contract information is available to anyone who wants to see it. We feel, too, that in what is being done we have struck a balance between commitments to increase transparency and commitments to reduce regulatory burdens, particularly on business. I will go into that further in a minute. We do not believe that it is necessary to extend the Freedom of Information Act to those bodies at present with information about contracts with public authorities, which can be requested from them. A local authority can be quizzed about any contract that it has and we are proactively publishing contractual information online.
Amendment 133A would impose unacceptable additional burdens on business, similar to those that would be imposed if the Freedom of Information Act was extended to companies—not public companies but private ones. The Government have included provisions in the Protection of Freedoms Bill, to which the noble Lord referred, to extend the Freedom of Information Act with very limited exceptions to all companies wholly owned by public authorities. A few more of those will be coming up in the light of the legislation.
We have considered the extension of the Freedom of Information Act to companies where a majority of shares are owned by any number of public authorities, but to take this step would create uncertainty over which bodies were subject to the Act, particularly as bodies could pass in and out of its scope on transfer of shares. Should there be a strong argument for including a specific body, the option of inclusion through other means, such as an order under Section 5 of the Freedom of Information Act, still remains.
Amendment 133C would introduce a statutory requirement for the publication of an annual report by every local authority, including the smallest parish councils receiving very low volumes of freedom of information requests. We do not think that that is a burden that should be borne. Statistics about compliance with the Freedom of Information Act for government departments and a range of other central government bodies are already published voluntarily by the Ministry of Justice—indeed, the noble Lord may have generated this—on a quarterly basis. We would obviously encourage the publication of similar information by other public authorities receiving a significant number of freedom of information requests, including those within local government. The Freedom of Information Act will shortly be subject to post-legislative scrutiny, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, when it will be reviewed to ensure that it is delivering an efficient and effective mechanism by which the public can exercise their right to know and hold government to account.
Finally, on extending the Freedom of Information Act to cover the Housing Ombudsman, it is worth noting that we are planning to extend the Act to a considerable number of new bodies through legislation and we intend to keep those under review. While I do not say “in”, I do not say “out” at the present time.
I am very conscious that I have not been able to do anything like justice to all that the noble Lord has said. I hope that he will forgive me for that. I have answered some of the questions arising from the tabling of the amendments, although I appreciate that the noble Lord went wider than that to some extent. As I said in my previous commitment, we will go through Hansard to make sure that, if there is anything I have not touched on adequately, we will come back to it and write to him.
Lord Wills
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Of course, I understand and I apologise again for not having given her and her officials longer to consider these matters in more depth. I am also extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord True, and my noble friend Lord McKenzie for their contributions to this debate. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord True, says about the burdens on local authorities. I am well aware that transparency can be extremely frustrating and irritating for all those in executive authority.
The noble Lord is right: I am an enthusiast for freedom of information legislation. I think that I was almost alone among my ministerial colleagues in being such an enthusiast and I have no doubt that the same sentiments as he has just articulated are to be found widely among local authorities. All that I can say to the noble Lord and all those who find this legislation irksome, which I well understand, is that I believe passionately that in the end greater transparency helps to improve the services that we all work to deliver, whether in local government or central government. I wish that I shared his confidence that statutory freedom of information requirements are not necessary, which I think was the burden of his remarks. If I shared his confidence, I would not have put down these amendments. Sadly, I do not.
I am grateful also for the contribution made by my noble friend Lord McKenzie, but most of all I am grateful to the Minister for the spirit in which she engaged with these amendments. However, her response was not quite as welcoming instinctively as I would have hoped, so I ask her to scrutinise the amendments in more detail and perhaps to consult the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I do not say that because I discount any possible burdens put on local authorities or contractors and small businesses. As someone who ran a small business in the past, I am deeply conscious of the need to avoid putting burdens on small businesses. These amendments were framed not to place a disproportionate burden on anyone. Perhaps on closer scrutiny that will become apparent.
I am willing to accept any suggestions for amendments and I am sure that the Government would be able to improve the drafting. The key point that I ask the Minister to take away is that, if the Government do not engage with the issues behind these amendments—not necessarily to accept these amendments as worded but with the issues behind them—that will mean, potentially, over time, a significant diminution of transparency in the operation of local authorities and those whom they contract to provide services for them. That is very serious for those who believe in freedom of information. It is in breach of a fundamental tenet of the coalition agreement, which is why I hope that this Government will take it seriously.
