Council Tax: Support Schemes
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Jenkin of Roding
Baroness Hanham
Well my Lords, a little of what the noble Lord has said is probably overblown. We are well aware that local councils are creating their council tax support schemes. In particular, at the moment, they have been offered transitional relief, as I have already said, to help them with that. Local authorities and the Department for Work and Pensions will be working together to ensure that the worst examples of what the noble Lord has put forward do not occur.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My noble friend may remember that during the passage of the Local Government Finance Act 2012 I expressed some anxiety about the effect of the localisation of council tax benefits. But does she accept that, having kept closely in touch with the Local Government Association since then—I declare my interest as a vice-president of the association—I have been considerably reassured by the efforts that most councils are now making in order to protect the most vulnerable of their council tax payers? Will she also accept that the transitional grant to which she referred has been a considerable help to them?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Jenkin for that and I agree that the transitional grant is a great help. It enables local authorities to have extra resources this year to support what they are doing as they develop their own council tax support schemes. It is slightly disappointing that only half the local authorities in the country have felt able to take up this transitional grant because they have not been able and will not be able to bring down their increase for individuals to below 8.5%.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Jenkin of Roding
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the proposed new clauses in Amendments 81CA and 81CB seek to improve the performance of statutory consultees in the planning system. I am very sympathetic to this objective but I am not sure that these proposed new clauses are the way to achieve it.
It is important to recognise that statutory consultees have an important role in the planning system. The key statutory agencies have valuable expertise on a range of specialist areas such as heritage, highways and nature conservation, and their input helps local authorities ensure that the impacts of new development are comprehensively understood in planning decisions.
Where statutory consultees are consulted on planning applications, they are required by law to reply to the local authority within 21 days. In doing so, they must provide a substantive response, enabling the local authority to proceed with the determination of the application in question. Any extension to the 21-day deadline would need to be agreed with the local authority. Therefore, boundaries are already in place.
Statutory consultees are required to report annually on their performance in meeting these targets. The five main statutory consultees achieve between 96% and 99%. Taking this into account, we do not think that a system of fines could significantly improve performance and would be difficult to devise. However, we are aware of the need to improve the way statutory consultees engage with both local authorities and developers to foster a more positive approach to facilitating development and delivering growth. I am bound to say that the reply within 21 days cannot be just a holding reply; it has to be a full response.
We have also taken action to ensure that statutory consultees are more accountable for the advice that they give and we have changed the award of costs circular so that if an inspector considers that a statutory consultee has acted unreasonably during the determination of a planning application the consultee can become liable for an award of costs. Although I support the intentions behind the amendment, I do not think it is necessary, considering the steps we are taking.
The second amendment would repeal the general power in primary legislation for the Secretary of State to give directions restricting the grant of planning permission by a local planning authority. The Planning Acts give the Secretary of State a wide range of default powers that can be used as a last resort in relation to both plan-making and decision-taking. The powers are there as a fall-back to protect the public interest. The powers set out in Section 74 of the Act are exercised through Article 25 of the Town and Country (Development Management Order) (England) 2010 and that provides that the Secretary of State may give directions restricting the grant of permission by a local authority either indefinitely or during such a period as may be specified.
Planning applications are called in only in exceptional circumstances and the ability to serve holding directions is essential to the smooth functioning of the call-in process. In the case of the power of direction exercised by the Highways Agency, this is exercised during the consultation period, where the agency considers that, were a local authority to approve a planning application, it could result in a dangerous increase in risk to users of motorways and strategic roads. I agree that the Highways Agency should be accountable for the way in which this power is used in order to ensure that it is used for the key purposes of facilitating growth, both in ensuring that proposed developments are not delayed without good reason and in ensuring that approved developments do not result in additional congestion on the strategic road network. If noble Lords agree, I will write with further details on the Department for Transport’s policy on the use of these directions and on any future plans it might have to review them.
I should like to reassure my noble friend and other noble Lords that we are also concerned that any direction is used in as open and transparent a way as possible. The Highways Agency is very keen to work with applicants in developing their schemes and welcomes pre-application discussions. It knows that early engagement with developers is vital to ensure that applications can progress without delay. The agency says that it responds to consultations within the prescribed limit in 99.9% of cases. In 2011-12, 9.4% of responses made by the agency were a holding direction. As already mentioned, the agency has published an improvement plan with actions to improve its performance, especially in reducing the time taken.
I have abbreviated slightly what I wanted to say and I hope that, having done so, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I am grateful for the amount of trouble my noble friend has taken in responding to these two amendments. I recognise that the second one was pretty drastic and I described it as a probing amendment, but I am grateful for what she said about the need to improve the performance of the statutory consultees. With that, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Jenkin of Roding(11 years, 3 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, this group of amendments seeks to set out in the Bill the types of development and development sites which can and cannot be considered nationally significant under Clause 24. A number of specific amendments have been moved, and I will attempt to address the issues in each.
As noble Lords are aware, the purpose of Clause 24 is to extend the existing powers within the Planning Act to direct sub-threshold forms of energy, waste, transport, water and waste-water schemes into the Planning Act regime, to new forms of business and commercial development. Our intention is not to bring new development into the regime automatically but to provide an alternative planning route where proposed development is of national significance. We have recently consulted on the types of business and commercial developments, and we are now in the process of considering the responses to that consultation.
Amendments 77ZJ and 77AB would rule out proposed schemes using the regime if they were on sites of special environmental or historic importance or if they involved minerals extraction, or quarrying. These amendments would apply equally to the existing types of infrastructure, such as energy, transport and water, as well as to new forms of business and commercial schemes.
An example of the effect of Amendment 77ZJ is that a sub-threshold energy scheme of national significance that might otherwise be considered via the Planning Act route could not be the subject of a direction if part of the site had an environmental designation. We do not consider this to be a sensible approach. If a scheme is of national significance and is directed into the regime, the Secretary of State will have to consider all the issues that are important and relevant, including any impacts on the historic or natural environment, before reaching his decision. To exclude large tracts of land without consideration of the planning merits or otherwise of the proposed development could discourage developers bringing forward much needed infrastructure or economic developments.
I will explain our thinking on minerals a little bit more. As we recognised in the National Planning Policy Framework, minerals are essential to support sustainable economic growth and quality of life. Without minerals, our building industry would grind to a halt. It is essential that there is a sufficient supply of material to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs. We therefore consider that some minerals schemes could be capable of being of national significance, but again we wish to consider the consultation responses before we reach final conclusions about the forms of development.
Amendments 78ZA, 77AA, 77AC and 77BA seek to place the types of commercial and business development in the Bill. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, broadly agrees with the types of development on which the Government consulted recently in connection with the proposals to extend the infrastructure planning regime to business and commercial projects. Nevertheless, we consider that this amendment is premature. We believe that a broad range of types of development of national significance could benefit from using the infrastructure planning regime and that further public and parliamentary scrutiny on how this new power should be used is appropriate. That is why we are now considering the responses to this consultation and why the accompanying regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 78, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lord Jenkin, also seeks to remove the exclusion in the Bill on dwellings from being prescribed in regulations. I listened carefully to the remarks made on this point by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. The Government have a clear position that planning for housing should remain a core responsibility of local councils. As the Government set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, local councils should be planning to deliver a wide choice of high-quality homes and wider opportunities for home ownership and creating sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities.
