Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2017

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2017 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to see the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, in the Chair. The draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 were laid before the House on 19 October 2017—that is a relief. I had a feeling like when I passed my driving test and I was out for the first time: it is a feeling of great power, but as though I might need assistance. The regulations will increase nationally set planning application fees by 20% and introduce fees for new categories of development. If approved by the Committee and the other place they will come into effect 28 days after they are made. They are due to be debated in the other place a week today.

It would be useful to give some context to these regulations. We want to make sure that the planning system is valued, resilient and capable of providing the service that local people and planning applicants expect. We also want to provide local authorities with the capacity and capability to support the Government’s objective to build more homes more quickly. I recognise that planning fees have not increased since 2012; therefore, the increase in planning fees set out today is a significant step towards addressing the widespread concerns of underresourced local planning authorities.

The housing White Paper of earlier this year stated that we would increase planning fees by 20% for those authorities that committed to invest the additional fee income in their planning department. Ring-fencing the additional fees in this way will ensure that resources are directly invested to support the delivery of an effective planning system. I am pleased to say that all local planning authorities in England have accepted this offer. Based on current activity, this uplift in planning fees could generate more than £75 million of additional fee income annually for local authorities. This is equal to the average salary of approximately 1,600 planners and other professionals who play a role in the planning process. This should bring the total planning application fee income to approximately £450 million per annum. The 20% increase keeps planning application fees at a modest level for householders and developers compared to overall planning costs—roughly 0.25% of development costs, I think—while providing local authorities with the necessary resources to turn round applications efficiently and effectively.

In developing these regulations, we undertook a technical consultation in 2016 on proposals to increase planning application fees. The majority of respondents, from all sectors, supported increasing planning fees, often citing concerns about resourcing in local authority planning departments. We are also very grateful to the Local Government Association for its work to promote performance improvement. Local government authorities are our partners. Their research suggests that since fees were last increased in 2012, local authorities have been relying on local taxpayers to support the delivery of their planning services.

I turn now to the specifics of what the regulations do. They deliver the housing White Paper commitment to increase nationally-set planning application fees by 20% and to introduce other technical changes in relation to fees charged by local planning authorities. These changes deliver on previous government commitments.

Regulation 1 sets out the scope of the regulations, in that they apply only in England and will come into force 28 days after they are made. Regulation 2 provides for an increase of 20% for all existing fees for planning applications and advertisement consents.

In addition, the regulations bring forward four technical changes. Regulation 3 inserts a new fee of £402 per 0.1 hectare for applications for permission in principle. This will follow new powers that we intend to provide to local authorities to grant permission in principle to suitable sites on application. We will be doing that by regulation. In other words, this is a new fee for a new power that was not previously in the regulations. The same principle applies in Regulation 4, which enables any mayoral development corporation or urban development corporation to charge for giving pre-application advice. This provides the same powers to development corporations as already exist for other local planning authorities. Again, this is a new fee for a new process.

Regulation 5(2) provides for a planning application fee to be charged by local planning authorities for applications necessary because a permitted development right has been removed. The right may have been removed either through an Article 4 direction or through a condition imposed on a planning permission. Many noble Lords will appreciate that this delivers on a commitment I gave to my noble friend Lord True, and to others in the House, during the passage of the Bill that became this year’s Neighbourhood Planning Act.

Finally in relation to these technical changes, Regulation 5(3) introduces a new fee of £96 for requests for prior approval for the new permitted development rights introduced in April 2015 and April 2017. These include the rights for the installation of solar photovoltaic equipment on non-domestic buildings, the erection of click-and-collect facilities within the land area of a shop, the temporary use of buildings or land for film-making purposes, and the provision of temporary school buildings on vacant commercial land for state-funded schools. Again, all of those are new fees for new processes.

We continue to keep the fee resourcing of local authority planning departments at the forefront of our thoughts and to keep under review where fees can be charged. In the consultation document on local housing need, Planning for the Right Homes in the Right Places, we have consulted on the potential for increasing planning fees by a further 20% for those authorities that are delivering the homes that their communities need. Again, this was presaged in the White Paper. The consultation closed recently and the responses will help to inform our thinking on how to ensure that the framework for planning fees delivers the resources necessary to support high-quality performance. We are now analysing those responses.

In conclusion, I must reiterate that it is vital to have well-resourced, effective and efficient local authority planning departments in order to provide new homes and deliver economic growth. I pay tribute to the planning departments of our local authorities throughout England. We expect local authorities to match these recommended fee increases with an ongoing improvement of service when handling planning applications. In bringing forward these changes, we are ensuring that they have the necessary resources to take on and deal efficiently with the increasing demands being made of them. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I draw attention to my registered interests as a councillor in Kirklees and as one of the many vice-presidents of the Local Government Association. As a local councillor and someone who is interested in planning, I welcome the 20% increase in fees across all types of planning application, although it has been a long time coming.

However, I note with some concern that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, did not refer to the fact that the resultant gain in income will cover only around half of the current deficit in financing the planning applications processed by the local planning authority. Paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum draws attention to this. It says that,

“the Government is seeking to reduce the funding gap, and estimate that some £80m additional fee income will be raised annually”.

I also note that the Minister referred to an annual increase of £75 million. The paragraph goes on to state:

“Therefore, although the fee increase will help to address some of this shortfall, even taking this additional income into account, authorities’ costs will overall still be higher than the fee charged”.


We continue to say that the Government are expecting hard-pressed council tax payers to subsidise developers. Given that the interesting figure of 0.25% of planning costs is what the planning fee represents, it seems that we ought to be asking developers to pay the full cost of the planning application. My rough guess is that it would mean a 40% increase. It is not acceptable for council tax payers to continue to subsidise development, and the developers who will make considerable profits out of the projects they undertake.

I noted the new type of planning known as “planning in principle” referred to by the Minister. When I read it, it seemed to be outline planning consent, and I would like to understand what the difference is. In the explanation it talks about there being none of the detail but perhaps only access and considering the principle of building on a certain site. I take that to be outline planning consent and I should therefore like to know what the difference is.