This Government are committed to greater transparency, but I suggest that, unless these amendments are engaged with in some form or other, we will see the progress towards greater transparency being reversed. I hope that the Minister will be able to write to me to reassure me on that point and possibly even to meet me before Report if she would be so kind, so that we could discuss these issues in more detail. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord True
I thank the noble Lord. I have seen his Amendment 81B, and obviously that implies the direction he is coming from, but I certainly do not want to be unhelpful to the Committee in any way. My objective, which the Government have now said is theirs as well, is to erase the principle of shadow mayors. However, I agree that the point of principle he has raised does merit discussion at some point in our proceedings. I will be as co-operative as I can, under advice.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, unfortunately these amendments were grouped and degrouped rather speedily overnight, so we were slightly surprised to see this morning where the degroupings were. However, I accept the fact that the noble Lord will want to deal with the referendum issue at the next stage. Is there an amendment to which he wants to return? Otherwise I will accept all the amendments I have already said that I would accept, and I will go through them quietly again. The noble Lord indicates that he does not have an amendment to which he wants to return. That being the case, within the groupings of the noble Lord, Lord True, I shall list which amendments I am willing to accept, and if there are any differences about that, we shall look at the issue again. The amendments are Amendments 62A, 66A, 69A, 69B, 69C, 73A, 74A, 75A, 77A, 77B, 79A, 81A, 84A, 84B, 84C, 84D, 87A, 87B, 87C, 87D, 108A and 187. In listing them, I repeat the undertaking that I gave at the outset of Committee to remove the provisions for mayoral management arrangements.
I shall deal finally with Amendment 56, to which I suspect the noble Lord will want to return at some stage. The amendment would remove the provisions about whether an elected mayor is to be treated as a member or councillor of a local authority. I am told that these provisions replicate those in the Local Government Act 2000, which put in place the default position that a mayor is not to be treated as a member or councillor unless regulations provide that they should be. I do not know which side of the bed we are now on, or whether we are getting into it or out of it, as the noble Lord has said, but the default position is already in regulations.
Lord Beecham
I am just anxious that we should not have senior officers of the authority clambering into the bed. It might be easier to deal with it in the way that I have described, but perhaps that can be looked at. If regulations already exist and the intention is to replicate them, that might serve. On the other hand, it may be simpler just to revert to the principle of treating the mayor for all purposes as a councillor. But we can look at that before Report.
Baroness Hanham
I thank the noble Lord for that. Unless I have not done something that I ought to have done, I ask that the amendments that I have listed be accepted and that the noble Lord withdraw Amendment 56 for the moment.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I guess that I am grateful to some extent for the Minister’s explanation, but I am not sure that her telling me that the provision is taken from a previous Act, which I already knew, necessarily explains more fully the issues which the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has referred to. I do not think that we will get very much further with this matter today, but we will need to look at it again.
We have a raft of amendments which the Government are supporting. They are in various different groups, which I think the Minister is struggling with—certainly, I am; I admit to that. I think that we are all struggling with it; we were all dealing with it in the middle of the night last night trying to understand it. When the Bill is eventually reprinted on Report, we will inevitably have to look at what is left in it and at what some of the consequences may be. We will undoubtedly return to it if necessary. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 56.
Lord True
My Lords, perhaps I may take a minute of the House’s time and speak now to the two other amendments in the group on which I lead and which have the same welcome effect, as noble Lords on all sides have said. I, too, repeat my salute to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and the Minister. The separation of mayor and chief executive is a good idea and we should maintain it. I am grateful to my noble friend.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I hope that we might be able to get back on track again without me having to swing round to make sure that I have done all the right things. We are happy to accept Amendment 57; I made clear my support for that previously in Committee. We recognise that there is great concern about the combination of the mayor and chief executive under the shadow arrangements and are content to support the amendment.
