Bus Services: Local Government Funding

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Greaves

Wednesday 13th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effect of reductions in local government spending on local bus services in 2016–17.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, decisions about the provision of bus services requiring local government subsidy are a matter for individual English local authorities in the light of their other spending priorities. The majority of public funding for local bus services is via the block grant provided to local authorities in England from DCLG. The Department for Transport also provides £40 million in bus service operators grant funding directly to English local authorities to help deliver local bus services.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, that is a factually correct account. However, all over the country there are horrific stories about local bus services being cut as a result of cuts in council subsidies which are as a result of cuts in the funding of local authorities. In my own county of Lancashire, the proposal that will go before the county council is to abolish bus subsidies for services to villages, services in rural areas, and the little buses that go around the towns, which are so important. Is this really the legacy that this Government want to leave?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

It is not. I mentioned the bus service operators grant. In Lancashire, last year, we provided £1.86 million directly for the purposes of retaining services. The Government are looking at the overall offering of bus services, particularly in rural areas, to ensure both connectivity and the sustainability of essential transport links.

Housing: Brownfield Land

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Greaves

Thursday 5th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

In asking the Question standing in my name, I remind the House of my local government interests.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, we have given high priority to development on brownfield land and the Government have introduced a package of measures to accelerate the redevelopment of such land, including £400 million of loans to support 30 new housing zones. We also expect local authorities to put in place local development orders granting planning permission for new homes on over 90% of suitable brownfield sites by 2020.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, the proposals for the new housing zones are welcome but in areas such as mine in east Lancashire, private developers simply cannot recoup the cost of the land and of building the houses in their profits from the sales of houses in areas where house prices are very low by national standards. In these circumstances, do the Government understand that loans are no use at all because they cannot be recouped, and that what is required is direct gap funding of the difference between the cost to the developers of producing the houses and what they can get for the sale or rent of those houses?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My noble friend makes a valid point about the need to encourage housing development. In that regard, I can also point him to the estate regeneration fund, currently standing at £150 million, to revitalise housing estates. But we are seeing take-up of the housing zones initiative. Indeed, in London, for example, it has been matched by the mayor by a further £200 million.

Economy: Prosperity of Towns

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Greaves

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I remind the House of my interest as a member of an urban local authority in a non-city region area.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon)]

My Lords, the Government’s long-term economic plan is already securing a better future and a stronger economy for our country. We have put in place a range of tools and incentives that give communities the freedom and flexibility that they need to drive economic growth. Growth deals build on the success of city deals and mean that every area of England, rural or urban, can benefit from powers and funding devolved from Whitehall.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, that Answer from the Minister sounds very nice, but the reality is that people in those parts of England that do not form part of big city regions—particularly, for example, those in the north of England that are not within the aegis of a handful of large authorities—feel very much as if they are being left in limbo when it comes to the devolution of power and the provision of resources to local authorities. Areas such as west Cumbria, east Lancashire —where I live—and many others feel left in limbo. Does the Minister understand that?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I am always pleased when my noble friend feels that I am being nice. Let me assure him that this is not about leaving any authority in limbo. The 39 growth deals that have been agreed thus far, and the additional funding for growth deals announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Autumn Statement, will ensure that all authorities across the country can apply and can successfully bid for such growth funds. Indeed, Lancashire LEP has already secured £233.9 million from the Government’s local growth fund, which it estimates will create up to 5,000 jobs for the local area, and 6,000 new homes as well.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Greaves

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this important debate and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for tabling the amendment.

The public sector land programme is about bringing disused land currently owned by central government back into productive economic use, supporting homes and jobs, an objective to which I am sure all noble Lords adhere. Where land is no longer needed by government, it will be transferred to the Homes and Communities Agency, which will prepare the land for release to the market and work with local planning authorities to ensure that the land is used in a way that best benefits the community—for example, by supporting local housing needs. We have had many debates, and I am sure that we will continue to have them, about the importance of housing and housebuilding to boost economic growth.

Better reuse of disused land will in turn support our desire—I make it clear that it is the Government’s desire—to protect the green belt and amenity land, such as forests, woodlands and open spaces. Disused government land can and does already transfer to the HCA, but the process is often more bureaucratic than is necessary. This clause is simply about increasing the rate of delivery and efficiency by streamlining internal government procedures.

