Legal Aid Reform

Debate between David Lammy and Robert Neill

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

It seems to me that the Secretary of State has adopted a careful and measured approach. What the hon. Lady says is thoroughly misleading. I am sorry to say that she does herself no service by making such a thoroughly meretricious point.

This matter has been the subject of great public debate. I have referred to the former Lord Chancellor’s speech in 2009, in which he made specific proposals, including bringing in fixed fees and graduated fees as a precursor to best value tendering. He may not have delivered on those proposals, but the ideas have been out there for a long time.

The Lord Chancellor has met the chairman of the Bar Council and the president of the Law Society. It is right and wise that he chooses temperate interlocutors. He has been most willing to engage with Members of this House who are interested in legal matters. The hon. Lady therefore does herself a disservice to characterise the process as rushed.

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman is doing a fair job of coming to the defence of the Government, but does he really believe, as a member of the criminal Bar, that it is right to withdraw choice from defendants? That is the fundamental question.

[Robert Neill]

The right hon. Gentleman had no difficulty serving in the Government of Tony Blair, who observed in 2003 that it was time

“to derail the gravy train of legal aid”.

He might like to think about his own background before he criticises anybody on the Government side of the Chamber.

Of course choice is important, but if we are to have a sensible and intelligent approach to choice, we must recognise that when choice is funded by the taxpayer, it should not come with a completely blank chequebook. It is legitimate to look at the way in which choice is delivered. We should link to the question of choice the important commitment to a proper quality standard. I hope that the Bar Council and the Law Society will work with the Ministry of Justice to develop a quality standard to ensure that the lawyers who come forward under this scheme are not just acceptable, but really good and able.

The Riots

Debate between David Lammy and Robert Neill

Thursday 13th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is right about the first point; I shall come to the second point in a moment, if I may.

A tribute has already been paid to the emergency services. For reasons of time, I have not repeated it in detail. The strength of it is none the less undiminished. Remarkable bravery and professionalism were shown. In terms of specific Government activities, the DCLG and Business Link have set up web pages providing advice and information. Wandsworth and many other councils have taken the steps that have been referred to.

To look on the positive side, and perhaps to put things in perspective, for every person arrested, 15 people followed the “Riot Clean Up” Twitter feed. There is a good side to this, which we should not forget. We have ensured that the faith communities have been closely involved throughout. Reference has been made to appropriate and condign sentencing. That will continue. It is a matter for the courts, but the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Justice are also looking at the means of increasing the rate of recovery of fines for those who are not sentenced to custody; I think most people think that right and proper.

The Riot (Damages) Act 1886 is of course an important route for compensation. That has been referred to. We extended the claims deadline from 14 to 42 days. There is a helpline and website linked to a claims bureau at the Home Office to give further advice. Thus far, there have been 775 calls and more than 1,000 claims, in addition to claims made by insurers direct to police authorities.

On the same day as the Prime Minister’s statement, the Government announced a £10 million recovery scheme to help local authorities with their immediate costs. That operates on a similar basis to the Bellwin scheme, but does not have the qualifying threshold of 0.2% of revenue budget. That makes it easier for local authorities to receive support. Above the threshold, the Bellwin scheme has been activated.

We have offered advice and support to all the local authorities affected; they have dedicated contact officials at the Department. Some 35 local authorities have registered for the £20 million high street support scheme, which was set up specifically to support small and medium-sized enterprises affected.

We have listened to local partners and extended the payment deadline to 3 January, and extended the deadline for local authorities to submit claims to 31 January. That seems appropriate, so that local authorities can try to get going in the run-up to Christmas. It is also worth paying tribute to the business community. A £3 million charitable “High Street Fund” has been set up by Sir William Castell and the Wellcome Foundation, with a £500,000 donation from the Mayor of London, to offer immediate recovery grants. Business in the Community and the British Retail Consortium have also played an active part.

Inland Revenue has handled some 1,286 calls and agreed to some 162 time-to-pay agreements for customers whose cash flow is affected, worth about £3.4 million. We have also set aside £1 million for a homelessness support scheme to deal with the immediate re-housing costs of those who were directly made homeless. Every household that approached their local authority for assistance has either been re-housed or provided with advice and assistance. In Haringey, we have provided £35,000 for two caseworkers to support families in the River Heights estate. I, along with the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), held a recovery advice surgery for MPs from affected constituencies, which a number of hon. Members present attended.

We have set up the Riot Communities and Victims Panel, chaired by Darra Singh. I will check whether it has been to Hackney, but it is carrying out a number of visits around the country. I am sure that its objective is to meet as many authorities as possible. The panel will publish an interim report in November and present a final report to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition in March 2012.