We are not quite so happy with Amendment 58 and I am going to reject it—I cannot see why, but I am. By the time we get round to the next stage I will have recovered my composure. I think that I was so taken by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, being so nice about me that I completely got underneath this. No doubt he will return to the issue at the next stage if he feels it necessary. In the mean time, I am not going to accept that amendment but have spoken to all the others.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I am not sure that I can accept her reasoning for rejecting Amendment 58, which is also in my name—not least because I have been nice to her and about her for at least 21 years; she should be very well used to it by now. That is not a reason for being unable to give the reasons for rejecting the amendment. However, as I am moving Amendment 57 in this group, I beg leave to withdraw that amendment. No, I am sorry. I am so unused to this. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Beecham’s comments on Amendment 64. I am not a supporter of term limits. I think that it is up to parties and their candidates, and then it is for the voters to tell them who they want to elect. If the Minister can give us some clarification about term limits, that would be useful.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for this little exchange. I will see what I can do. Amendment 64, as the noble Lord said, seeks to remove the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations changing the term of office of elected mayors. This is an important power that allows for transitional arrangements to be made following the first election of mayors. In October 2001, when a number of mayoral elections were held, the Secretary of State was able to vary the mayors’ terms of office so that the second elections were held in May, and in some local authority areas the mayor’s term was varied to enable the mayoral elections to be held at the same time as local government elections. We believe that it is important that this power, which has been available to the Government since 2000, is retained.
Amendment 65 is unnecessary as regulations made under new Section 9HN can relate only to the conduct of mayoral elections, and changes to electoral law or regulations cannot be made for any other purpose under this power.
The noble Lord has queried the provision at new Section 9HN(5). The Secretary of State is able to make regulations placing limitations on election expenses. However, in most cases he must do so only following a recommendation from the Electoral Commission. The only exception when a commission recommendation is not necessary is where the Secretary of State makes changes to any limits in line with inflation. That would mean an upgrading of the mayor’s election expenses owing to the fact that there had been inflation, which of course we do not have at the moment so it would not be necessary. The noble Lord asked what “money” relates to here. It means election expenses, which can be uprated by the Secretary of State. Again, this replicates provisions in the Local Government Act 2000.
Amendment 67 seeks to require regulations made by the Secretary of State under new Section 9ID on the election, terms of office and filling of vacancies of executive leaders to be subject to the affirmative procedure. We envisage that any regulations made under this section would be used for transitional purposes when a change in governance arrangements takes place. Furthermore, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, having completed its review of the Bill, is satisfied with the level of parliamentary scrutiny of regulations made under new Section 9ID. We are therefore not convinced that the existing arrangements in the 2000 Act, whereby such provisions have been subject to the negative procedure, should be changed. That remains the situation.
On the question of deputy mayors, Amendments 86 and 87, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seek to require the mayor to gain the agreement of his or her cabinet when appointing their deputy mayor. The Government’s view is that the decision about who to appoint as their deputy mayor should be a decision for the mayor alone. It seems unnecessary for a directly elected mayor, accountable to the electorate of an entire local authority area, to have to seek the agreement of a cabinet, the members of which they themselves have appointed, to determine who the deputy mayor should be.
Amendment 87ZA seeks to remove an elected mayor’s ability, if he or she wishes, to appoint an assistant. Such assistants can currently fulfil a similar role to those carried out by political assistants to the main political groups on the council. Given the significant role that elected mayors play in their local communities—taking key strategic decisions, acting as ambassador for the area and facilitating effective partnerships are just part of what they do—then, in the same way as leaders are supported by political assistants, elected mayors will need an assistant to effectively carry out these roles. There are currently four independent and local authority mayors in England. As such, independent mayors are ineligible to have a political assistant who works only to the main political groups on the council. Amendment 87ZA may have the effect of leaving such mayors without any access to any political support or assistance.
However, we are not saying that an elected mayor must appoint an assistant. The appointment of a mayoral assistant is entirely optional and we would expect mayors to have regard to existing support structures within the council, both political and administrative, and its financial resources when reaching a decision on whether it is necessary to appoint an assistant. The Secretary of State has, of course, no involvement in a mayor’s appointment of an assistant.
I hope that these responses are helpful and will convince the House that these amendments are unnecessary and need not be pressed.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I support this sensible and well drafted amendment; my noble friend understands that joke. I want to make two points. First, if councils are to be able to choose the system of governance that they want, let it not be too bound by lots more regulation. Councils used to exist before 2000 and operated committee systems. They did not have lots of statutory guidance, regulations and orders telling them how to run them. They do not need that. Councils can perfectly well set up committees and run sensible committee systems without lots of new regulations.