Many of the responses to the consultation exercise that we carried out recently supported the exclusion of housing from the infrastructure planning regime. Again, we are considering these responses, but we believe that housing should be and remain a core responsibility of local authorities.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I did not intervene in the debate, because the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made the point. When will the Government publish the full response to the consultation? It has been represented to me that there were quite a lot of objections to the exclusion of housing. Of course one agrees that housing cannot be a main purpose of an application that goes directly to the Planning Inspectorate, but there are a lot of mixed developments now that usefully and importantly will include a housing aspect. It ought to be possible for an applicant to use the new procedure to have his application referred directly to the inspectorate.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I think that I made clear in my remarks that we are considering the results of the consultation that has just taken place. At present, the intention is to continue to have housing dealt with by local authorities. We are analysing the responses at the moment. While we already have a summary of the issues, we will publish a full response in due course. The summary of the issues may be helpful to us for the next stage.
I hope that noble Lords will agree the Government have set out a sensible approach that will enable new forms of nationally significant development to benefit from the Planning Act regime, that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment, and that other noble Lords do not press the amendments in their names, mainly probing as I understand them to be.
Baroness Hanham
We have a number of consultations coming through to fruition, so I am not able to stand here now and say that the Government’s response will be available by Report. I hope that we will have an indication of what more we can discuss on this. If the response can be made available then I will certainly see that it is but I am not in a position to say that it will be. I note what the noble Baroness said.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I listened with great care to what my noble friend said on the question of who can make an application to the Secretary of State for an NSIP treatment. I will read very carefully what she said but, having listened, I am still puzzled as to why there is a difference between the existing applications and the new ones for business and commercial. Perhaps I might leave that there. I will read very carefully what she said and decide how we should proceed after that.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Jenkin of Roding(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I promise that this will take substantially less time than the last amendment. This proposed new clause is about the deregistration and exchange of land. It is a very simple point, but it seems entirely in tune with what we have been arguing for for some time—a decentralisation of a lot of these decisions.
Commons legislation already provides that village greens and land can be deregistered. Where the green is significant, you have to provide alternative land. “Significant” is not very big: it is only 200 square metres. That is only 20 metres by 10 metres, which is not very large, but you have to find and agree replacement land. Land can be deregistered, but it requires the approval of the Secretary of State.
That degree of centralisation is now quite unreasonable. Of course it is not the Secretary of State: it goes straight to the Planning Inspectorate from whom there is no appeal except by way of judicial review at enormous expense. This is a decision that could be fairly and properly left to local authorities. That is what the proposed new clause is intended to achieve. I hope that noble Lords find it acceptable. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, my noble friend laid out the position exactly as it is: the Secretary of State has to reply to an order for land to be deregistered. He also told the House about the release of land where it exceeds 200 square metres in area. The application must include a proposal for other land. If the release land is smaller than 200 square metres, a proposal for replacement land may, but need not, be included.
Commons and greens are a national asset and an important part of our national heritage and culture. They provide open spaces for access and recreation and deliver important benefits for the country. The importance that this Government attach to common land means that any application to deregister commons and greens under Section 16 of the 2006 Act is of national significance. That is why the Secretary of State is responsible for determining Section 16 applications. The function has been carried out by the Planning Inspectorate on his behalf since Section 16 was commenced.
The Planning Inspectorate acts independently and must have regard to the interests of the persons having rights in relation to, or occupying, the release land and in particular persons exercising rights of common over it.
The Secretary of State has reserved his right to recover jurisdiction and takes a close interest in applications where the exchange of land is required for transport, communications or energy infrastructure proposals. The amendment tabled by my noble friend to transfer the function from the Secretary of State to commons registration authorities is made on the basis that such decisions are best made by those commons registration authorities.
Since Section 16 was commenced in October 2007, 27 decisions have been made by the Planning Inspectorate, which equates to around five a year. The commons registration authorities would therefore need to develop more expertise. Commons registration authorities have experience of determining applications to register new greens, but there is no discretion in such applications.
An important issue is what happens when a commons registration authority owns the land for which Section 16 deregistration is sought. There could be some doubt among local people as to whether the authority could demonstrate that it was completely impartial. The rule for other applications under Part 1 of the Commons Act 2006, set out in the Commons Registration (England) Regulations 2008, is that where the commons registration authority has an interest in the outcome of an application, the application must be referred to the Planning Inspectorate for determination. There remain some questions as to how my noble friend’s amendment would provide that reassurance of impartiality.
However, assuming the commons registration authority was to hold its own inquiry, it remains to be seen how it would be quicker and cheaper than is currently the case. Data held by Defra suggest that on average commons registration authorities take between nine and 16 months to process applications under Section 15 to register new greens, which is reasonably comparable in terms of process and is no shorter than the average of nine months that the Planning Inspectorate presently takes for Section 16 applications. Moreover, the estimated average cost of public inquiries ranges between £17,000 and £44,000, which is significantly more than the average cost of £11,200 presently incurred by the Planning Inspectorate.
With those remarks, I hope that my noble friend will be willing to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I will want to take advice on what my noble friend has said. It sounds as if it is a lot more complex than perhaps I had appreciated, and I shall certainly look at it very carefully. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Jenkin of Roding
Baroness Hanham
My noble friend has greater experience than I have of putting forward legislation, and he will know that not all measures are put into a Bill. Some are in secondary legislation and some are in planning guidance. I have no doubt at all that it will be made clear to local authorities how that designation is going to come about and what they will be able to do to ameliorate it. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
A number of noble Lords asked whether we were going to have the Government’s response to the consultation with the details of the criteria before Report, which seems likely to be in about the middle of February. That does not give the Government a great deal of time because, as has been said, the consultation finished only last week. However, I think it would be much more helpful to the House if we could see the criteria. The Minister has laid great stress on the fact that local authorities will know what the criteria are, but will noble Lords know?
Baroness Hanham
My noble friend would know what they are if he had read the consultation document, which, knowing his experience, he will have done. The criteria put out to consultation are that local authorities will be designated if they should not have achieved the statutory requirement in 30% of applications and if they have had 20% of appeals overturned. I think that those are the figures in the consultation, and the consultation is where the criteria stand at the moment.
As regards the other information, the consultation has just closed. It will probably be quite difficult to get a full response by the time we get to Report, but we can certainly give noble Lords an indication of the responses to the consultation, which may be helpful. I am not going to guarantee that we can give the Government’s response by Report, because I think that it may require more consideration than the time available allows.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions on this amendment. Some of the ground was covered previously, but not substantially, so I am grateful for all the views that have been put forward. What is being underscored here is that a local authority should not be penalised for something which is well outside its own control. As I said in response to the previous amendment, it would be our intention that where a local planning authority was on the bar for designation it would at least be able to discuss some of the reasons for why it thought that it was slow, particularly over one or two applications. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is right: there are a number of areas where local authorities simply cannot do anything about that.
They can under the new planning agreement, however, as they will be able to say to a developer that there are areas which are outside their control and may take longer to consider. That can be a formal agreement, or there can an informal agreement saying the same thing, and it can take place at any stage in the planning process. If you get to a certain stage and discover that you have not got the response that you need, the planning agreement could be that you think that a few weeks might be needed to bring that in and it could be delayed. This is not about planning applications where we know that things go wrong; it is where the normal process of considering an application is deliberately slow.
I hear very clearly what is being said about this, and I hope that we will be able to make clear either in guidance or in some other way what would be excluded, because that is important. We have noted, too, what your Lordships’ Select Committee on the Constitution and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee had to say about this. We need to take note of that, consider it and come back at Report if there is anything that we can do to respond to it.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has set out a substantial list. I do not think that he really believes that it would be sensible to have that in the Bill. We need to understand where the exceptions and difficulties are. I am sure that we will think about that after the sitting.