It is worth highlighting the community response, such as the “Love” campaigns in Manchester and Salford, “Liverpool Clean Up”, and the work done by Haringey’s community assistance centre, Tottenham Green leisure centre, and the volunteers in Vauxhall. In the medium term, we are providing £20 million through the London enterprise fund for the regeneration of Tottenham and Croydon, which will be administered alongside the Mayor of London’s £50 million recovery fund.

[Mr Lammy]

Does the Minister recognise that £10 million for Tottenham will simply not be sufficient for the needs of the poorest constituency in London?

[Robert Neill]

That is specific targeting that goes to Tottenham and Croydon, in recognition of their circumstances, which no others receive. In addition, the Mayor has announced taskforces for Tottenham and Croydon. The one for Tottenham is headed by Sir Stuart Lipton, and that for Croydon by Julian Metcalfe, the entrepreneur behind Pret A Manger. It is not the end of the story.

I welcome the support from the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) for Louise Casey and her work in the problem families unit in my Department. The unit is working to deliver early interventions to 120,000 problem families. We are consulting on the question of evicting antisocial families. I know that different views have been expressed in the debate, but we think that that is a legitimate tool that should be in the box, and authorities of all political complexions have viewed it as an appropriate option. Ultimately, such matters are decided by the courts.

Finally, the Home Secretary is leading a cross-Government review with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the problem of gang violence, which is a huge issue that we certainly need to tackle. Powerful points were made in the debate, and I am sure that they will inform the work of that review. I hope that I have given hon. Members an indication of the serious steps that the Government have been taking to deal with the issue.

Pubs (Planning Policy)

Debate between David Lammy and Robert Neill

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is right. I shall refer to some of the planning proposals we are seeking to make, which I hope will deal with some of those situations.

The Government are seeking to approach the matter against the background of recognising that there must be a sensible balance and that, of course, it is sometimes legitimate to regulate to protect community interests. However, we are also dealing with businesses that need to be kept viable and remain attractive for investment, so as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West said, it is important that we deal with the matter in reasonable and proportionate way that does not build in inflexibilities that might discourage people from investing in the public house trades. We must get the balance right and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution to helping us do that. I would rather deal with the matter in a considered way than engage in grandstanding, because there are opportunities that will come to us.

Let me consider some of the points that were raised. It is worth saying that the current national policy—planning policy statement 4—is perhaps not used as fully as it could be. I accept that point, and outside this Chamber I will happily take up with my hon. Friend ways in which we can ensure that local authorities are made aware of their existing scope. For example, PPS4—planning for sustainable economic growth—asks local authorities proactively to plan and promote competitive town centre environments to support shop services and other things that have small-scale economic uses. That can be taken to include public houses. My hon. Friend indicated that some local authorities are doing that, and I applaud them for doing so. Some of the public houses we have referred to might be in conservation areas or might have a particular merit, such as listing and so on. There are other forms of protection.

When determining applications affecting premises such as pubs, current policy also enables local planning authorities to take into account the importance of the facility to the local community or the economic base in the area. However, I acknowledge that that is not doing enough to slow down the attrition rate of pubs. Therefore, we are determined to simplify the system. My hon. Friend is right: the national planning policy framework is the appropriate vehicle for doing that. Since the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, most planning policy has been dictated by guidance rather than through primary legislation, which has tended to be enabling. That is the route we intend to adopt.

We are committed to taking the existing protections that it is appropriate to continue with, simplifying them, amplifying them where appropriate and publishing a comprehensive, single, streamlined national planning policy framework. We are aiming to do that by April 2012. We will start to consult on that later this year, and I very much hope that my hon. Friends and the organisations in their constituencies concerned about the issue of planning and public houses will contribute to the consultation. That will also include planning for community and other leisure facilities. The linkage about encouraging live music, for example, that my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) referred to, is absolutely right. That is why, separately, the Government are proposing to reform the licensing law to make it easier for live entertainment to take place without some of the bureaucratic licensing requirements, particularly in smaller venues. I hope that that will add to viability, which is an important consideration here.

Two matters are important in relation to the Localism Bill. First, we are introducing neighbourhood planning, which will give neighbourhood communities a greater chance to shape their area in planning terms. Communities will be able to set policies for the development of their area, subject to the constraint that what they say must be in general conformity with the overall strategic policies of the local authority’s development plan, and that it will be subject to the national policy set out in the NPPF I referred to. Within those constraints, communities will be able to say what sort of developments—within reason—are acceptable or not acceptable and where. That is an important tool, and I hope it will enable people to have greater protection.