Let me be clear. The intention behind Clause 21 is not to sell off the nation’s forests. You know what—I have been to a forest or two and I enjoyed a woodland or two as a child, and I want my children to continue to enjoy those very things, as I did. I have made this clear repeatedly, in my meetings with noble Lords—with the noble Baroness in particular—and most recently in a Written Ministerial Statement, published yesterday. I assure all noble Lords that the Government have no plans to dispose of the public forest estate and the powers contained in Clause 21 of the Infrastructure Bill do not present a threat to the future of the estate in public hands. The estate is not surplus, and it is not owned by an arm’s-length body. The Homes and Communities Agency’s objectives are to work with the Government and other public bodies to unlock and accelerate the release of surplus public land for the creation of new homes and employment opportunities, in line with designated government policy. The aim is to make best use of previously used and brownfield land, protecting green belt and amenity land that create and support great places to live.

[Lord Greaves]

I have been listening very carefully to what the Minister said, but did he say that the estate was not owned by an arm’s-length body? I wonder whether, at some stage, he will answer the question that I asked. Does Clause 21 apply to the forestry commissioners and the forestry estate, or does it not?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Several questions were raised, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, although he has tabled some other amendments, said that we could all go home once I had answered that question. Perhaps that means that he will not move his other amendments. However, he has asked the question again, and let me put the matter to rest. The Bill applies to public bodies. He asked whether it applied to forestry commissioners. The forestry commissioners do not own any land and the PFE is owned by the Government. I trust that that point is clear.

[Lord Greaves]

This is extremely important. The public forest estate is owned by the Government, but the question I am asking is whether Clause 21 applies to the public forest estate.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I would ask my noble friend to allow me to finish. Once I have concluded my remarks, his question and other questions may have been answered.

Much of the public forest estate is already protected. Many of the sites are, for example, in national parks and the estate contains almost 200 sites of special scientific interest as well as more than 800 scheduled ancient monuments. However, the Government recognise the strength of people’s concerns about the future security of the public forest estate. Indeed, I know that my honourable friend Mark Harper and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, hosted an event recently about the Forest of Dean. That is why we have made the following commitments, which I shall reiterate. The Government will not transfer any part of the public forest estate to the Homes and Communities Agency. We are amending our guidance to departments on the transfer of public land to make it clear that the public forest estate is exempted from transfer to the Homes and Communities Agency. We will not include the new public forest estate management body in any future regulations specifying which bodies can transfer land to the Homes and Communities Agency.

I hope that that clear public commitment by the Government provides a degree of certainty and reassurance to noble Lords. Having made these commitments, I must also be clear that the intention of Clause 21 of the Infrastructure Bill was simply to allow the direct transfer of land from central government arm’s-length bodies to the HCA. The noble Baroness asked about the list of arm’s-length bodies. I would be happy to share that with her and the rest of your Lordships’ House. The public forest estate is not owned by any arm’s-length body and, as such, is not covered by the aims or purpose of this policy.

Various questions were asked and my noble friend Lord Phillips raised some specific questions. If I may, in the interests of brevity and to move issues on, I shall write to him specifically on the issues that he raised.

I have listened very carefully to what has been said in the Chamber today and listened attentively to the sentiments expressed by your Lordships’ House. It has become increasingly clear to me during the course of the debate that there is still strong feeling in the House that this is an important issue on which the Government need to reflect further. Therefore, I shall seek to bring an amendment back to the House at Third Reading that will seek to exempt the public forest estate from transfer to the Homes and Communities Agency. I hope that, with that assurance, and the faith that the noble Baroness has in me, for which I am grateful, she will be minded to withdraw her amendment.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Greaves

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, ahead of Report in the House of Commons, the Government published draft guidance for front-line professionals on the new anti-social behaviour powers. With the exception of those sections dealing with the review of criminal behaviour orders and the community remedy, this was to be non-statutory guidance.

In addition to the draft guidance produced by the Home Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published a draft practitioner’s manual for tackling irresponsible dog ownership. Of course, the content of the draft guidance has been the subject of discussion during our Committee deliberations. On a number of points, noble Lords expressed concern that our expectations of how the power should be used would be in guidance with no statutory basis.

While I believe that the new powers have sufficient safeguards to ensure appropriate and proportionate use, I see merit in making the guidance statutory for all the new anti-social behaviour powers. Our intention is not to be prescriptive; it is essential that professionals and the courts have the flexibility to consider the facts of each case and choose the most appropriate course of action. However, statutory guidance will help them use the new powers more effectively. The amendments in this group will achieve that result and I trust noble Lords will support them. I beg to move.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to speak on the statutory guidance sections. I have one little amendment, Amendment 57, in this group, and it is fairly clear what it means.

This is the first time that I have spoken at this stage of the Bill, apart from one intervention, so I should declare my interests again in relation to this group and some others that we will come to. They are my membership of a district council in Lancashire as a councillor, my membership of the British Mountaineering Council, of which I am a patron, and my vice-presidency of the Open Spaces Society, and they relate to things that will come up later.