The Minister went on to refer to the opportunity of a further 20% increase in planning fees which would be dependent on local planning authorities delivering on housebuilding targets. This is a bit of a punishment for those authorities that grant planning consent for applications in a timely way but then find that developers sit on them for years and keep coming back with requests for time extensions on their permissions. I cite my own ward in Kirklees, where we have 600 planning consents—that is just one ward, not a whole authority—waiting for development. No doubt my council would not qualify for the further 20%, regardless of the fact that it had granted all these planning permissions.

Perhaps it is because I am new to all this, but I want to comment on this business of the Government undertaking to define planning application fees. Planning permissions and the whole planning process are a local planning authority matter and I believe that planning fees ought to be determined by local government. I do not understand why central government wants to keep such a tight hold on this. If there was more freedom for local planning authorities to determine fees, I am sure that they would introduce innovative processes and be a bit more business-like. If you wanted to attract more development, maybe you would cut fees for development that was within the local authority’s strategic vision. I am not sure why central government has to keep a tight hold of planning fees. I look forward to the Minister’s response on that.

With those comments, in totality I welcome the increase in fees. Local taxpayers have subsidised development for far too long. I look forward to a further 20%, so that they do not subsidise it at all.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, to the Chair, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. I draw the Committee’s attention to my registered interests as a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I welcome the measure as far as it goes, in that it increases the fees that local authorities charge for planning applications. That is welcome, as are the fees for the new categories. The 20% increase will make a difference, but council tax payers will still be subsidising the planning process. As has been mentioned many times, that is regrettable. In paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Notes, that seems to have been accepted, although I do not think that these proposals go far enough. As the Explanatory Notes say, the last increase was in 2012, which highlights a problem—that is five years ago and costs have gone up since. I accept the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, made in asking why the Government are still setting these fees nationally. If they are going to carry on doing that they should look at some way of inflation-proofing this, otherwise we will be sitting here in another five or six years’ time agreeing the fees again. Costs increase all the time for local authorities and waiting five years is far too long. As the noble Baroness said, these matters should be dealt with by local authorities, which will set fees connected to their areas.

The Explanatory Notes also mention applications for permission in principle. A new figure is being proposed, but the fee is set lower than it is for present applications. The justification is that less work will be involved, so you do not need a bigger fee. But of course the fee we have now does not cover it. There is a new fee to be charged but, again, it will not cover the cost of even that work. That is odd logic, unless you always want to set the fees at a lower level than the cost so you always have the council tax payer subsidising the payment process. I would have thought that we would want to get out of that at some point—if not today, certainly in the future. Having said that, I welcome the increase. It is going in the right direction.

We will be talking about pilots later but I have suggested before that perhaps at least one council in the whole of England should do a pilot on full costs recovery. I cannot see the harm of just trying it. At the end of the day it may not work, but if we could find one place to volunteer to do that it would give the Government useful information about whether that is something we could do. I have called for it, as have colleagues. Perhaps we should do that. Having said that, I am happy to support the regulations, as far as they go.

Inequalities

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Thursday 30th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my interests as a councillor in the borough of Kirklees in West Yorkshire and as a member of the governing body of the University of Huddersfield. This has been an excellent debate highlighting the challenges and potential solutions from noble Lords across the House, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, for initiating it.

We have heard graphic descriptions and definitions of regional and national inequality but less about what it means for individuals and families. I live, as you have heard, in West Yorkshire, which has some urban areas where evidence of inequality is stark. Much of the cheaper housing is of poor quality, health inequalities are pronounced and the majority of local jobs are low paid. Those conditions have a knock-on effect on the wider community—shops are limited to low-cost goods and the high street is full of betting shops. Those who can leave do, and so the spiral continues in a downward direction.

The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, drew attention to an area—I think he was referring to Carlisle—where the majority of the money, some 83%, was spent on welfare where it ought be focused on regeneration. He made a good point—with which I agree—about how we need to turn over the way we focus our public money, with less going into welfare support and more focus on regenerating jobs and lives.

Successive Governments have made efforts to address inequality, though often in a piecemeal fashion. They have targeted one element of the problem and made some improvement but what is needed, as this debate seeks, is a comprehensive approach. Several noble Lords across the House, including the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and my noble friend Lord Shipley, have referred to the industrial strategy that was published last week and the report of the Social Mobility Commission. Economic regeneration has a long history—some of it very successful. One of the schemes under City Challenge—an initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine—was in Batley, the town adjacent to mine, and evidence of what it did there is still obvious. That was followed by the New Deal for Communities and the regional development agencies. I know from my experience on the board of the regional development agency, Yorkshire Forward, that change is possible. In partnership with the private sector, to which my noble friend Lord Shipley referred, some of these schemes have had long-lasting effects. Investment by Yorkshire Forward in Siemens in establishing a wind turbine manufacturing base in Hull and the amazing Advanced Manufacturing Park in Rotherham have both brought high-skilled employment to areas of high unemployment. However, that has not been sustained everywhere.

The second element for addressing inequality is connectivity, which has been referred to across the House, and currently the focus is on improving rail connectivity and broadband, investment being a key to economic revival. I served on the predecessor to Transport for the North, which was then called the Northern Way. The evidence then pointed to the importance of a fast and effective rail link from Liverpool to Hull—HS3 was the answer. Only this week, the Secretary of State for Transport has made the first tiny footsteps in that direction. Businesses saw HS3 as at least of equal importance to improving the economic productivity gap in the north as HS2, linking the ports of Liverpool and Hull. Yet successive Governments have lamentably failed to deliver on a project as basic as the electrification of the trans-Pennine line and now the Government intend to fob off the north with bi-modal trains. That unfortunately gives us a flavour of what has happened in successive attempts to do something.

Bringing superfast broadband to all parts of the country is vital. The Government need to consider access to broadband and mobile as an essential utility—such as electricity, gas, energy supplies and so on—and enable the costs of the services to be subsidised where people in poor communities are unable to afford them, as this is yet another instance where lack of access will worsen inequalities.