Secondly, let us not imagine that there was a wonderful era of local representative democracy before 2000, when local authorities everywhere used the committee system, and that it suddenly all went bad when we had to have the executive/scrutiny split, the appointment of leaders, and so on. Life is not and was not like that. In the past, there were councils that operated efficiently, openly and transparently, involved residents and carried out their duties sensibly and efficiently; and there were councils that were pretty hopeless. That has remained the case, even though their systems have changed. Surprise, surprise—those councils that were not so good before 2000 have been not so good since. Of course, councillors can improve and some go the other way but, by and large, it is simply not true that everything was wonderful before 2000 and that everything has been awful since. Different systems may well suit different types and sizes of councils, and the dispositions of different councillors.
I hope that my council will adopt a new committee system and abandon the executive/scrutiny split, although I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that when you are in control of the council, the executive system allows you to do all sorts of things fairly quickly, and you can just get on and do it. Looking back on the five or six years during which we controlled my council and I was involved on the executive, I have to say that I am not terribly proud of the way in which we made some of the decisions out of the public gaze. Of course, they were all rubber-stamped in a proper and legal manner but, in practice, the decisions were made by a small group of people consisting of top councillors and officials who decided what we wanted to do. It may be that that was always the case and that it will happen under a committee system, but the importance of a committee system, as a noble Lord said earlier, is that the scrutiny process can take place at the time that the decision is being made in the committee. This is one of the real reasons for committees and for not having single-party executives making all the decisions.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, is not in her place. She and I were together on Lancashire County Council and we have discussed this in the past. I extolled the virtues of the committee system when it all changed to what I think is the appalling way in which that council now makes decisions, a large number of which are made by a single member of the executive—a cabinet member, portfolio member, or whatever they call themselves—sometimes meeting as a single-person committee, with all the officers and just one person in the middle making all the decisions. That is not the right way to do local government. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, would say, “Yes, but even under the committee system, when the Labour Party controlled the county council, the decision was made in the Labour group and very rarely changed”. I would say, “Yes, but occasionally it was changed, particularly when I stood up and pointed a few things out. You made a few changes”. The point is that the decisions were subject to debate and scrutiny in public at the time and at the moment they were being made. That does not happen under a lot of executive systems. The decisions we made on my council, when we were able to do so through the executive route, might have been better if we had had more people there challenging what we were saying and the workability of what we were doing, and persuading us to make some improvements. That is the advantage of the committee system.
However, I hope that people will not continue talking about “going back” to the committee system. We do not want to go back to the old committee system. We who hope that our councils will now move to a committee system want them to learn from the experience of the last 10 years and adopt some of the good things that have happened—scrutiny done well is very good. I know that many councils do not do scrutiny very well at all and that scrutiny committees are simply places to make back-bench councillors think that they actually have a job on the council, but scrutiny can be done very well indeed.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lady Hamwee is not here because she is an expert in scrutiny and would wax more lyrical about it than me. However, I hope that councils which are going to move forward to a new committee system—not an old dinosaur system—will keep the best parts of scrutiny because, done well, it has a role to play. What it does not do is the day-to-day, week-by-week scrutiny of decisions as they are taking place and that is why we want to go back to committees.
I say these things because this is the first time we have discussed the very welcome proposals by the Government to allow councils to make the choice, which some of us have argued for whenever it has come up in this House in the last 10 years. It is very welcome, the Government are to be congratulated, and I hope as many councils as feel it is sensible will go ahead with it.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, that was a short debate and I can probably give a reasonably short answer. We have some sympathy with the points that have been raised, particularly about the time that has to elapse before the changes can be implemented. I will not accept the amendment today but I am happy to take it away and consider whether those provisions are as good as they can be.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I think I am grateful for that reply, which I think was an encouraging one. I spent 13 years as leader of a council under a committee system. I stood down on the day that we adopted the executive/scrutiny split—not for that reason, but it was a convenient time to do so—and spent the subsequent 12 years as a member of the executive, so I have experience of both.
I am sorry that I led us into a debate on what the best system is. It was probably inevitable that we would have a debate on what the best system is and what our personal experiences are, but the noble Lord, Lord True, was absolutely right to remind us that that is not our business to debate today. Having rightly left local authorities to determine for themselves what system they want, the only decision for us on these amendments today is the date on which that can be implemented. That is the sole purpose of my amendments, whether they are perfectly drafted—as I am sure they must be—or whether there is something more or different that needs to be done.