Such an approach will also give communities greater flexibility in expanding. Sometimes that is right because, for example, there might be a demand for additional housing in a village area. Incremental growth is not easy to achieve under the current planning system, so there is a greater pressure to convert the use of a public house to housing. Our proposals will make it easier for a neighbourhood to expand organically and therefore, I hope, to still keep the public house in existence.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Robert Neill]

Yes, of course. I think I know what the right hon. Gentleman is going to ask about, although I have to say that he has not been present during the debate.

[Robert Neill]

I have given way, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be brief.

[Mr Lammy]

The Minister is aware that I have been concerned about these issues for some time. Will he say a little bit more about the legal status of the neighbourhood plan? He will be aware that The Oakdale Arms on Hermitage road, Tottenham is facing demolition in March, and there is real concern that the local community has not been involved.

[Robert Neill]

We have already set out the proposals we are intending to make, and there should be a referendum—an independent check—to make sure that the neighbourhood plan, once it is in place, is in conformity with other policies and that there is support from the community. The details are available in a guide to neighbourhood planning, which is on the Department’s website. When the right hon. Gentleman has looked at that, perhaps other hon. Members who are interested in the matter will have the chance to look at it.

As well as neighbourhood planning, there is the community right to buy. That gives a fair chance for communities to bid to take over assets and facilities that are important to them. Community right to buy is triggered by assets being listed, so it is an important power for community groups to take the initiative to list them. I do not pooh-pooh the community right to buy, as the hon. Member for Derby North did. Potentially, it is a powerful tool, and there are good examples where it has already been taken on. We have published a consultation document setting out details of how that scheme works. It will be underpinned by regulations to deal with the process. That consultation ends on 3 May and as I said, I hope that hon. Members and interested groups will contribute to it. Some of the details that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West fleshed out are exactly the sort of issues I promise him we want to take on board during the consultation.

I understand my hon. Friend’s point about the moratorium, and I would like to consider the matter in that context. The only query is whether too rigid a moratorium could itself create injustice in certain circumstances—for example, where the legitimate collapse of a business through commercial misfortune, as sometimes happens, triggers the need to realise assets quickly. It is about getting the balance right. I would not want to discourage people from investing in pubs, which might happen if they thought they could not always get their assets out again. However, there is more work that we can and will do on that.

On change of use, as was said, when used properly, there is already an ability to import viability into the test. Local authorities can remove committed development rights under the existing use classes order through what is called an article 4 direction. However, as part of our reform of planning policy, we intend to consult more generally on reform of the use classes order. Again, there is an opportunity for that conversation to continue. Similarly, as my hon. Friend says, we have announced a review into the use of covenants, which can be used to prevent a fair playing field for communities when public houses are sold on.

On the question of demolition, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) for his private Member’s Bill. In the past, demolition has been excluded, but we are prepared to look carefully with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members at whether there is some means by which we can, perhaps in the context of the community right to buy, extend planning control to the demolition of community assets. That might be a means by which we can achieve a proportionate solution. I hope the door is open to my hon. Friend in that regard.

I am sorry that there is no time for me to say more. However, I hope I have shown that we take the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West in the spirit in which they were intended. I congratulate him on what he has done. We will continue to have a conversation on those specific points.

Bookmakers and Planning (Haringey)

Debate between David Lammy and Robert Neill

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) on securing this debate on planning law and bookmakers in Haringey. I know that he has strong feelings about the issue; he has spoken to me about it on the telephone and met the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who is responsible for decentralisation and planning, to talk about it. The debate has raised some important issues about balancing sustainable development with community needs, and I am pleased to be able to respond.

I shall deal first with the planning process. Reference has been made to the planning and licensing regimes, and it is worth remembering that, although there is an overlap between the two, they are separate and distinct regimes that, in some measure, fulfil different purposes. The right hon. Gentleman was particularly concerned about problems that might arise in the planning process where planning permission was not required to change the use of a building to another use. I will come on to that, but it might help if I first explain the context of these issues.

To achieve the aim of balanced and sustainable communities, we need homes, jobs, leisure facilities and places to shop, in locations where they can be accessed by all. That is why we focus new development and activities in the cities, towns and villages in which we live. However, we accept that tensions occasionally arise from locating different types of development and land uses next to one another or where particular uses become concentrated. The right hon. Gentleman referred to those tensions, as did my hon. Friends the Members for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) and for Wells (Tessa Munt). It is therefore important to have a planning system that balances the need to allow business to grow with protections for the community from negative impacts of development. We must also remember that we often have to deal with business uses that are controversial but also lawful, and a balance has to be struck in those cases as well. The planning process seeks to ensure that our communities get the right type of development, located in the right location, to maximise benefits for everyone and, as far as possible, prevent negative impacts.