Amendment 34, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord True, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, spoke, concerns the question of judicial review and proposes that any judicial review should be excluded from any assessment of speed. An absolutely minute number of planning applications are subject to judicial review and, in the vast majority of those cases, the proceedings are instigated once the application has been determined. They do not take place during the course of the review, which might take up time. I do not think that judicial review will impede councils’ performance on the consideration of the application. It is therefore unnecessary to make special provision for applications subject to judicial review in any way. I suspect that if it happened in the middle of a process it would be as relevant to have that as a planning agreement to be sorted out as any other. I need to check that, but that seems a pretty logical conclusion.
We have dealt a little with an authority’s past improvement in performance, and the proposal that any designation should be based on five years. That would be far too long. We are looking at the figures for two years because we are concerned about the performance occurring now, not about whether the authority has improved over five years, because if it is still not at the criteria level now, it will make no difference whether it started from nought or not or whether it has gone up or down. It is better to set a bar of two years and not much more so that we get a really clear impression of what is happening at present.
Where local authorities are deemed to be failing under the criteria, we do not want to hang about. We do not want them to be under pressure about it; if they are to be designated, we want them to be designated, the help to be put in place and the opportunity to be de-designated at the year review to be put in hand immediately. I keep saying this, but we do not want local authorities to be designated; we would much prefer that they were not. We need to ensure that if they are not performing well, they start to perform well or better very quickly.
We have made clear that we will take a picture of each authority’s performance over the most recent two-year period to even out any fluctuations in the data and account for the fact that some authorities deal with more applications than others. I said that in debate on a previous amendment. We recognise that that there are authorities, such as the national parks authority, which deal with a limited number of major applications during the course of a year. Of course we must take that into account compared with a local planning authority which is dealing with any number of major applications.
We have just completed a consultation. As I said, we will try to ensure that noble Lords at least know before the next stage what were the responses to it. If we can get any further than that, we will. We will consult again in future if the approach to the criteria should change. That was a point picked up by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie: what is to stop future Secretaries of State suddenly deciding that they want to raise all the criteria? What is to stop them is that they would have to go out to consultation; they could not just do it. That does not need to be in the Bill either.
I think that I have answered the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. If elements within the 13 weeks justify delay, we will certainly ensure that that is taken up. We shall consider very carefully the responses to the consultation. I hope that that covers the points made by noble Lords.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, on Amendment 29, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, I raised a point about the length of time of the designation and drew attention to the fact that I was subject to judicial review because I had not included length of time for the suspension of the health authority. There is a parallel.
Baroness Hanham
In the consultation, it is suggested that the length of designation should be reviewed after a year. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is asking whether you could keep on renewing it so that there would be no end to the time. I do not know the answer to that, and I will drop the noble Lord a note, if I may.
Local Government Finance Bill
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Jenkin of Roding
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, Amendment 105 would remove the ability of the Government to make regulations about the process by which a council tax reduction scheme is prepared, such as requiring certain documents to be prepared, and the manner in which those documents are published. I should make clear that the Government’s intention was set out in the statement of intent published on Thursday 17 May. In that policy statement we stated our intention not to make regulations at this stage about the procedure for making a scheme, which still holds.
The rationale for not regulating is on the basis that local authorities already routinely consult on a range of issues, and additional prescription should not be required. In other words, they ought to know when they should need to consult.
I am pleased to note that at least 305 councils—or 94% of them—have already commenced their consultations on the schemes, during which vulnerable people will continue to receive protection. However, as with all aspects of policy, we will keep this under review. As the need to consult on schemes for local council tax support is a new requirement, it may become apparent that it is desirable to prescribe certain elements of the process in future years. Retaining this power ensures that, if necessary, we are able to take steps for future years to ensure that the consultation process is fair for the taxpayer.
The effect of Amendment 106 would be to remove the deadline of 31 January for making and revising schemes, and to remove the Secretary of State’s power to change that deadline by order. It is important to maintain the 31 January deadline to ensure that local schemes can be in place in time for April 2013 and that people continue to receive protection from the scheme. Allowing changes after this date would create uncertainty for the people who are benefiting from the scheme as they would face having their awards changed part way through the year. It would also create uncertainty for taxpayers generally, as reductions are reflected in the tax base on which council tax is levied; I do not think that this would be helpful.
When we discussed this amendment in Committee, my noble friend Lord Jenkin asked about the relationship between the setting of the scheme and council tax referendums. Indeed, this point has just been made again tonight. If I may, I will briefly repeat what I said in Committee:
“Local authorities will need to take account of the potential impact on council tax when designing their schemes. They will already know their provisional funding allocations, and the Government expect to have published the proposed referendum principles at the same time as the provisional local government finance settlement”,
and that information will be available. I confirm that any referendum that took place would have to take place in May, after the setting of the council tax should have taken place. In Committee, I went on to say:
“The need to consider the affordability of the proposed scheme and its impact on council tax is no different to taking decisions about the level of funding for other services and their potential impacts on council tax”.—[Official Report, 19/7/12; col. GC 171.]
Any authority that considers that it might breach the referendum principles must prepare a shadow budget setting out how it would carry on its services under a lower rate of council tax.
It is correct to say that it will not be possible for local authorities to go back and change their scheme if a referendum is triggered and a council tax increase vetoed, but it is absolutely right that we do not create unnecessary uncertainty for people in financial need about the amounts of support that they can claim. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord might be willing to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
On Amendment 106, I am very grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton. He is quite right to say that the referendum has to happen in May—on the first Thursday in May in the financial year to which the increase relates. However, if the referendum succeeds in overturning the original rate of council tax that was to be levied and the local authority has to hold another one, it would have had to make any changes to the council tax relief scheme by the previous January, which means that it will not be able to make any adjustment to reflect the lower rate that it is now going to have to levy.
If it is the Government’s intention that if there is a referendum local authorities cannot change the council tax relief scheme after the result is known, that ought to be made clear. I do not think that it has been clear hitherto. Is my noble friend prepared to add a few words to what she has said? If she is saying that local authorities cannot change the scheme after a referendum, everybody will know where they stand. However, if they are to be allowed to change the scheme, the date of 31 January has to be moved. There has to be an option to choose something else. Will my noble friend go a little further and clarify that that is what the Government intend?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I can clarify the position and confirm it. It will not be possible for a local authority to change its scheme if a referendum is triggered; in other words, it would have to carry on with the scheme which it had put together and sort out the funding subsequently.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, in the circumstances, obviously it would be sensible for me to withdraw the amendment but we may seek to clarify the position further. I want to read very carefully what my noble friend has said to clarify the position. I may bring forward an amendment at Third Reading to renew this discussion. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Local Government Finance Bill
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Jenkin of Roding(11 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hanham
I will write and confirm to the noble Lord. I am pretty well convinced that it does, but I will confirm it.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for her assurances. I certainly take heart from them. On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, as I think I said, Mr Letwin’s letter said:
“While this commitment did not extend to all low-carbon technologies, the design of the business rates retention proposals”—
I think that is what we are talking about, and I am grateful for the confirmation that paragraph 38 is appropriate—
“will ensure that there will be significant ongoing benefits to those authorities hosting low carbon energy infrastructure. It is likely that nuclear power stations will generate significant increases in business rates revenues in line with the scale of the programme”.