The third element of tackling inequalities, as my noble friend Lord Scriven so graphically stated with his example, is through education, skills and learning: it is the route out of poverty. A couple of initiatives that successive Governments have taken have done something to improve this. The university technical colleges have had mixed success; some of them have done very well but some had have to close. Apprenticeships, as we know, have seen a steep decline in numbers when what we needed to do as a country was to continue to put as much effort as we could into persuading young people to go into those areas of learning skills and accessing employment.

The fourth element of tackling inequalities is political leadership. We have heard much from the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and others about how important it is. Devolution is in many forms now and we have a fair patchwork of approaches to devolution across the country. None of it will work unless there are two factors present. One is that the Government have to loosen the purse strings and the tight grip they have on central funding and let a thousand flowers bloom by releasing the energy, skills and vision that people elsewhere in the country have for their areas. The second part of that is having political leadership of a quality that sees the importance of vision and strategy above wheeler-dealing for the sake of political fortunes. Those are the essential ingredients of tackling inequality across the country, but people who suffer from sustained inequality above all lack hope. That is what I see when I visit the places near me where inequalities are so obvious. They have lost hope that anything will ever improve. So as well as all the things that I have said, they are simply being left out of access to opportunities that others are taking for granted.

In this context, the Government have an enormous duty to consider the impact of Brexit, if it indeed happens, on the economic prospects of people already suffering inequality. For example, the town near where I live, Batley, is the bed manufacturing centre of the country and exports the vast majority of its beds to Europe. These companies are already telling me that they are very concerned about the impact on their businesses and they are fearful that the imposition of tariffs will make their products uncompetitive.

There are four elements that we need to think about and the Government need to address if we are ever to tackle inequalities. It needs to be comprehensive—that is the word I liked the most in the debate—to be sustained, to have high-quality political leadership and, above all, to provide hope for people for whom hope has not been part of their lives for too long.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th November 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

1: Clause 1, page 2, line 36, at end insert —
“(c) require that a certain proportion of the relief granted to providers under this Act must apply to hereditaments in deprived or isolated areas of England and Wales.”

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I now bring us from space back down to earth with the telecoms Bill. I draw the House’s attention to my interest as a councillor in Kirklees and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

As I said at earlier stages of the Bill, this is a constructive way of providing an incentive to IT providers to lay more fibre, with the intention of enabling more properties—both households and businesses—to access superfast broadband. My concern throughout the passage of the Bill has been that a scarce resource—public money—is being used indiscriminately. Any company that lays fibre, be it a billion-pound company or a smaller provider, can benefit. Any fibre that is laid will qualify, regardless of the wider public interest.

The benefit of fibre to the cabinet in the street is dependent on the distance from that cabinet to the property. At 300 metres away, the benefit will be negligible—although the Government’s current, but unjustifiable, measure is 1 kilometre. Broadband speeds are also dependent on the connectivity from the cabinet to the property; a copper connection further degenerates the broadband speed available. By the way, I am pleased to see that action is being taken elsewhere to ensure that adverts for broadband speeds will show realistic speeds attainable in properties, particularly households.

The concerns I just described are the reasons for the amendment. Its purpose is to make sure that the Government make the most effective possible use of scarce public resources. I listened most carefully to the Minister’s response in Committee to the practical difficulties in my amendment. It would now add this to the list of potential regulations under proposed new subsection (10) of Section 44 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. It would require that at least some part of the resources is allocated to improve connectivity in areas of deprivation and isolation. I beg to move.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised connectivity in remote areas. I thank her for her remarks. It is an issue that we explored at Second Reading and in Grand Committee, and one that I absolutely agreed is of utmost importance, as I do now.

The amendment seeks to ensure that deprived or isolated areas receive “a certain proportion” of the relief. However, it is not clear what exactly that would entail as the term “a certain proportion” is not defined. By its very nature, all areas would get “a certain proportion” of the relief depending on how much and where fibre is deployed and lit from 1 April 2017. If the noble Baroness intends for “deprived or isolated areas”—again, those are not defined—to receive a higher proportion of the relief than others, the amendment would not have that effect.

The Government cannot therefore agree to the amendment as it is technically deficient and does not fully engage with how the telecoms networks are deployed and the approach taken to upgrade our networks with more fibre. I do not want to dwell on the technical deficiencies because even if they were resolved the amendment would still not be in keeping with the Bill’s very simple aim—to promote fibre connectivity wherever it takes place.

As my right honourable friend the Minister for Digital said in the other place, we need to think of the fibre network like a growing tree—he is a romantic soul. We already have a strong trunk, which links our great cities and connects Britain to the world, but we must now grow the boughs and branches. We must grow out this fibre not just in the trunk or the boughs, but in a multitude of branches that serve people’s houses, businesses, and all the public services of the land. The point is, we need to support fibre everywhere and if the relief is not available to support the growth of those branches then they may not grow at all, such is the difficult balance of the business case for more fibre. Therefore, if we seek to ensure that particular areas benefit more than others it is possible we will undermine that business case and deprived or isolated areas may not benefit at all. I do not believe this was the noble Baroness’s intention.

We do agree that it is vital to see improved connectivity in remote and indeed rural areas. People need at least acceptable broadband at home and at work; it is essential for modern life. That is why the Government have consulted on the design of a broadband universal service obligation, which would provide a digital safety net by giving everyone, no matter where they live, the legal right to request a connection to broadband speeds of at least 10 megabits per second. But we are not satisfied with just acceptable levels of access: we want to ensure that businesses and households throughout the country have access to faster broadband—superfast and better. By the end of this year, 19 out of 20 premises will have access to superfast broadband. We are taking steps to ensure that the figure rises even further in the next two years so that 97% of households and businesses have superfast access.

Some £30 million of the £200 million funding under the England Rural Development Programme has been made available through Defra. This is targeted at supporting rural businesses and growth, for broadband services in these areas at speeds of 30 megabits per second or faster where this is not currently available or planned, and to ensure that all areas can and do have the broadband speeds they will need for the future.