I hope very much that the Minister can be as clear as possible that when we come back on Report we will have amendments, moved in whoever’s name, that will make absolutely clear that there is no need and that it makes no sense for local authorities which have whole-council elections to wait three or four years before implementing the changes that we say they should have the right to do. In hopeful anticipation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is one that certainly deserves some study. It is clear that he has put a lot of thought into it and he spelt out the case very clearly. I have had a slightly chequered experience of the mayor in London, having been the Minister responsible for the legislation that abolished the GLC and leaving it, I have to say, in a pretty unsatisfactory arrangement afterwards. The previous Government picked it up and took through Parliament the Bill that established the Mayor of London. After Mr Livingstone’s election, we bumped into each other—where else?—in a television studio. I said to him, “Ken, I should congratulate you on a remarkable victory”. “Oh, Patrick”, he said, “you were responsible for it”. In a sense I was, since I had created the situation where the position of a mayor for Greater London was possible, particularly a mayor who in his earlier capacity as leader of the GLC I had had a considerable passage of arms with. He was therefore perfectly entitled to make that remark.
Having said that, the fact is that it has worked in London; it has been a very considerable success. I did not agree with most of the things that Mr Livingstone did as mayor, and I am much more supportive of his successor. But the fact is that Parliament set up a structure that works, and that is something of which London can be proud. Furthermore, it works alongside the far more ancient post of the lord mayor of London, which is a tribute to the wisdom of those who have held the two posts over the years. No one confuses the two, except perhaps some foreigners. But the fact is that no one in London is confused about the role of the Mayor of London and that of the lord mayor. Indeed, Londoners turn out in large numbers for the lord mayor’s procession because it is a tradition of which Londoners are very proud. The difficulty lies in pointing to examples of where it has worked elsewhere.
I have come to the conclusion that there is a temptation for us to imitate the continental pattern, where mayors of major cities have risen to considerable prominence—indeed, some of them have become Prime Ministers. On one occasion, I was a member of a consultative body with Raymond Barre, who made his great reputation as the mayor of Lyon. There are plenty of other examples: Mr Chirac was the mayor of Paris. I do not know whether Boris Johnson has any ambitions in that direction, but at the moment he is seeking to defend his seat in London as the mayor. However, we have not had that tradition. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, mentioned Joseph Chamberlain and Neville Chamberlain. In earlier decades, being a mayor may have been seen as a pathway to the highest post in government but, on the whole, we have not followed the continental example.
I said at Second Reading that I supported the proposal to encourage the election of more mayors. I made it very clear that I was totally against the proposition for shadow mayors and my noble friend Lady Hanham has already conceded that provisions for that are being removed—she has been as good as her word and signed the amendments on it. Curiously enough, the other point on which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is that, despite our best endeavours and those of the excellent lady in the Government Whips Office who does the groupings, the groupings list is still not quite right, because my Amendment 82 is in this group, whereas it might well have been in the group following. It would be sensible for the moment just to discuss both groups together.
The Government have conceded that the proposals for shadow mayors have gone, but have proposed instead Amendment 81A, which my noble friends Lady Hanham and Lord Attlee have both signed. It leaves out the provisions for shadow mayors, but then goes on to insert:
“9N Referendum on change to mayor and cabinet executive … The Secretary of State may by order require a specified local authority to hold a referendum”.
I share some of the anxieties about that and cite only one example. It was a referendum not on a mayor but on an elected regional assembly in the north-east. It was where, apparently, the then Government thought they had the best chance of securing an elected regional assembly. In fact, despite their enormous efforts—virtually all the big guns from Westminster went to make the case in Newcastle and all around—they got, if I may put it crudely, a bloody nose. It was electorally for the then Government a disaster, and no further attempt has been made to establish by referendum an elected regional assembly. I do not want to put too fine a point on it, but the great majority of people do not have any allegiance to a region. They have county allegiances and they have a national allegiance, and they may have an allegiance to a town or a city, but a region is something which they do not relate to.
The other factor—I have to say that I have had family involvement here, which, to spare them embarrassment, I will not mention—is that the referendum’s having been imposed by the Government was a very good reason why the good people of the north-east said that they were not going to have anything to do with it. It was the imposition of a referendum which partially ensured its defeat. I am glad to see the Front Bench opposite nod on that.