I think it was a perfectly fair question, and I hope we will all get a copy of the answer that will be sent to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton. In the mean time, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Local Government Finance Bill
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Jenkin of Roding(11 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hanham
I apologise to the noble Lord but I think that when he asked the question he anticipated that that is actually quite detailed. It is not a figure that I have just got in my head, so perhaps I may write to him to give it.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, my noble friend has made it very clear that these matters are going to be dealt with in regulations. There will therefore be the opportunity to consider those regulations in draft and if necessary, to negotiate. As I understand it, the City authorities have been negotiating with my noble friend’s department for some time on this. This is not a new thing, but there still has to be an opportunity to try to reach a sensible agreement. I understand the point that my noble friend has made about not loading the whole thing on to government, but that agreement has to be fair to both parties. Having heard that, however, I do not think that I should talk any longer and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Local Government Finance Bill
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Jenkin of Roding(11 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead 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 the alliance for its comments on the amendment. In particular I thank my noble friend Lord Jenkin for his explanation of the proposed new clause. I do not suppose that any noble Lord will be surprised to hear me say that I do not consider that such a provision is appropriate or necessary.
I fully understand that in the current system, where business rates are not retained locally, changes to national business rates policy do not affect the level of funding that authorities receive. However, in future such changes could impact on the level of funding available to a local authority. I am sure that Members of the Committee will understand that the Government may need at some stage to make changes to the national business rates policy for a variety of reasons. In the majority of cases it is likely that any changes will have been consulted on, but this may not always be the case. Changes to reliefs are a matter for the Chancellor, and a deferral system that gave businesses the opportunity to defer payment of 60% of the increase in their 2012 business rate bills as a result of the RPI uprating was announced in the autumn Statement. If the Government had consulted on that, businesses would have had to wait at least two or three months longer to receive the benefit, which in some cases could have meant the difference between shutting or remaining open. I use that as an example.
I assure my noble friend that where the Government implement a change to national business rates policy that will involve a net additional cost to local government—a point that was raised by my noble friend Lord Tope—this will be picked up through the new burdens policy. It will be treated as a new burden in line with our commitment to keeping the downward pressure on council tax as far as possible. Given this clear commitment that provides an assurance to local government, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation. Of course I understand that the change may work both ways. If local authorities are going to benefit from the change, the argument not to have consultation but to get on and make the payments is much stronger. However, if there is a change that will increase the burdens on a local authority, my noble friend gave an undertaking that there would be consultation—so I cannot understand why this should not go in the Bill. It would be very reassuring to local authorities and would not place an undue burden on central government. If the Government were going to change the policy to the disadvantage of local government, there is no reason why a three-month delay should not be a perfectly satisfactory way of dealing with the statutory obligation to consult. Of course we do not vote in Grand Committee, but there is a stronger argument for this amendment than perhaps my noble friend acknowledged. Perhaps she might like to look at it again.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I made the point, which the noble Lord accepted, that there may need to be flexibility on this. I gave the example of changes in the autumn Statement that would have been delayed if there had been consultation. It was a perfectly reasonable point. Without exception, the Government will want to consult where appropriate and where time allows, but there will be occasions when it is not in anybody’s interests to do so for reasons of speed. The proposed new clause would just constrain their ability to do that. Putting it in the Bill would be less than helpful.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I hear what my noble friend says and we would wish to consult those advising us on that. I take the point that this is a wide-ranging amendment but, with different drafting to which we could return on Report, we might be able to write something in on this. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Local Government Finance Bill
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Jenkin of Roding(11 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hanham
If the noble Lord is going to join the coalition, why not from the Front Bench, given the way things are going?
This group of amendments presents a good opportunity to discuss the key element of the rates retention scheme; that is, the operation of the levy and the safety net. From the outset, we have signalled our intention that the rates retention scheme will include a safety net mechanism to protect local authorities from significant downward shocks to their income. We did so in recognition of the inherent volatility in the business rates system, to which my noble friend Lord Palmer has just referred, that can see rates income vary from year to year, principally because of appeals, to which the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred, which are generally out of the local authority’s control, or a sudden change in local economic circumstances as a result of, for example, the closure or relocation of a major business. The safety net will be funded by a levy on the disproportionate benefits that some authorities would otherwise experience simply because of their high initial business rates baseline. The detailed calculations required to determine whether a local authority is to make a levy payment or receive a safety net payment and, if so, the amount of any such payments will be set out in regulations, which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure under paragraphs 20 and 23 of the schedule. In both cases, those regulations will need to set out the precise detail of what is to be measured and how it is to be measured, and the provisions in paragraphs 20 and 23 give the scope to be able to include all relevant items in defining income for the purposes of the calculations. Amendment 41, moved by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, seeks to remove some of that scope by removing the ability in regulations to make provision for the calculation of levy payments to be by reference to some factor other than retained business rates income.
I shall lay out how we think the calculations will work. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, will be aware that we intend to set a proportional levy at 1:1, which will mean that all authorities can expect to retain up to 1% growth in their baseline funding level for every 1% growth in their authority’s business rates baseline. This will require the authority’s retained rates income for the year to be compared with its baseline starting level. In other words, that is the rates income we initially calculated that the authority would collect—its business rates baseline—plus or minus any top-up or tariff before applying the levy rate to the difference between the two. The initial comparison or the application of the levy rate could be described as another factor.
We are also trying to create a legislative framework that will stand the test of time. Noble Lords have already referred to the need to keep the safety net under review, and we agree with that. A consequence of keeping it under review is that we may at some point in the future want to redefine how the safety net works and we may—who knows?—want to include a reference to other factors. If a future Government were to do that, they would, of course, have to get the agreement of Parliament to those changes through the affirmative resolution procedure, so the right level of scrutiny is clearly available.
There is no secret conspiracy here. We do not intend to take account of some other mysterious factors. The provisions as they stand simply enable the way the levy payments are to be calculated to be set out in regulations. It is true that they may also provide some flexibility, but we have no plans to do anything other than provide for a proportionate levy on retained business rates income, as I have set out.
I have more sympathy with the noble Lord’s Amendment 42—that must be the first time I have said that since we started.
Baroness Hanham
Don’t get too excited. The amendment for which I have more sympathy, Amendment 42, seeks to ensure that there is a period during which authorities can challenge the calculation of the levy payment, but I do not believe that it is necessary to set that out in regulations. The basis of the calculations is, as I have explained, to be set out in regulations and local authorities will have ample opportunity to comment on that. Individual calculations will be based on the information supplied to local authorities, so there should be no reason for the calculations to be wrong.
However, I appreciate that local authorities have concerns, as this is something that we have discussed in the working groups that we have with them. Although I am not convinced that a requirement in the Bill is appropriate or necessary, I shall take this away to give further consideration to how we might meet those concerns. That is my sympathetic bit.
Turning to the discussion on the safety net threshold, prompted by Amendments 43, 45 and 45A, noble Lords will be well aware that decisions about the levels of the safety net threshold and the levy ratio are very closely linked. They must balance a range of competing issues and they cannot be divorced. While the safety net needs to offer protection against significant shocks in the local rates base, as I mentioned earlier, it will be funded by other local authorities through the levy. Therefore, the levy ratio must be set at such a level as to generate sufficient income to fund demands on the safety net at the chosen support threshold. Equally, that level must be such that it continues to offer an incentive to authorities to pursue growth.