The Government are delivering a series of measures to support the rollout of fibre broadband in addition to the measure we are debating today. We launched the £190 million challenge fund as part of the Autumn Budget for local bodies to bid into as part of the local full fibre networks programme. As it was being developed during this year, we received a great deal of interest in that programme from local bodies in all parts of the UK, not least in rural and remote areas. The projects delivered under this programme will, we expect, encourage further commercial development of future-proofed fibre networks right across the country. This follows our announcement last year of more than £1 billion to support digital infrastructure.

Also part of that substantial sum is the digital infrastructure investment fund. That involves £400 million of government financing now being administered by fund managers and will attract significant private investment which will be available for alternative providers to use for fibre networks. This work will have impacts right across the country and enable operators to make the commercial case for wider deployment. In summary, therefore, the Government acknowledge that all areas of the country need decent broadband. That includes urban and rural areas which do not have it. I have outlined the measures the Government are taking to achieve this, but the Bill has one simple aim: to incentivise new fibre optic cable wherever it is laid, because we need it everywhere. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Pinnock]

My Lords, I notice that the Minister, in his detailed response, made the assertion that we would have what he described as “decent broadband” throughout the country. I have to say that I query the definition of “decent broadband” that is provided by the Government. A speed of 10 megabits per second is not really acceptable in the current way that business and households operate. The Government’s measure of “decent broadband” being within one kilometre of where the fibre is laid to the street cabinet certainly does not provide broadband speeds at the property, given that 300 metres away it has degenerated to such an extent that the improvement is negligible.

What concerns me, and I have pressed it throughout the passage of the Bill, is that all public bodies—understandably, and supported by me—are moving to digital by design. For instance, if you are unemployed and in receipt of employment and support allowance you are required to make job applications online. If you are not in a facility with good broadband speeds, that is really difficult.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

Let me make one thing clear: the universal service obligation, which we have said will come in 2020, will be at 10 megabits per second which although I know is not acceptable to a lot of people, will allow things such as job applications to be done: you can even download and watch a film at 10 megabits per second. The universal service obligation, which is a safety net, will be available to everyone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock]

I thank the Minister for his intervention but if he has ever tried to watch a film at 10 megabits per second he will discover that you get gaps while you are watching it because the download speed is variable.

I am concerned about people who live in isolated areas and those in more deprived communities who will not be able to afford full fibre to their household and the consequent monthly payments. I have been making this case throughout the passage of the Bill, because we need to consider broadband access as an essential utility and at the moment I do not think that the Government are seeing it in that light. Nevertheless, I understand the technical arguments that have been made and I accept the Minister’s statement that the Government appreciate the importance of all households having access to broadband Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Grenfell Recovery Taskforce

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Monday 6th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my interests in the register as an elected councillor for the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in the other place. I also pay tribute again to the public sector officials—from the police, the fire service and the ambulance service to the NHS and local and national government—along with the faith groups, the charity and voluntary sectors, and the community in North Kensington, for the way that they have all supported families as they recover from this appalling tragedy.

As I have mentioned before, within the public sector there is not one group of heroes and then another group of workers that deserves to be attacked. That is unfair. I remind the House of the treatment of firefighters by the Foreign Secretary when he was the Mayor of London, which is a case in point. Some of the comments he made when he was mayor are shameful. He should apologise for what he said about these heroes, but all we get from him in this area is silence. He is not a politician usually noted for being quiet; he is usually very happy to give his views on a range of subjects, but strangely not on this one. I say again: come on, Boris Johnson MP, your apology to the firefighters of the London Fire Brigade for your ill-informed and hurtful comments is long overdue.

The people of North Kensington were failed by those elected to serve them. Therefore, the change of leadership in the authority is welcome, and I wish the leadership well in the important work that they are doing. The former chief executive of my own borough, Barry Quirk, has been installed as the new permanent chief executive of Kensington and Chelsea Council. He will provide much-needed stability and leadership for the council staff. He is a very able man and the council has chosen wisely in this respect.

The report of the recovery task force highlights some serious problems that need to be overcome. At some point, consideration will have to be given as to whether this authority can continue in its present form. That is not a decision for today or next week, but Ministers must keep it under review and not take it off the table. What we cannot have happen is that as the authority fades from our attention, the old ways, habits and failures return. If the structure is beyond saving then other options will need to be considered to ensure that all residents of the borough are properly served. The governance arrangements are of concern to us all. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell me whether the new leadership has offered a seat or two in the cabinet to the opposition. I have mentioned that a number of times before and it would be a welcome step.

I take the point about the frequency of meetings of the ministerial recovery group and the pressure that it brings, and agree that it should be reduced. However, it is welcome that the council will remain very much in the sight of the department. Will the Minister tell us what the department has done specifically to help the new chief executive bolster the capacity and capability of the senior staff team? There are some very able people working in his department and elsewhere in local government, in London and across the country. What support has his department given to the authority to aid this work?

I fully understand that we want to give people time to be rehoused in a permanent place rather than having to move again. However, as the Minister said and as the report highlights, the pace is slow. What analysis has the department undertaken to see why this is the case? If it has not done any work on this, why not? What are the barriers to rehousing people permanently and what has the department done to remove them? Can he give the House an example in this respect? I do not believe that people want to carry on living in hotel rooms for any longer than is necessary.

I agree that there is a greater need for more empathy, emotional intelligence and humanity as we move forward. It is just a tragedy and a terrible indictment that when it is the richest borough of one of the richest cities in the world, and in the fifth-richest country in the world, a Minister in 2017 has to come to the Dispatch Box and say so.

Just because you are less fortunate, because you are poor or because you live in a council property does not mean that you should have fewer rights, be less respected or have your views taken into account any less. But that is what the local community has clearly felt and experienced in Kensington and Chelsea, which is shameful. I am pleased that the task force will remain in place for the foreseeable future and that nothing is to be taken off the table. I join with the Minister in thanking the task force and specifically the four expert members for their work and comprehensive report. There is serious work to be done to support the victims and the local community on the long road to recovery. I wish everyone well in that task. They have my full support and gratitude for the work they are doing.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I draw noble Lords’ attention to my entry in the register of interests as an elected councillor in the borough of Kirklees and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I welcome today’s Statement on the interim report of the task force. However, I draw attention to one of the four priorities that were set by the Secretary of State for the work of the task force—that it would,

“ensure that all the immediate housing needs resulting from the fires are fully and promptly addressed by RBKC”.