I thank the Ministers—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who is not yet in his place—for the way in which they have approached this Bill, for the way in which they have been open to discussion and to holding meetings with the Bill team, and for the large amount of material that they have sent out in letters and so on. Their readiness to look at a lot of the questions raised at Second Reading and in Committee, and to come forward with quite a lot of amendments today—most of the amendments that we are discussing at the moment are government amendments—shows that they have been willing to listen. I have absolutely no doubt that the parts of the Bill in which I am interested—those on anti-social behaviour—are a lot better for that process, so I will put on record my personal thanks to them.

These amendments are all about guidance. As the Minister said, they mean that the guidance that we were told would be issued—we have already seen the draft guidance—and that is now out for consultation with various bodies will become statutory. This is very welcome. A caveat to that is that I would much have preferred the guidance to be statutory instruments and regulations, as those would have had the benefit of having to come before the House of Commons and your Lordships’ House. Nevertheless, it is better that the guidance should be statutory rather than it being left open as to whether or not people will bother to produce guidance. The fact that it is statutory guidance means that there will have to be proper consultation on it, that it will have to be published and everybody will know that, and that the Ministers issuing the guidance will have some accountability to the Houses of Parliament if we want to raise questions as a result of what is in it. That is welcome and it is being welcomed by a number of organisations with which I am in touch.

The guidance referred to in this group of amendments covers a number of different parts of the Bill, including IPNAs—I am interested that we are still calling them IPNAs following the amendment that was agreed this afternoon; I was trying to work out whether they should now be called IPHADs but at the moment they are called IPNAs—criminal behaviour orders, the powers of police community support officers, community protection notices, public space protection orders and the question of the closure of premises, and there may be others. The point that I would have made if I had been able to get in during the debate this afternoon is that the Bill is not really about everything that was discussed this afternoon.

Most of the debate was about free speech, freedom of assembly and the right of people to protest, as by-products of Clause 1. In practice, this Bill is about anti-social behaviour—or at least the majority of it that refers to anti-social behaviour is—and about whether it is successful in tackling anti-social behaviour more effectively than the existing regime based on ASBOs. I am optimistic that it will be more successful, but the guidance that we are discussing is going to be crucial to how it works on the ground. At the moment if you have to make an ASBO, you have failed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, this amendment is just trying to help the Government. They have a bit here that is wrong. I raised it in Committee and I thought it would be sorted out. I apologise that I did not notice that it had not been until it was too late to get it on the Marshalled List. Never mind: it has appeared.

In all these different sections and all the alphabet soup of IPNAs, PSPOs and the rest, there is a definition of what the local authority is in relation to that particular area. In the case of IPNAs it is all the principal local authorities. In most of them it is the lowest-tier principal local authority. For example, in relation to public space protection orders it reads:

“‘local authority’ means—in relation to England, a district council, a county council for an area for which there is no district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London or the Council of the Isles of Scilly”.

The definition here in relation to criminal behaviour orders is outdated. The definition in Clause 28(4) has, I think, been picked up from previous legislation which must have been enacted before there were any unitary authorities apart from the Isle of Wight, and certainly before there were any unitary counties. It simply reads:

“‘local government area’ means—in relation to England, a district or London borough, the City of London, the Isle of Wight and the Isles of Scilly”.

This means that those areas where there is a unitary county, not a unitary district, are not included and so they are simply missed out of the list. These include Northumberland, Durham and Cornwall, for example, and, I think, one or two more.

My amendment will simply delete “the Isle of Wight”, which is a unitary county, and insert the words,

“a county in which there are no districts”.

That is equivalent to the wording elsewhere. As I say, I am just trying to help the Government by making the legislation cover the whole of England and to get it right. I beg to move.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I am for ever grateful to my noble friend Lord Greaves for continuing to keep us on our toes with his scrutiny of the various definitions of local government area as used in the Bill. This amendment relates to Clause 28 which, as my noble friend said, requires a chief officer, in carrying out a review of a criminal behaviour order made against a person under 18, to act in co-operation with the council for the local government area where the offender lives.

This is an area of statute law where there is more than one way of defining a local government area. I have to advise noble Lords that the definition in Clause 28 is correct, but I accept that the drafting could always adopt a different approach. In order to preserve the overall structure laid down by the Local Government Act 1972, the area of a unitary council is usually designated both a county area and a district area, even though it has only a district or a county council. Therefore, in an area where there is a unitary county council, that council will be the council for the district in which the offender resides. In short, the provision works as drafted.