We have carefully considered all these issues and believe that the levy ratio at 1:1, together with the safety net support threshold in the range of 7.5% to 10% below baseline funding, offers the best combination on balance. We will be consulting local government over the summer before any final decisions are taken. Therefore, although I appreciate the intention behind the noble Lord’s amendments, I am not in a position to accept them.
I think that Amendment 44 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is unnecessary. I understand his aim but he will no doubt appreciate that we will of course want to keep the operation of the safety net under constant review, particularly during the early years of the scheme. If we believe that it is not offering the right level of support, we will change it.
Finally, with Amendment 46 my noble friend Lord Jenkin seeks to ensure that provision is made for the effect of appeals on an authority’s income—a matter raised earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. We recognise that the impact of rating appeals on an authority’s income is outside the control of the authority but we do not believe that this amendment is the way to deal with it. Instead, as I have previously explained, we will be building two significant protections into the scheme. First, we will be reflecting appeal losses in the initial calculation of tariffs and top-ups. In other words, we will set the level of tariff or top-up as though authorities have collected less income from rates than is the case, recognising that over time they will lose some income on appeal. Generally, we have put in place the safety net so that, where authorities lose more on appeal than is allowed for in the initial calculation, they will be substantially protected through the safety net payments.
With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hanham
I will write to the noble Lord. My understanding is that as long as you have sufficient income left as a tariff authority, you probably would not justify help from the safety net. It is for those who lose an enormous amount of income and are not able to cope with that because it is below the base line. None the less, I shall have the noble Lord written to about that.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I am grateful for what my noble friend said about looking again at the issue raised by Amendment 46, but I am not sure that I wholly understood. I do not want to anticipate the argument that we might have on any amendment that she might bring forward on Report, but I understood that she said that one thing that the Government might do would be to try to take into account the impact of appeals. Is that what she said? How can you know before the appeal has been heard? I just do not understand. It is just another estimate, whereas the amendment is looking for full compensation for that. I am not sure whether I have properly understood what my noble friend said in her earlier response.
Baroness Hanham
It must be extremely difficult to work out in advance how many appeals will be won or lost. There will be an assessment of what that will be and it will be taken into account at an early stage. The noble Lord is asking for full compensation on every appeal that is lost or won—if it were the other way round, we could take money back. At present, if it is likely that a lower amount of rates will be collected than expected because of outstanding appeals, that will be taken into account. That is some form of compensation, it seems to me.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I listened to my noble friend with care. Due to the extraneous noise overhead, I am not sure that I heard it all. This Room is rather vulnerable to the helicopters flying overhead. I got the impression that she feels that there is merit in what we are saying and that she understands that her regulations will in fact deal with it. Would that be a fair summary?
Baroness Hanham
I am happy that the changes that were made in the other place will ensure that the levy is redistributed as quickly as possible, in consultation with local government, and that will be laid out in regulations.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Indeed, if that is going to happen, that is not unsatisfactory.
Can I have an assurance that the regulations that this clause provides for will be available by the time we get to Report?
Baroness Hanham
We have said that we will have all regulations available before we meet again.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
In those circumstances, I hope that my noble friends in the expanded coalition will agree that I withdraw the amendment.
Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (Council Tax Increases) (England) Regulations 2012
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Jenkin of Roding(12 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, the purpose of these regulations is to set out the rules for the conduct of referendums in relation to excessive council tax increases set by authorities in England. Noble Lords will know that the coalition programme for government included a commitment to abolish the centralised capping regime and give council tax payers the final say on excessive increases through a referendum. We have delivered that commitment. The Localism Act means that from 2012-13 onwards, when an authority sets an increase in excess of principles proposed by the Secretary of State and approved by the other place, a referendum will have to be held. The 2012-13 principles were approved by the other place on 8 February.
These regulations largely replicate the Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (England) Regulations 2007, which the Committee has recently considered in updated form. Council election officers are familiar with those. However, these regulations reflect the specific subject matter of council tax referendums.
Where a council tax referendum is to be held, the authority triggering the referendum must pay for it. It must also notify voters that a referendum will be held and inform them of the potential impact on their bill, and the cost of the referendum. The authority cannot campaign in relation to the question to be asked, but it can publish a statement setting out the reasons for its excessive increase and the consequences if the increase is not approved.
Organising the referendum will be the responsibility of billing authorities. These are the authorities that have the expertise and experience in organising polls. Where a major precepting authority has triggered a referendum, separate polls will be organised by each of the billing authorities in its area. The major precepting authority will appoint a chief counting officer to determine the overall result, with powers to ensure that the poll is run effectively.
Referendums will generally be held by the first Thursday in May to coincide with local elections. At the discretion of counting and returning officers, these can be held in combination with other polls, if appropriate. The referendum could also be held up to 28 days later to coincide with another poll.
The regulations make special provision for the particular circumstances of the Greater London Authority, which calculates two different amounts of council tax that are potentially subject to a referendum.
There will be a restriction on the amount individuals or bodies can spend on a referendum campaign. This is £2,362 plus 5.9 pence for each entry in the relevant electoral registers. Breach of the limit in certain circumstances will be a criminal offence.
Consistent with existing electoral practice, a referendum may be questioned by petition to the court. Until a court hears a petition from four of more voters, the result of the referendum will stand. A court may uphold the result, declare it void or reverse it on the grounds that the result was not in accordance with the votes cast. In the event of a void result the authority’s substitute calculations will take effect. To avoid uncertainty for bill payers, there is no authorisation for a referendum to be rerun.
The Government have looked carefully at the question to be asked at the council tax referendum. As noble Lords will see from briefing provided by the Electoral Commission, we have to date, unfortunately, not been able to reach agreement with the commission on the precise form of words to be used. However, recognising the important role which the commission has in commenting on referendum questions and the need to ensure that questions are neutral and comprehensible, we will continue to work with the commission in the coming weeks and intend to come forward with updated proposals in due course.
For this year, we need to make progress to deliver the council tax freeze and to ensure that council tax payers have the right to decide on any excessive increases. The Government’s offer of grant to support a council tax freeze in 2012-13 makes it unlikely that a council tax referendum will be held this year. However, if authorities choose to ignore the freeze and go on to set an excessive increase, we need these regulations to be in place. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her careful explanation. Of course, as she will be aware, this is a very substantial volume of regulations. It runs to over 120 pages. It contains a huge mass of detail and therein lies my reason for rising to my feet. Let me say straight away that I am totally convinced about the Government’s policy of getting rid of rate-capping—and no one did more rate-capping than I did between the years of 1983 and 1985—and substituting for that the right of the public to decide whether a rate is excessive or not. I have made no secret that I totally support that. It is exactly the right procedure, which we need to do. It is in line with the devolution of power to local communities and giving the people the right to have their say.
However, I find the detail—the mass of prescriptive detail—in these regulations extremely difficult to accept. One must ask why it has to be set out in such minute detail. After all, the regulations try to prescribe the question to be asked. That may be quite reasonable and I heard what my noble friend said about that. There has been a considerable correspondence with the Electoral Commission on that and it has a good deal of wisdom on this. I think that it is right that it should be listened to. It is not wholly satisfied with the question that appears in the regulations, but I will not pursue that question.