But we have heard today in the Statement and the interim report that the number who have been permanently rehoused is pitifully low. Four months after the dreadful fire at Grenfell, only 26 of 204 families have been rehoused permanently and 130 are still in emergency bed and breakfast accommodation. I find that disgraceful and a tragedy; I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us why those figures are so low. The full report also asks for an immediate strategy and agreed targets for rehousing. It would be good to hear from him whether that has been done, whether targets have been set and what they are. That is the most important feature of the aftermath of this dreadful fire.

The second point that I would draw attention to is that the report, I am pleased to say, makes no immediate recommendation about the future of the tenant management organisation. Fears have been expressed in the media by residents that disbanding the TMO would lead to avoidance of effective scrutiny of its actions or inactions, and the avoidance of potential prosecutions. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case? Will the TMO remain in place until the report of the Prime Minister’s inquiry and for any consequences of that inquiry?

The third issue that I raise is not referenced in the report, which is strange. It is the consequences of the fire and the impact on those families in the adjacent tower blocks. For example, what action is being taken to have the fire hazard panels replaced? What government contribution will be made towards their replacement?

Lastly, the final recommendation in the interim report talks about the awful consequences of having the burnt tower remaining in place. It recommends:

“Covering the Tower: Management of the site is not currently the responsibility of RBKC. Nevertheless we would strongly recommend that those responsible for it accelerate covering the Tower. It is reprehensible that it has remained uncovered for so long”.


It then gives a timetable for it to be done by December 2017—in six weeks’ time, perhaps. That is unfortunately not mentioned in the Secretary of State’s Statement, but it is an important step towards a healing process and I urge the Minister, if he is not able to reply this afternoon, to give us a written response.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their responses and I will try to deal with the points that they raised. First, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in his tribute to the public sector. I wholeheartedly agree, as he knows. We have been here before, but it is certainly worth restating the continuing role played by the public sector and the role that it obviously played in the immediate aftermath of the fire—the fire service, the ambulance service, the police, the whole of the public sector and local government—along with the voluntary sector, the local community of North Kensington and many individuals who went along to help. It showed our country and our society at our best. I thank the noble Baroness for also making that tribute. I certainly also echo what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said about Barry Quirk, who is doing excellent work in helping in relation to Grenfell.

I will try to deal with the points raised. First, the Secretary of State has made it absolutely clear on behalf of the department and the Government that all options are on the table for the future. The task force has recommended that at this stage commissioners are not appropriate, but that does not mean we have taken that option off the table. Of course, it is a possibility for the future if we feel it necessary. But the report makes the point that significant progress has been made, although more progress is needed. The Government have accepted the report in full, which covers the comments about the clothing of Grenfell Tower, which I wholeheartedly agree needs dealing with in very short order. I will come back to the timescale, if I may. But to restate, the Government have accepted all the recommendations of the task force as, to be fair, has the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, in relation to those comments addressed to the borough. As the noble Baroness made clear, the clothing of the tower is not the responsibility, as things stand, of the local borough.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about working with the opposition party, or parties, in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. That is something for them, but we would very much encourage the council to look at how to work together. It is obviously far better if parties work together, as we have been doing in this House, so I would certainly encourage that.

As to how we as a department have bolstered—an appropriate word used by the noble Lord—in this context, we have certainly been helping with housing issues and encouraging the appropriate use of the NHS, and with community engagement. Staff are still there; I spoke to some this morning and that work goes on. He talked about the barriers to rehousing. Once again, as he knows, this is a complex position in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. We can push for and ensure that there is a speedier response, and the task force recommends that. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea will make an announcement about the appropriate strategy as we move this forward. But some things, in all fairness, are more difficult. Some families have moved into temporary accommodation, and I think in some cases to permanent accommodation, then changed their minds. We are keen to listen to what local people want so we have sought to honour that because feelings are still very raw. Sometimes people feel that they want to move close to the tower and then change their minds, understandably. So there are barriers other than the process arrangements set by local government and central government.

It remains the case that we want 300 potential houses. That is the target of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and I am sure that the council will say more on this when it makes an announcement shortly, specifically about how we get there by the end of the year. That is broadly the number of permanent homes needed. In fact it is more than is required but one feels the need for a bit of a cushion. If I am not wrong, I think that there are around 160 available at the moment, which leaves another 140 to be brought on. There has to be, and to a degree there has been, a cultural change on the part of the borough. In fairness, I do not think that any local authority would have been able to take on this sort of challenge without making some incredible changes. Some of those have happened in Kensington and Chelsea, although clearly more still needs to be done.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked about households that were living not in Grenfell Tower or Grenfell Walk, but in the walkways. There is still a need for them to be permanently housed as well. Again, I think the feeling among many of those families is that they do not want to move back until the tower is properly clothed, which goes back to the point that she rightly picked up on. She also raised the issue of the tenant management organisation. We do not want it to disband because of the possibility—I should state that it is important that we get this legally right—of prosecution. There needs to be the possibility of prosecuting authorities and individuals, and therefore from that point of view its status will remain. I say that without prejudice to anything that is found in the inquiry or by the CPS. In terms of running the housing, of course the organisation was removed immediately and we have not yet made a decision about what fresh arrangements will happen. Again, we will want to look very carefully at all the options for future housing arrangements for Kensington and Chelsea. We are not saying that it will be a, b or c because it is something that needs to be looked at. The point was picked up in the task force report, and it remains the case that all options are open.

I have written something down in my own handwriting which I cannot remotely read. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I pick up the point in the write-around later. I turn to the timescale for the tower, which was raised by the noble Baroness, and where the work needs to be done by December 2017. As I say, the department and the Government have accepted all the recommendations, so we are looking for that to be completed within the timescale. I reiterate that the Secretary of State has made that absolutely clear on behalf of the Government.

Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2017

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben]

I do not really want to politicise what is, I think, a generally accepted view about one successful and agreed part of the devolution proposals that we have at the moment. Let us keep to where we can be united and seek to get this Government and this Opposition in their various forms at least to agree on this simple concept. Let us have holistic government and not divided government.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

We on this side support much of what is in the order. The extension of powers and functions to the mayoral authority in Manchester is to be applauded, especially as it moves some way towards those that are enjoyed in London. However, even in London, the decisions made by the mayor can be called to account by an elected body, the London Assembly. Manchester will have the leaders of the constituent councils, and a scrutiny committee will be formed from those constituent councils—that is all. No specific body will be elected for the purpose of calling the mayor and his decisions to account, but the more powers that are given to the mayoral function the more important that calling to account becomes.

The Minister has listed the significant powers that the mayor of Manchester is to have. They include policing, fire, strategic planning, transport and housing, and waste disposal is now added to that list. The only way in which the constituent members of the combined authority can call the mayor to account on the decisions and choices that he makes is via either the council leaders or a small scrutiny committee. I for one think that is inadequate, and I envisage a point further down the line when the mayor will make a controversial decision and local residents will ask themselves, “How did this happen? Who made the decision and why were we not involved?”.

That is the danger, which I would urge the Minister to consider and rectify at some point in the future, particularly as money is now involved. This has already been pointed out, but I will quote from Part 5 of the order, which relates to funding. It states that,

“the constituent councils must meet the costs of the expenditure reasonably”—

whatever that means—

“incurred by the Mayor in, or in connection with, the exercise of the functions specified”.

That, it goes on to describe, is regardless of whether the constituent councils agree, because there only has to be a majority decision among the leaders of those councils, which means of course that local taxpayers in one of the constituent councils could be asked to contribute to a scheme with which their leader does not agree. I find that quite disturbing. There ought to be a mechanism for reaching difficult decisions that enables all local councils to agree to them. That in my view means the kind of set-up that we have in London with the London Assembly.

Obviously there is much in the order about devolution that I agree with and that is right, because we will have a body with a strategic vision for the conurbation of Manchester. What is not acceptable in my view is the lack of democracy that attaches to that, and the dangers of investing all those powers in one person. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to these concerns.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall start with my usual declaration and refer the House to my interests in the register. I declare that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The Greater Manchester Combined Authority order before us brings into force what I hope is the final part of the agreement. I feel that we always seem to be discussing the Greater Manchester Combined Authority in various forms and I hope that this is the last time we will need to consider it before the election itself.

I have no particular issue to raise on the order. My noble friend Lord Beecham raised an important point on consultation. We have now had a number of these orders and I think that it is fair to say that, for each one, the consultation responses, while I will not say they have been derisory, have not been overwhelming coming through the door. At some point the Government might need to look at how we are consulting people. These are quite big changes that are taking place and, if no one is engaging with the discussion on that, it will be something we shall all regret.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, made some important points on the devolution of power. I support the devolution of power. If the noble Lord and I were agreeing the manifestos of our respective parties we would be absolutely fine and we would probably agree. But I have no role at all in the Labour manifesto this time, so we will have to see what comes up. The noble Lord and I would probably agree on many things.

Surrey County Council: Financial Issues

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister says that the scheme was available to anyone who felt like applying—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Grocott]

Oh, I am sorry—I thought the noble Baroness was still in the coalition.

[Noble Lords]

Yesterday!

[Baroness Pinnock]

Well, what a fine mess somebody has got us into. Here we are, as has been described, with phone calls from a car to the Secretary of State—not even a meeting. Whatever the Minister believes, certainly the leader of Surrey County Council believes, as I have seen and listened to today on YouTube, that there was a gentlemen’s agreement—on International Women’s Day. Does the Minister agree that subterfuge of this sort undermines the essential prerequisite of trust and confidence that has to exist between local government and central government? Will he ensure that the Secretary of State comes clean on this gentlemen’s agreement and reveals all the other secret deals done with Conservative-run councils?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, let me restate—indeed, this was confirmed by Councillor Hodge yesterday—that there is no deal. There was never any question of special arrangements for Surrey; it is subject to the same rules as every other local authority. It can apply for consideration for the business rates retention scheme for 2018-19; it may wish to do that or not—I do not know—but it is open to that authority as it is to all authorities, whatever their political complexion. That is the position.

Local Government: Women in Leadership Roles

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, my noble friend is certainly right with those statistics. The £20 million annual budget to deliver a range of programmes offering support and assistance to local government through the LGA includes specific measures accentuating opportunities for women. For example, in October 2016, a “Be a Councillor” event was geared particularly towards women and as a result we now have more women councillors.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the theme of this year’s International Women’s Day is “Be bold for change”. I would welcome the Minister’s commitment to be bold for change, not just by giving some money to the LGA to encourage more women to become councillors but by being proactive in encouraging more women to be council leaders. Until 50% of councils are led by women, we should not be satisfied. Does he agree?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, across the range I agree. All political parties have a part to play in this. If we look at representation in Parliament, the noble Baroness will be aware that in the general election the Liberal Democrats did not elect a single woman MP. That has now improved: they have one. We all have a part to play; certainly the Government do. Political parties have a part to play, as do private industries. All of us together need to improve the position in public life and private life.

Tees Valley Combined Authority (Functions) Order 2017

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

My Lords, I have a few points for my noble friend on the Front Bench. The first is that, when the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee reported on this, as it did on the previous Motion, I think a sense of unease comes through its report—a feeling that things have not been done entirely properly and a feeling of business undone. Indeed, again, there was a consultation period of only six weeks, from 11 July to 22 August last year, about these important changes. I draw attention to one comment in particular: among 200 respondents who referred to “wider governance issues”, one of the issues they raised was,

“whether Tees Valley was an appropriate geo-political area”.

Having worked on Teesside for many years and still living close by, I think that that is a very relevant consideration.