That leads me to question, as did my noble friend Lord True, the wisdom of imposing referendums on a city for a mayor. I am not quite sure what is sought to be gained by this. I know that my noble friends have pointed to some of the very successful mayors—Barcelona is frequently mentioned—but I just question whether one can translate some of those continental examples to our big cities here in this country.
The city with which I had the most connection during my period of office as Environment Secretary was, of course, Liverpool. I inherited from my noble friends the rather unwelcome title of the Minister for Merseyside. It was the same election when the Militant tendency gained its supremacy in Liverpool and I had two extremely difficult years. My Prime Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, came up to see how I was getting on. She met some of the characters of Liverpool Council—and there was no meeting of minds. To my great relief she said, “Well, Patrick, I see what you are up against and we shall back you. But get on with it”. In the end, of course, it was a Labour leader who defeated the Militant tendency—it had to be. I had always said that only the Labour Party could do that; the Conservative Government could not. Liverpool is now becoming one of the most successful cities in the country. It has had a huge resurgence as the European City of Culture and a great deal else. I am not sure that it would have gained much by having a mayor—I do not know. When it was asked to, it did not elect a mayor, as has already been mentioned.
It has been an interesting discussion and I look forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say. I share the doubts about the wisdom of imposing a referendum on a city. The precedents are not encouraging —I have cited a couple of them—but my noble friend may well be able to persuade me. However, I sit down on a happier note: at least we are not going to have shadow mayors—and for that I am truly grateful.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the amendment has excited a deal of interest. I wish to make it absolutely clear that we are not talking about imposing mayors on cities; we are talking about imposing a referendum. It is crucial that we do not get too exercised about the imposition of a certain form of government. We are saying that it is the coalition Government’s view that cities would benefit enormously from having a mayor; they would benefit democratically and from all the interests that a mayor brings and all the influence that a mayor can exert. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, who is obviously not totally behind us on this, has pointed to the success of the London Mayor. When we first saw that starting, I do not think any of us thought that it would be very effective. In fact, it has been under two separate Governments; it has raised the profile of London.
We are trying to give a similar profile to other cities or to give local people the opportunity to say whether they think that would be an appropriate form of government for their city. The only imposition will come from the requirement to hold a referendum, and that requirement will be introduced under this legislation.
We believe that the economic growth and prosperity of our larger cities is absolutely essential to the economic recovery of the country as a whole. If we do not have good economic situations in the cities, things will look very dismal. We believe that a mayor would promote extra economic growth.
The Institute of Governance and the Centre for Cities have highlighted in their recent joint report that cities are the heartbeat of the United Kingdom’s economy. I think we would all support that. Although they occupy less than 10 per cent of the United Kingdom’s land, they contribute 60 per cent to its economic output.
The Government believe that it is clear that mayors are right for every major city. We remain true to our localist credentials, and it is absolutely up to the citizens to decide whether their city will have an elected mayor or not. We think they should, and we will be doing our utmost to ensure that everyone has all the facts about how a mayor can benefit the city and do a good sales job for its businesses and the people who live and work there. But finally and ultimately, the decision will be theirs.
We are committed to this in the coalition agreement. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was going to go seriously off-message and he may indeed seriously be still off-message. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, is not off-message, or all the other people who have signed up to this amendment. This is part and parcel of the coalition agreement that we should give local people in the larger cities in England a direct say on whether they want their city to have an elected mayor.
I know that local people can already petition for such a referendum. They can do it under previous legislation, and their elected representatives can decide, as they did in Leicester, where they have gone ahead of the game. There the council decided that the city should have a mayor, with the first mayor being elected there in May. We are convinced that the issue is now of pressing importance for the cities and for the country as a whole, and that people in the major cities should have a simpler, more immediate means for addressing the question. In short, as soon as practicable, people in each of the largest cities should have an opportunity of deciding whether they want an elected mayor. Some see this as central government imposition and “anti-localist”. We disagree completely with that. It will be for the local people to decide.
We have listed the cities, but the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, tabled Amendment 81B, where he wants specifically to have the cities named in the Bill. We will not agree to this, as it would have the effect of making the Bill hybrid, which would be a terrible mistake. Apart from that, even if that was not the situation, it would provide uncertainty, and I think that the House feels that that should be avoided. Given that the House will be asked to approve any order under Section 9, which is the order-making power, and we will have an opportunity to debate the merits of each city holding a referendum, I do not believe that it is necessary to set that out in primary legislation. I will certainly resist Amendment 81B.