Just as a clarification on the issue of the Isle of Wight, my understanding is that it is a case apart in that it still has districts, albeit no district councils. The express reference to the Isle of Wight therefore avoids any ambiguity in this respect. In light of this explanation, I hope that my noble friend is minded to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

I refer the Minister to page 31 of the Bill and the meaning of “local authority” under community protection notices, for example, where the list is different. That specifically refers to,

“in relation to England, a district council, a county council for an area for which there is no district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London or the Council of the Isles of Scilly”.

It does not refer to the Isle of Wight specifically and separately but refers to,

“a county council for an area for which there is no district council”.

In Clause 67, on page 40, the definition is identical to that for community protection notices.

It may be that, as the Minister said, Northumberland, Durham and Cornwall are districts as well as counties, but that would be news to them since they think that all their districts were abolished a few years ago and that, in common parlance, they are unitary counties. In normal lists of local authorities in England, you refer either to unitary authorities if that is what you mean—you could do that—or to unitary districts and unitary councils. Clearly, unitary districts such as those in Berkshire are districts and so come under the general thing of districts.

Even if the Minister’s rather obscure explanation is right, why is the same terminology not used in different parts of the Bill? Different terminology is used for IPNAs, community protection notices and public space protection orders. It is different because it has simply been picked up, in the case of Part 2 of the Bill on criminal behaviour orders, from previous legislation. All I ask is that the Minister goes away and looks at this again. Even if what he says is right, surely the terminology in the different parts of the Bill should be the same. Could the Minister respond to that?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, again, if I follow my noble friend’s point, it partly proves my own that different drafting approaches to this issue can achieve the same end. I am assured that the Bill is not defective as drafted so I urge my noble friend to accept the approach we have taken, but I listened to his comments again. I assure him that I will sit down with my noble friend Lord Taylor and the officials once more to get the required assurance that the drafting is correct. I will write to my noble friend Lord Greaves in that regard.

[Lord Greaves]

I am grateful for that. I hope the Minister will write to me in good time: I will put the same amendment down at Third Reading if I do not get satisfaction. If it is true that the Isle of Wight is a case on its own and has to be mentioned separately, why is it not mentioned separately in all the other cases of IPNAs, PSPOs, community protection notices and so on? The Minister seems to have it both ways. Again, he has not answered my basic question as to why—so that people can understand it—the same terminology is not used in different parts of the same Bill. The answer will be that different officials wrote different parts of the Bill but that is no reason for not standardising it when you have the opportunity. Having said that, when a Minister makes an offer, I believe it is within the traditions and courtesy of the House to accept it. I will do so and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, in Committee my noble friend Lord Faulks and other noble Lords questioned the effect of Clause 62(7). He asked whether this had the effect of stopping an application for judicial review against a council that makes a public spaces protection order. I agreed to go back and consider the matter further. On reflection, it is true that, as originally worded, the clause meant that judicial review was not available. This was because an interested person can challenge an order in a broader way than is open under a judicial review and, as such, the requirement for that process did not seem necessary. I believe that this is right: it ought not to be possible for the same person to challenge a public spaces protection order on effectively the same grounds through two different legal procedures.

However, as my noble friend pointed out, because only “interested persons” as defined in the Bill may challenge a decision to make an order, this has inadvertently left national bodies and others who do not fall into the category of an “interested person” without any means to challenge a decision. Amendment 51 rectifies this and ensures that the option of judicial review is available to those who do not qualify as “interested persons”. I hope the House will agree that this is a fair way of ensuring that all parties with an interest in a public spaces protection order can challenge the terms of the order should they consider there to be a case for doing so. I beg to move.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, there was quite a lot of discussion about this question in Committee and it became clear that the Bill was not very clear. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser was involved in those discussions. The amendment now proposed is extremely welcome and has been welcomed by various national organisations that were concerned about it. Again, it is to the credit of the Government that they have seen the sense of this and sorted it out.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Greaves

Monday 25th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 53C. This small group contains two completely unrelated amendments. The first simply asks why premises owned by parish and town councils are not treated in exactly the same way as premises owned by district or other principal councils in terms of exemptions from alcohol bans. District councils are treated in a slightly less strict way compared with other premises, but I do not understand why town councils are not treated in the same way, as they very often own what people think are council-owned facilities in small and medium-sized towns.

Amendment 53C is a more important amendment, and it reads fairly cryptically. It proposes inserting at the end of line 41 on page 35,

“notify such other persons as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State”.

It relates to Clause 60, which concerns orders restricting a public right of way over a highway. Therefore, we are back to that subject.