The first point is a small point: the area is not a valley. Certainly, Cleveland has nothing to do with being a valley. It used to be called Teesside. I want to record for the Minister’s benefit that, if you live up there and you are an ordinary citizen, you still call it Teesside; you do not call it Tees Valley. In thinking about Teesside, there are three authorities—Darlington, Stockton and Hartlepool—and they are not contiguous. What is in between them is County Durham. If I start thinking about an integrated strategy, connectivity and all the things that are supposed to happen, I find it very difficult to believe that it is right that County Durham has looked north towards Newcastle, an effort which is not proving entirely easy as time goes by, when it is very arguable that its best interests and the interests of everybody in the north-east of England would be much better served if it looked south. Have there been any discussions about whether County Durham should be looking south rather than north?

It is as well to remember, of course, that Darlington, Hartlepool and Stockton-on-Tees were all part of County Durham once, so the history is entirely in favour of County Durham joining this combined authority. Indeed, I shall live on in the hope that it will decide, and the other authorities will accept, that it would be a good addition to this combined authority. These are very long-established cities and towns. Darlington is very long-established because of the railway and the Great North Road. Hartlepool and Stockton are very long-established because of the fishing industry and the wool, way back, and subsequently shipbuilding and, as has been mentioned, steel. Here I should declare a rather sad interest: I was a director of the company that built the Redcar blast furnace. That furnace should be working for another 30 years at least; it certainly had a life that would have gone on for that long.

I welcome the order, but I think it is incomplete. The thinking that has gone into it, and the Government’s approach, are not as detailed and thorough as they should be. And I have a final reservation. I cannot help half-thinking that some of these authorities go into these arrangements because there is some money at stake.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the north-east in particular is in desperate need of regeneration, inward investment and higher-skilled jobs to bring prosperity to the local area, and Tees Valley is no exception to that. Given that backdrop, I am very supportive of a proposal that enables the local elected representatives to take account, take charge and have the vision and ambition for their own local area; to respond to the challenges of the loss of the steelworks and glassworks in the north-east and the ensuing large area of industrial dereliction; and to themselves be responsible for the challenge in bringing in new businesses, new life and new hope to local people. Noble Lords can tell from that that I am supportive of the notion of that happening. However, I have a couple of questions to explore with the Minister.

First, although the planning functions are critical to the whole idea of a development area, the reports do not make clear how much of the planning responsibilities the constituent councils will pass over to the development corporation. For instance, I think it would be appropriate for major site applications to be the responsibility of a planning authority within the combined authority but that the details, particularly of housing design and so on for the smaller applications, should still be the responsibility of the constituent councils. Those are the sorts of things that strategic bodies do not pay enough attention to. Enabling local councils to take on that responsibility would seem to be the right split of functions. I hope that that is part of the thinking behind the proposal, although it is not clear to me that that was the case.

The second big issue for me is the level of scrutiny that will be applied. Will there be a separate scrutiny function for the mayoral development corporation? I think that such a function would be appropriate, given the significant powers that will be in the corporation’s hands to reshape a considerable area of the north-east. There ought to be a separate scrutiny function to ensure that decisions are appropriately made. With that, I support the order.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I start my remarks by making the usual declarations of interest that I have made in previous debates.

The Tees Valley Combined Authority order brings into force, as we have heard, the agreement reached between the Government and the local authorities in the Tees Valley area. The Minister might be pleased to hear that I support the order, although I have one or two points to raise.

I noted from the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that there were concerns about the creation of a mayoral development corporation, particularly if it covered part of the North York Moors National Park, but was pleased to learn that an agreement was reached whereby the functions and powers will be transferred only with the agreement of the national park authority. I think it is important for the Government to try generally to get an authority’s agreement when it can be brought into the sphere of an area.

I also note the imperative to establish quickly a mayoral development corporation in the South Tees area and that a shadow board has been established. I certainly wish that body well in its important work. Will the Minister say a bit more on what is envisaged and how he sees that body working with business to bring in inward investment? In particular, how will the body relate to the elected Members of Parliament for the area covered by the mayoral development corporation? The area has suffered a serious blow, and everything possible must be done to secure a successful recovery. A close working relationship with local and national government and business and elected representatives at every level is important to ensure that there is a recovery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I have one further point. I accept entirely that this is not a plebiscite, but I ask the Government, what is the point of consultation? Is the noble Lord saying, “Yes, of course we will consult on these things, but at the end of the day it will not make any difference: we will do what we are going to do”? If not, what is he saying?

[Baroness Pinnock]

On a separate point entirely, I asked earlier in the debate whether a specific scrutiny system would be established for the development corporation. If it is successful, as I hope it will be, it will make a huge difference to the area. A scrutiny system should be set up to investigate what decisions are made and how.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I will write in full on the issue of the consultation and on the points made by my noble friend Lord Eccles— which are somewhat different from those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy—about the geopolitical nature and history of the area. I apologise to the noble Baroness: she has indeed raised the question of scrutiny at least twice, and I will write to her on that. A scrutiny system is certainly in place. Whether it operates across the whole combined authority or is specific to the strategic development corporation, I am not sure, but I will write fully to her on the issue.

I commend the order to the House.

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority Order 2017

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise for coming in slightly late, as the lifts were running slowly. I was inspired to speak because although I seldom agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, I very much do on this occasion, for which I am sure there is rejoicing around the House. I wanted to challenge, or comment on, the position of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I speak as a resident of the city of Norwich, of whose council I was formerly leader, and as someone with strong relationships within that city. I was therefore involved in the discussions—at one remove, obviously and properly—on the inclusion of Norfolk and Suffolk in a greater East Anglia authority. The problem for us, which I regard as a very unfortunate legacy of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, is the imposition of the requirement of an elected mayor to be concomitant with a combined authority.

In Norfolk, there were several, rural Conservative authorities—and I am sure it may also be true for many in Suffolk—which were very happy to have a combined authority with an elected mayor who would be Conservative, for ever and a day, representing, to some degree, lower-rate and lower-services authorities. That is their choice. That is not the same for urban authorities such as Norwich, which are effectively regional capitals with the revenues of a rural district council, which have always provided services from leisure to employment—half the jobs in Norfolk are in Norwich—for the whole of the county. We would worry about having an elected mayor over one county, or two counties, of a permanently different, rural complexion—being Conservative would worry me less—running the cities. Those medium-sized cities are the core of economic growth in this country, now and to come.