Against that background, let me move on to the subject of the debate—specifically, the problems that can arise when planning permission is not needed because the use classes order allows one type of property to be converted into another type without planning permission being required. I have to explain the background to the use classes order, the purpose of which is often misunderstood. The order was introduced to remove unnecessary planning applications from the planning system and to speed up that system. The use classes order is a concept that has been established for many years. It groups together uses that have similar land-use impacts and characteristics. It is limited in that sense. Broader issues such as those to which the right hon. Gentleman referred may arise, but that is not what the use classes order is intended to deal with. Changes of use within a class are not considered to be development, so they do not require planning permission.

The relevant class for our discussion tonight is the A2 use class, which includes a range of different properties used in general terms for financial services, including banks, betting shops and estate agents. One can argue about how these things break down, but the fact remains that these are distinct from the different use class that would include fast-food or retail shops. Of course, I accept that two developments, even if characterised together within the same use class, might not have precisely the same operating characteristics—shops can have different opening and delivery times, for example.

The planning system grants further flexibility by allowing some changes of use between classes to take place without the need for planning application. This applies where the impacts of the proposed use are considered to be less than those of the existing use. In this case, hot-food takeaways, pubs and restaurants can all be converted to the A2 financial services class without the requirement for planning application. One can see the logic in that the impact of a bank or a building society might be less than that of takeaway—there may not be the same cooking smells, for example, and in this day and age I suspect fewer people come out of the bank singing cheerfully at closing time than out of a public house. The impact is less, so no planning application is required.

The key difference is that local authorities have the power to remove that bit of the freedom of movement—the conversion to something that has a lesser impact. That is the article 4 direction to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. If we remove that article 4 direction, a planning application is required. That can be done by the local planning authority if there are local concerns about such developments. That is why this option was available and has been suggested in respect of the situation in Haringey.

[Mr Lammy]

Does the Minister accept that it is very costly to proceed through an article 4? The main point is that bookmakers should clearly not be in the A2 class with banks. They should be in a separate class of their own. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman understands that because he concentrates his remarks on banks and estate agents. Bookmakers are wholly different; surely they should be somewhere near to casinos and amusement parks.

[Robert Neill]

Two or perhaps three points arise. I was interested in the right hon. Gentleman’s observation that his local council thinks it would take years to produce the policy for an article 4 direction. I can see nothing on the face of the system that should require such a long period. Secondly, there is compensation. We must have a rule that applies to all article 4 directions because such a direction is—justifiably or otherwise—an interference or at least a restriction on the proprietary rights of the owner of the property. It limits what the owner can do with that property, which can affect its value, so it is reasonable and proportionate that there should be compensation. We cannot say that that should be any different for an article 4 direction that applies to only one type of use as opposed to another. That would be neither just nor proportionate.

A case can be made, but various people will have different value judgments about the social, moral, ethical or economic worth of certain types of business uses. The use classes order, however, deals with land uses rather than making value judgments about certain types of business uses.

Firefighters (Industrial Action)

Debate between David Lammy and Robert Neill

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is perhaps significant that the management side adjusted its offer and was prepared to change, to some degree, the extent of the alteration of the hours to reflect earlier discussions. I hope that that will be the spirit in which the negotiations are taken forward.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Over the weekend, there was a fire in Enfield in which a house burned to the ground, and there are serious suggestions that the stand-in fire officers who turned up pointed their hose in the wrong direction. Will the Minister say more about the contingency arrangements, and will he also say what his assessment is of fire services in London, given the 13% cut in the spending review?

[Robert Neill]

I have been acquainted with the reports on the Enfield incident. The chief fire and rescue adviser liaised with the commissioner on that matter. Sadly, I have also been acquainted with reports—in some cases, documented on camera—of the harassment that the crews endeavouring to provide cover had to suffer. They had to do a job under extremely difficult—frankly, unacceptably difficult—circumstances. We want to ensure the best possible standards of cover, and we condemn anyone who seeks to undermine the cover that people attempt to provide. I am satisfied that the London fire brigade—I know it well, as does the right hon. Gentleman—operates to the highest professional standards and will do its level best, despite the difficulties, to make arrangements available. Those arrangements are made via the contract with AssetCo, which is a company with considerable experience in the fire service field, and involve the provision of services using up-to-date fire brigade equipment and persons trained to use that equipment.