My question relates to the rest of the prescriptive detail, which has to be asked. For instance, why do the regulations have to set detailed limits on the amount that may be spent in the course of the referendum? Why does it set a limit on campaign expenses? Why are these things necessary? We are supposed to be devolving power to local authorities and to local communities. Why does it need to set the time when a referendum has to be held? Why does it put in place procedures for challenging and questioning results and so on? It seems that these are all details which local authorities should be perfectly capable—with their local communities —to decide. Of course, there are the massive detailed rules on the conduct of referendums when there is already procedure in existence under earlier legislation and, indeed, the regulations are based on this
I appreciate what the Minister said about the matter having been approved by another place, although the exceedingly short debate, which was held on this in the other place on 2 February, began at 8.55 am and finished at 9.08 am. According to my calculation, that was about 13 minutes, and that was for a matter that is right at the heart of the Government's devolution policy. They want to ensure that local authorities and local communities have a say and I am astonished that, at the other end, they felt it necessary to devote so little time to what I see as a substantial issue.
Matters do not stop there. The Government have sought to prescribe in some detail what is to be regarded as an excessive rate proposal. Of course, it is complicated if you try to set out all the details and if you set them out centrally, which is what my noble friends seem to have decided to do. Even the departmental officials have recognised that there are some very peculiar anomalies in the way in which the system will work.
I have here an annexe which was attached to a letter from the Local Government Association, but I also have an annexe which was attached to a letter to chief executives and a number of others from an official, Mark Rickard, in the Department for Communities. That letter sets out the situation, without any apparent apology or understanding of the unreasonableness of it. To put it very briefly, a local authority can determine, in an extreme case, a nil increase in its own rates and yet still, as a result of the levies, be subject to a referendum. Why? No doubt my noble friend will want to answer that. Others may have a substantial increase which ought to be the subject of a referendum but, because various adjustments are made, lo and behold, it is not.
When one looks at the list of authorities, based on a calculation made by the Local Government Association of some 31 authorities, where there will be an effective tax increase by the local authority of below 3 per cent, it ranges from 2.05 per cent for Manchester to 2.99 per cent for Wolverhampton; 31 authorities could set a rate below the 3.5 per cent limit which the Government have prescribed in the order and yet still be liable to face a referendum. Why should that be so?
I have tried to get to the bottom of this. I have tried to look through various papers and so on to get to grips with this to see what has happened and why it has to be like that and I confess to my noble friend that I have not found an explanation that would seem to justify these extraordinary figures. I think it stems from the fact that the Government are trying to spell this out in a mass of prescriptive detail; but this is a Government who, as we debated at some length during the passage of what is now the Localism Act, are supposed to be devolving authority to local authorities and to local communities.
It is to my noble friend's great credit that she and her colleagues in the department accepted a good many of those arguments and the result was that we sent back to the other place 100 pages of amendments. When I met the Secretary of State, I said to him, “I am sorry that we are sending you back a great many amendments”. He said, “I know, they’re absolutely splendid”. I said, “But Eric, it was your Bill”. That is extraordinary. They went through the other place without any opposition at all and nothing came back, but here we are at it again.
During the debates on the Bill, a great deal was said about dealing with a very deep-rooted attitude of mind which certainly is to be found in departments and also, as my noble friend Lord Tope said, within local authorities themselves. Many of them expect to be told what to do. It may take a generation before we grow out of this excessive dependence on detailed central government regulation. It is probably too late to think of changing this order now. I do not know what the noble Lords opposite may want to do when this order has to be taken on the Floor of the House. I certainly would not think there was any point in trying to vote it down or anything. I simply mark a note of protest. Why does it have to be like this, producing such extraordinarily anomalous results? It is largely because everything is being prescribed centrally.
Localism Bill
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Jenkin of Roding(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, in Committee, I gave a commitment to consider the noble Lord’s amendments aimed at removing the Secretary of State’s powers to make regulations prescribing rules and restrictions about the discharge of functions of local authority executives by area committees. I am delighted to say that today we are bringing forward amendments which achieve those aims.
Amendments 120 to 131 and 160 delete in their entirety the Secretary of State’s powers to make regulations in relation to area committees and remove unnecessary conditions, which previously applied to the creation of such committees, including the maximum area that a committee could cover. In future, councils will be free to set up whatever area committees they wish and give them whatever executive functions they consider appropriate without having to rely on regulations made by the Secretary of State. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this is a good deregulationary part of my work. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I very much welcome what my noble friend has said. I shall refer to this a little later when we come to the Amendment 155 group.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, again we are having a major discussion on the amount of regulation in the Bill and the amount that we can try to remove as time goes on. My noble friend Lord Jenkin has been very clear all the way through that he thinks that there is too much prescription within the legislation. Sometimes I have agreed with him as in the area committees on which we have removed all the regulation today and sometimes we believe that there is a rationale for that amount of detail in the Bill. Some of what I will say falls along those lines. Where we have been able to take parts out as in my previous amendments we have done so, but there are still areas where—I hate to disagree with my noble friend Lord Jenkin—we are not quite on the same track.
I will briefly go through the amendments that my noble friend has tabled and give my reasons why we may not be able to accept them. Amendment 155 deletes new Sections 9MD and 9ME from Schedule 2 to the Bill. These new sections replicate the safeguards which the previous Government sought to establish and which this House approved, so I hope that we will have support from noble Lords opposite. They enable the Secretary of State to ensure that local people can have their say on governance arrangements if needed—for example, in cases where referendums have not been held when required or where unreasonable arrangements or timeframes are being proposed.
It could be argued that these powers are not necessary given the provisions in new Section 9N, but we do not believe that to be the case. Orders under that new section can require only a mayoral referendum and not referendums on any other form of governance—unlike the provisions in new Sections 9MD and 9ME.
Amendments 158 and 159 would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to make regulations about the conduct of governance referendums. As I have tried to explain, I have listened carefully during the course of our proceedings to concerns about the amount of delegated powers, but I am afraid that I am not going to be able to agree with the amendments. As with many provisions in Schedule 2 to the Bill, the power in new Section 9MG to make provision about the conduct of local governance referendums replicates an existing power in the Local Government Act 2000. Regulations were last made under the 2000 Act in 2007. Our broad intention is to replicate these regulations when bringing forward new secondary legislation under this provision in the Bill. The current regulations cover all aspects of organising and conducting polls at governance referendums, including the opening hours of polling stations and the content of ballot papers, ensuring polls are held in accordance with the practices for an election.
Given the importance of the referendum’s subject matter and the fact that the result will be binding on the council concerned, I think that not only are these regulations needed but that the level of detail about the procedure to be followed is appropriate. It is vital for local people to be assured that robust, fair, open and consistent arrangements are put in place for governance referendums in order for them to feel that their vote will count.
Should noble Lords accept our Amendment 162, regulations made under new Section 9MG will be subject to affirmative resolution procedure. Accordingly, I hope that noble Lords will have the opportunity to debate and consider the content of the regulations before they are made.
Amendment 159A seeks to delete the Secretary of State’s power in new Section 9N to make an order requiring specified local authorities to hold a mayoral referendum. This power is central to delivering the coalition agreement commitment to create directly elected mayors in the 12 largest cities in England, subject to confirmatory referendums. The power in new Section 9N to provide for mayoral referendums in our largest cities does just that, and nothing more. It will allow for local people to make their choice at a referendum, and in those cities where there are votes in favour of the mayoral model, for the city to be governed by an elected mayor.
Amendment 204 would remove the requirement—the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, touched on this—for bodies subject to the duty to co-operate to,
“have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State about how the duty is to be complied with”.