Secondly, we have a strong sense of place; I believe that some of the alienation that we have seen in politics is because we are losing that sense of identification with place, which the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, referred to. Norwich was for 800 years a unitary authority and then, at the stroke of a pen in 1974, that was abolished, with no respect for place, history or local opinion. Many of us are still fighting to get a more sensible, coherent, democratic, accountable and effective local government system. I have a plea to the Minister, following what the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said. Yes, we are working well in LEPs, which shows that authorities of different persuasions can work together, but we do not want an elected mayor whereby one person, presumably male, will be able to override the views of perhaps 300 elected councillors, at whatever tier of government, who are in touch with their communities in a way that one person cannot be. One person speaking for two counties—which are some 120 miles long—would be absurd and inappropriate.

What we need in Norfolk—it may be true for Suffolk; I cannot speak for Suffolk—is transport connectivity. It is something that the rural authorities want and something that Norwich, King’s Lynn and Great Yarmouth also want: to build decent economic infrastructure. We cannot get that if an elected mayor does not necessarily share those ambitions, because they come from a very different local heritage. I respect the rights of those rural district councils to have a different perspective on what they and their communities want from local government. What I fear is that, by insisting on an elected mayor over a county, or even two counties, as the price of a devolution package including transport connectivity, we will not get the focus on economic productivity and growth that, bluntly, only the cities—whether Southampton, Portsmouth, Norwich, Plymouth, Exeter or whatever—can provide.

That is why I beg the Government to disassociate combined authorities from the imposition of the Heseltine elected mayor. We do not want grand leadership; we want collaboration and working together in consensus. That is the best done—in the very words of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit—by local authorities, councillors and staff working together in a collaborative way. The way that the Government are going is not healthy for local government, for a sense of local place or, ultimately, for democratic politics, which should grow from the bottom up. That bottom-up approach is now being undermined by back-door reorganisation in ways that do not fit the needs, views and wishes of local communities.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I follow the noble Baroness with trepidation—I think that, on the whole, what we are looking at today is a practical outcome of the decisions that have already been made in principle. I ought to declare my interest as a councillor in West Yorkshire and an LGA vice-president. While I obviously support the decision of the local, democratically elected councils in the relevant areas of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough to go forward with this devolution deal, I draw the House’s attention to what appears to be a lack of support—or certainly a contradiction over whether there is support—from the residents in those areas. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has drawn attention to the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which highlights the lack of transparency—I think those were the words in the report—and certainly a seeming discrepancy between the two surveys undertaken at the time.

The Government ought to reflect on the final paragraph of the report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which says:

“The picture of local views painted by the Department for Communities and Local Government in the Explanatory Memorandum is incomplete and at times self-serving. We look to Government to present a fuller and more accurate account of such matters”.


With that fair comment on what has gone on in the consultation, I will make some remarks about the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. He drew attention to the fact that a mayor who was elected will have a mandate. However, the whole way in which the combined authorities with elected mayors have been established is to have some sort of stop on the mayoral mandate so that they are not people making decisions alone, and quite rightly too. There should be an opportunity for local councils to say, “We disagree with what the mayor is doing” and to veto it. That is an appropriate way to work, given that local councils are allowing some of their powers to be drawn upwards to the combined authority and to the mayor.

In many ways, it is wrong to view the mayors of these combined authorities in the same way as the Mayor of London. First of all, there is no assembly to scrutinise, and secondly, the mayor does not have the same functions: hence the need for a veto in the hands of local councils. This ensures that any decisions which will have enormous impact on local people have the support of those democratically elected councils.

I now turn to the discussions that we have had so far in this debate about layers of democratically elected councils. In my area, there is just one layer. Until the Conservative MPs in Yorkshire stop trying to prevent West Yorkshire from having a combined authority, we have only one layer of local government. It is significantly harder work for those who are elected there than if we had district or parish councils to support much of the work done.

I am a great believer in having layers of councils as long as their functions are very well identified. It enables the places to have a view. One of my concerns is that democracy is moved further and further away from the people whom we represent, so having more councils at real local level to hear views and complaints and to do something about them is the safety valve that many parts of this country are lacking. That is one reason why we are having quite a difference of opinion across the country at the moment: those safety valves are disappearing.

Having said that—because I have concerns about elected mayors that your Lordships might have heard—I will raise one or two questions about this set of powers being acquired by the combined local authority in Cambridge and Peterborough. There is going to be a power of general competence for the combined authority and the mayor. I am concerned as to whether this will be at variance with the power of general competence that the constituent local authorities have, and how those separate interests might resolve themselves if there is a difference of opinion there. My second point is about the scrutiny arrangements, which are not described here. I would guess that they are part of an earlier order and I am concerned whether they are the same as for previous combined authorities. The third point is that there is a suggestion somewhere in the report that further powers are yet to come, which rather puzzled me as I thought they would all be laid out in one go. Why are these not yet identified and what possible additional local powers might there be?

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, this matter was debated briefly in Committee. I made the point then that I had a good deal of sympathy with the intentions of the noble Baroness’s amendment requiring a retrospective planning application, although it did not seem to me that the rest of her proposals—with all due respect—had been fully thought through in terms of how they might be applied.

In particular, subsection (2) in the amendment is unnecessary, because if there was a planning application then, of course, fees would have to be paid. There is also a real problem with subsection (3)—I think I said this to her in Committee as well—which prescribes the payment of an additional charge without giving any indication of how that might be calculated. I suggested that the matter could have gone forward on the basis that that would be determined by secondary legislation, but that has not appeared in this amendment. For those reasons, I am afraid that we cannot support the noble Baroness’s amendment, although I suspect that she will not divide the House in any event. While her intention is very good, the means of carrying it through do not quite meet what is required.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interest as a councillor in the borough of Kirklees and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I agree with the principle behind the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. The issue that she has brought to our attention is important, although, in common with the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, I am not entirely clear that the amendment that she has drafted will address the fundamentals behind the issue that she is trying to address.