I will be resisting the other amendments, including that on raising the threshold from 5 per cent to 10 per cent. In the cities, 5 per cent would be a very substantial proportion, and we should not make the hurdle any higher than that. As it is cities that we are talking about, we would not want to change that percentage.
I am not going to address each amendment. I have given an indication of why we believe that the mayoral referendum proposal should first of all come to this House and, if agreed, should go on to the cities to be carried out as soon as possible so we can have a decision and get on with having elections in the next year or the next 18 months. I thank noble Lords for their contributions but regret to say that I will not be accepting any of the amendments. I ask the noble Lord who moved the amendment to withdraw it.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, which was almost precisely in the terms that I expected. I shall refer briefly to the interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, who talked about the success of the mayoral system in London. Arguably, that is the case, but there were successful leaders of London before the mayoral system—Herbert Morrison has been cited but one could also cite Horace Cutler as a Conservative leader or indeed Ken Livingstone in his original incarnation.
I am not sure whether it was the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, or the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, that Ken Livingstone was referring to on one occasion when, on emerging from Marsham Street, as it then was, having had one of a series of meetings in the dark days of the 1980s when the GLC was at loggerheads with the Government, he was asked, “Why are you going to see him again?” and he replied, “I think he likes me for my body”. Whether it was the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, or the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, who said that, I am not entirely sure.
Lord Beecham
The noble Lord certainly deserved it.
The Minister talked about Amendment 81B as being out of place because it would provide uncertainty. On the contrary: the point of that amendment is to limit the operation of the imposed referendum—I accept entirely that an imposed referendum is what we are discussing, not an imposed mayoral system—to these 11 cases. If there is a technical problem with what is in effect a sunset clause dealing with that group of authorities, perhaps on Report we will have to recast it. I think that it is fair to say that it will be our intention to test the opinion of the House at that stage about whether it is right to press on with imposing referendums in the way that the Bill provides. We do not think that it is right to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has raised a legitimate question about the cost, which will no doubt feature in any campaigns which have to take place.
One further point is something of a puzzle. The expression regarding the definition of these authorities was that they were the “11 largest cities”. Well, that is not the case. Assuming, for the moment, that some of them are in fact cities, there are others: the city of Sunderland has a larger population than Newcastle; Kirklees, a collection of Yorkshire towns, is also substantially larger than Newcastle; and there is Hull. I do not quite know the basis on which the 11 have been chosen. However, these are the lucky 11 that remain in the frame. We on this side of the House will do our best to see that the overall principle is rejected by the House and then, if not, that the mandatory exercise is confined to these 11 authorities.
Baroness Hanham
I will address two issues. I said that we were rejecting Amendment 74A. Of course, we are not; we have already accepted it. We were asked for the estimated cost of the mayoral referendums. It is about £2.6 million, and the department will bear the cost.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, the noble Baroness has a rather more pleasant duty to attend to in a few minutes when she goes to, presumably, the town hall in Kensington and Chelsea. We wish her well, and an enjoyable evening. We look forward to resuming the debate next week with the new freeman of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
Lord Beecham
I just want to confirm that the effect of the amendment is to remove the possibility of an authority being required to hold a referendum again within 10 years once a first referendum has rejected the idea of a mayor. I understand that to be the position, but having worked quite long and late on these matters, I was not entirely sure that my mind was sufficiently clear to appreciate that point. The Minister seems to be confirming that situation, which is eminently satisfactory.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we had a long discussion on the previous amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, says, and I think that that covered what has been raised here. I can confirm that Amendments 76 and 77 would prevent another referendum within 10 years. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord not to press Amendments 76, 77, 78 and 79. Government amendments have already been agreed to. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his very kind remarks. I am off now to become a free woman.
Lord Best
I send the Minister on her way with further congratulations on the changes that have withdrawn the offending passages about shadow mayors. The top three in the Local Government Association’s long list of hopeful amendments include removal of the references to the combination of elected mayor and chief executive and removal of the issues around shadow mayors. That just leaves in our top three the question of EU fines, which will come up later. However, two out of three so far is extremely satisfactory and we are extremely grateful to the Minister for that.