The duty to co-operate signals a significant change in the way that strategic planning will happen. There are conflicting views on whether the duty to co-operate will be overly prescriptive—the point my noble friend Lord Jenkin was making—or too flexible. Indeed, we have been criticised by some in the House for the lack of prescription in our approach to strategic planning and have debated amendments to define the outputs, process and boundaries to be used by local councils. We consider that strategic planning needs to be a flexible process that allows councils to decide how best to serve their local communities, businesses and interested parties and we continue to reject prescriptive approaches. A duty to co-operate is intended to drive a culture change and new spirit of partnership working in the ways that councils and other public bodies work on strategic planning matters. It will be vital that councils and their partners rise to the challenge. Any guidance issued will be light touch rather than prescriptive, will focus on ensuring the efficient introduction of new policies and will be produced in consultation. In the light of the explanation I have given, I hope that my noble friend will be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, when I tabled these amendments the purpose was to have a debate of exactly the kind which we have just had. I am sorry that it has come fairly late in today’s proceedings but I am immensely grateful to those in all parts of the House who have recognised that there is an issue here which had to be addressed—and it is being addressed. Noble Lords have said kind things about me but Greg Clark responded immensely positively to the approach which I made. Officials in the department and in the local authority associations have worked very hard to do this.
As regards what amendments should go into the group, I tabled a lot of the amendments and asked the Government Whips Office to put them all together so that we could have a debate. Of course, we will come back to some of these issues at a later stage. I think both the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and my noble friend have indicated that there are issues to which we shall need to come back. As I understand our rules, when we get to Amendment 204, it is perfectly possible for anybody to move it and speak to it. The fact that it has appeared in an earlier group is not an absolute bar. However, in the light of the publication of the framework planning policy paper, we may well look at some of these issues. As the noble Lord has said, that will be in October on the last two days of our Report proceedings.
I take the point that some of these amendments may well merit considerably longer debate than we have had today. However, I think that the purpose of this debate has been served. I think that Ministers in my noble friend’s department have recognised that the Bill’s drafting has gone through the other place apparently without much being said about this. We started the argument in Committee here and it has now been accepted that this is not the appropriate way for the Government to treat local authorities these days, particularly in the light of the general power of competence. Nevertheless, there will be other opportunities to come back to some of these issues, and I hope that those opportunities will be taken. I cannot say that the Bill is going to get any shorter, because in the course of the proceedings of the last two days in Committee we have added a great deal to it, but those measures have been welcomed in all parts of the House.
I hope that we have now started the process of trying to dismantle this mindset of local authorities having to be told how to do their job. They are responsible, elected bodies, and if they are going to have a general power of competence, let them get on with it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Local Government Finance
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Jenkin of Roding
Baroness Hanham
The noble Lord said it so nicely, he will almost be able to go on the stage and do Tommy Cooper, but I am sure he does not really want to do that.
At the outset I remind the noble Lord that local government finance is at the level that it is because of the disastrous deficit that had to be met. Local government has had to take its share of that. The noble Lord knows that if a Labour Government had come into power, they too would have had to make very substantial reductions. Local government would have been left facing very similar problems and decisions to reflect those reductions.
The compensation system will be the tariffs and the top-ups. The expectation is that the control totals that are in place at the moment for the four-year spending review will stay in place. However, with the retention of the business rate, as the noble Lord has rightly said, some areas will have a far higher business rate than others and will be able to generate more. At the start, the tariff will be set at the level of those that have higher rates; the expectation is that, above that, money will be taken off and passed to those in the poorest areas. There will be a sort of balancing between them.
The noble Lord asked how there would be growth. The rate will encourage local government to talk to businesses and encourage the development of businesses, because they will be able to retain some of the extra rate that comes from that. I hope that that answers the noble Lord’s questions.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I, too, like my noble friend Lord Tope, warmly welcome the main thrust of what is proposed in this consultation paper. Like him, I admire my noble friend’s refusal to try to answer the questions that are asked in the consultation paper. We are very grateful for the repetition of the Statement; indeed, it reads very well.
I have two points to make. I was the Secretary of State who introduced the nationalisation, as it has been called, of the business rate. One has to remember what lay behind that—namely, that 20 years ago we examined the question of the local authorities and who paid, who benefited and who voted. This was not a coterminous group, although there were some overlaps of course, but businesses, particularly small businesses, felt that they were being overcharged by local authorities fixing the rate to get the benefit of the revenue so that they could provide extra benefits for those who voted but who perhaps did not contribute any rates. That is what my noble friend has to avoid. What has been proposed in this consultation paper goes a long way towards that; it was very reassuring when she said that the business rate would still be set nationally and that it would not be open to local authorities to change that. While one would like to feel that setting the rate could make it more responsive to business requirements, the fact of the matter is that we had many years of experience of that and it did not work.
The one point on which I disagree with my noble friend Lord Tope is that I hope that the Government are not tempted to go down the road of letting local authorities fix the business rate themselves. They do not vote and yet they would be asked to pay what might be quite substantial sums. Indeed, when I had to deal with local authorities, they were asked to raise very substantial sums. I just issue that warning to my noble friend.
I end by saying that I think this is a valuable first step. I am not sure that I will take the Green Paper away with me during the Recess, as I have a number of other papers to read as well, but I look forward to studying the paper, particularly when some of the details, which my noble friend said would be published later, are available.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, my noble friend was a much respected Secretary of State. I still remember the reasons why business rates were centralised. There is no intention of allowing local government to set the business rate; businesses will in effect see no change. The business rate itself will be set nationally, as it is; the discounts, the valuations and the rates that are paid will be the same, so in effect they will be unaffected. However, the area in which we hope and expect to see change is in encouraging local authorities to make sure that they are well in tune with their local businesses, that they try to see their businesses grow and that enterprise and employment follows from that. If business grows, local authorities will be able to benefit from that. I hope my noble friend will understand that the business rate will be as he put it—set nationally.
Localism Bill
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Jenkin of Roding(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Localism Bill: Shadow Mayors
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Jenkin of Roding
Baroness Hanham
I believe that freemen in the City are allowed to drive their sheep across the bridge. I am not sure that I would expect the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to drive a referendum on a mayor. It considers that it looks after itself and the borough very well.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for the Government’s good sense in recognising that the proposal for shadow mayors was not very wise. At the same time, I object to the constant accusations of U-turns in matters such as this. What is the purpose of this House if it is not to debate legislation and persuade Ministers to change their mind? What are we for if it is not for that?
Baroness Hanham
I was a bit slow, I do agree. I agree also with my noble friend, who makes a very stirring point.
Localism Bill
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Jenkin of Roding
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I am grateful to the noble Lord for clarifying that, but in fact there are some amendments, that take several pages right out, that were intended to remove this whole part of the Bill.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we have removed—or will remove as we go through, as I understand it—the mayoral arrangements associated with referendum mayors. As the noble Lords will understand, there are two sorts of mayors: mayors who are elected by the local electorate under the Local Government Act and mayors who would have been elected under the new provisions. We have now removed the new provisions on shadow mayors and at the same time taken out the mayoral management associated with that—that is the referendum mayors. However, mayors can still be introduced under the previous legislation. On my understanding—and I will need to be absolutely clear about this—the provisions relating to the mayor and the chief executive can still be carried out because a local authority can elect to do it now anyway.
Unless there is disagreement coming from the Box, I will take it that that is what we are talking about now. We swept out so many amendments that, like the noble Lord, I have not had a chance to chase up on those. If that is not the case, I will advise the noble Lord in due course.
The noble Lord has asked a number of questions that, under the circumstances, I will be very chary about answering because I think we need to be absolutely clear what bits are in and what bits are out. I think it would be helpful if I came back to those, and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment for the time being.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
If I may express a view, I have to say that I think that that is the right course because it may well be that when the amendments to reflect the change announced this afternoon have been made, this whole passage of the Bill, several pages of it, may look very different. It would then be necessary to consider which of the remaining parts of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, might still like to amend. At the moment I do not see how we can do that.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her brief reply. Clearly, we need to get back to these serious issues on Report. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that, from reading the Bill, I understand that this issue is not linked to how someone becomes a mayor; it is focused on a mayor and executive arrangements, however they are created. I do not think that what we discussed earlier would strike those down. If it did, the amendments would become otiose.
Notwithstanding that point, I say to the noble Baroness that there were a series of questions which deserve a serious answer about why this power is limited to mayors and executives, and does not apply to executive and cabinet arrangements. Why is it only that one model that can be the recipient of the Secretary of State’s powers? More particularly, the protections and the fettering of that very wide power that needs to be undertaken is not just my worry—the Delegated Powers Committee is very clear on it. We will certainly wish to return to that.
The noble Lord, Lord True, made reference to an each-way transfer. My main point was that, if it is to apply at all and if sufficient safeguards can be put in, it should be when there are leader and executive arrangements, and when there are mayor and executive arrangements, as well as the supplementary point about what happens if you go from one to the other.
I do not know whether the noble Baroness has any further information as a result of the missive. If not, I will withdraw the amendment and leave the issue until Report but this is most certainly a matter to which we will return, if we have to, on the basis of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin.
Localism Bill
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Jenkin of Roding(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, in reply to that last question, the powers to amend legislation are relative to the use of the general power. Under Clause 1 the Secretary of State will be empowered to sweep away any legislation that is standing in the way of the power of competence—that is what that clause is about. The answer to my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith is that I do not think that that would be possible. The provision does not get rid of any legislation at all; it is only any legislation that stands in the way of the general power of competence.
I hear the concerns that have been raised regarding this clause and I hope that I will be able to reassure noble Lords on some of it. I say at the outset that the power is normally subject to the affirmative procedure, as set out in Clause 209. There are limited exceptions to that, but we are taking on board and considering the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee as we have on other matters. We will come on to that in due course, but noble Lords may feel reassured that the general view that the Delegated Powers Committee is not overridden will probably be maintained.
Unlike Clause 1, where the Secretary of State can take away legislation, Clause 5(3) and (4) provide reserve powers to allow the Secretary of State to restrict what a local authority may do under the general power or to set conditions around it. We believe that these powers are a necessary 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 powers will be of the most limited use. The Government have no plans to use the powers in subsections (3) and (4) and expect them to be used extremely rarely, if at all. However, they might be used to deal with, for instance, any risks that might arise from authorities’ use of the new general power to engage in novel financial transactions. They are therefore a tug back if local authorities seem to be going well beyond their brief under the general powers.
On Amendment 14, the general power of competence is designed to give local authorities real freedom to innovate and act in the interests of their communities, although not to be too innovative in financial terms, as I have just said. However, there is continuing misunderstanding about the scope of Clause 5(1). This provides the Secretary of State with powers to remove or change statutory provisions that prevent or restrict use of the general power—that is, restrictions or limitations that bite on the general power by virtue of Clause 2, the clause where the Delegated Powers Committee considers that there should be an affirmative order. The whole clause is about removing barriers to the legal capacity of authorities to act, so that they may act innovatively and in the best interests of the community. It is not aimed at removing duties, nor is it a general purpose tool to remove any legislation that places burdens on local authorities.
Until now, there has been no comprehensive list of the legal duties placed on councils. To remedy this, the Government agreed with the Local Government Association that we should compile such a list—the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to this—so that everyone is clear what legal obligations local councils have and to check whether the duties are relevant.
The review is ongoing. Once it is completed, it will be decided whether any changes are necessary to the statutory duties, but neither the review nor the barrier-buster power that is in Clause 5(1) is aimed at removing statutory duties protecting vital front-line services, so there is no link between these processes.
The Clause 5(2) power can be used only to remove English authorities’ powers that are obsolete because they are overlapped by the new power. Its purpose is to tidy up the statute book and simplify the law, but there will be no practical effect on the scope of local authority powers or duties.
Amendments 15, 16, and 17 are unnecessary; they attempt to gold-plate the consultation arrangements already in this clause. The existing wording in the clause does exactly what it says it does—it will ensure that anyone who needs to be consulted will be consulted—so no further elaboration is needed. The consultation must be carried out properly and in accordance with general public law principles. This means that the Secretary of State must act reasonably in deciding whom to consult and must act in accordance with equality duties, which were also mentioned, and he can be challenged if he does not.
We believe that the more specific a list becomes, the more likely it will inadvertently exclude people who need to be included. We have seen this many times in legislation. I well remember trying to get more and more people put on to the face of a Bill, but that is not always helpful. We believe that it is better that these matters are left to be judged in the particular circumstances, as quite often the consultation list will change, depending on what is being proposed. We believe that the consultation requirements are comprehensive and we do not think that these amendments are necessary.
On Amendment 22, the power is a power to remove statutory restrictions. If the same thing can be achieved in a different way, it is hard to see how they can be statutory restrictions in the first place. I am sure that, if an order is unnecessary, that will be brought to attention of the Secretary of State during consultation.
Amendment 23 raises a concern about the Human Rights Act. We want to make it very clear that an order under Clause 5(1) cannot be used to repeal the Human Rights Act. It is unlikely that the power is wide enough, as it is a power to remove restrictions and limitations that prevent a local authority from acting as a natural person and a natural person could not get rid of the Human Rights Act. It is not a general purpose tool to remove any obligation placed on local authorities. Furthermore, the third condition requires that the provision made by the order does not remove any necessary protection, which means protection afforded by measures such as the Human Rights Act. The fourth condition requires that the provision made by the order will not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he might reasonably expect to continue to exercise. Any right conferred or protected by the European Convention on Human Rights is a right that a person must reasonably expect to keep. Finally, and most significantly, the fifth condition is that the provision made by the order is not constitutionally significant. I think that we can agree that repealing the Human Rights Act would be constitutionally significant. The DPRRC has signified that it is content with the safeguards on this power. In addition, we have provided for a stringent parliamentary procedure. Therefore, we do not think that anything further is necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Newton, and others have raised concerns about the conditions on the use of the power. It may be useful at this stage to say that Clause 6, which limits the power under Clause 5(1), was introduced in the other place as a result of the concerns expressed. We believe that a list would need constant updating. If something was inadvertently left off the list, that would not mean that it could be amended. We believe that Parliament, when considering orders made under these powers, will be able to judge whether the use of the power is appropriate.
I hope that I have covered all the amendments, although I think that one or two got muddled into the next group—certainly, Amendment 22 appears in my notes twice. I hope that I have responded to noble Lords’ questions satisfactorily and that they will not press their amendments.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Before my noble friend sits down, will she confirm that she has repeated the explanation that was given in the memorandum to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments about the difference between subsections (1) and (2), which the Joint Committee expressly and firmly said that it did not accept? Is she now firmly saying that she will nevertheless insist on the difference—an affirmative resolution for an order under subsection (1) but a negative resolution for an order under subsection (2)? If so, I would find that difficult to accept.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I hope that I said in my remarks that I understood what the recommendation was and that we would look at it further. It is almost inconceivable that a recommendation from that committee would be ignored.