The existing legislation in a number of different areas relating to access contains designated or specified organisations. There is a list of those organisations and they usually appear in secondary legislation rather than in an Act. I remember arguing a long time ago during the passage of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, as well as the Commons Bill in 2006 and some others, that they ought to be in an Act, but they ended up in regulations.

In the CROW Act, proposals relating to access concern restrictions on access land; in the case of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, they concern closures and diversions of rights of way; and in the Marine and Coastal Access Act, they are to do with the designation of access land and the coastal route. In all these cases there is a designated or, in the more recent legislation, specified list of organisations which are notified of proposals. The list includes access organisations such as the Ramblers, the British Mountaineering Council and the Open Spaces Society. It also includes representatives of landowners. For example, the Country Land and Business Association, formerly known as the Country Landowners Association, is on a specified list, as are other organisations. It is a balanced list and it is a matter of automatic notification.

The purpose of this slightly cryptic amendment is to ensure that such a list—really it is the same list as in the other legislation—applies in the case of proposals to restrict, and particularly to stop access to, rights of way so that those organisations have the opportunity to make representations just as they have in other cases. Particularly on the rights of way we are talking about here, if what was being proposed was a closure or diversion under the Highways Act, as amended by the Wildlife and Countryside Act, that right would exist.

I shall say what I said before we had our dinner break: nowadays such notifications are far easier than they used to be. Once a system has been set up, it is just a question of pressing two or three keys on a computer keyboard. If I can set up that sort of system easily enough, I am sure that local authorities would have no difficulty doing so. I beg to move.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling his amendments. On Amendment 53A, I appreciate and understand the important role that parish and town councils and community councils in Wales play in delivering key services in their area and, importantly, in creating a feeling of community; for instance, through the organisation of social events and so on and so forth.

The Bill provides some level of protection for council-operated licensed premises so that they can organise the kind of social events I have referred to but, as my noble friend has suggested, the narrower definition of local authority in this part of the Bill may mean that protection is not afforded to the types of council covered in the amendment. As such, it could result in the parish council not being able to sell alcohol at its annual fête because of a wider controlled drinking zone implemented by the district council. I have listened very carefully to my noble friend’s comments and have reflected on the amendment. If he will agree to withdraw it, we will certainly consider any further and wider implications of the change suggested and return to this on Report.

Amendment 53C would give the Secretary of State the ability to add, by regulation, to the list of persons who should be consulted before access is restricted. We believe that, as currently drafted, the Bill covers all those who should be consulted in each case. I am happy to provide further examples in the guidance but we do not believe there is a need to provide the Secretary of State with the ability to prescribe additions to the list. As my noble friend knows, it would, of course, be open to a local authority to consult more widely, if it so chose. On the basis that I accept in spirit his first amendment and with the explanation I have given on his second amendment, I hope that he will be minded not to press his amendments.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, having just had a splendid dinner, I am tempted to put the first amendment in this group to a vote and see what the Government do, but I shall not. I shall be a good boy. I thank the Minister for his very constructive response.

On Amendment 53C, I do not understand why organisations which are consulted at the moment on all similar proposals should not be consulted on these proposals. There is a suggestion that these national organisations ought to keep out of these local decisions, but we are talking about rights of way networks which have national or regional importance as public footpaths for many people who do not live locally. There is an issue of principle here which I would like to discuss further with the Government. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Greaves

Monday 25th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. In doing so I make the general point that sometimes in debates such as this you hear some noble Lords saying that the period is too long and others saying that it is too short, and so going down the middle is normally the solution. The noble Baroness talked about perfection. Dare I say that, perhaps on this clause, we are as near to that as we can be? I will address the amendments and the questions as far as I can but I hope, as I always do with the noble Baroness opposite, that she will gain some reassurance from what I say, if not from my words then at least from my tone.

These amendments relate to the process of reviewing and extending public spaces protection orders, as we have heard. As noble Lords are aware, there is currently no statutory review point for the orders we are replacing and they can run indefinitely. The argument has been made about where we are today. Putting in a limit is a positive way forward, otherwise—to quote the noble Baroness’s words back at her—these orders run on and on. It is important to look at how they should be reviewed. I believe that there should be a formal review point, which we have decided to set at three years.

The effect of Amendments 41B and 44A, which stand in my noble friend’s name, would of course be to limit this to 12 months. I have listened to the arguments that she put forward. As we have made clear in the guidance, orders do not have to last for three years—a point just made by the noble and learned Lord. There is flexibility within this, according to the circumstance and the situation and at the discretion of the issuing authority, including the local authority, as to what is appropriate. If appropriate, these can be reviewed or discharged before three years have elapsed. My view is more qualified and endorsed after listening to the debate and I believe that three years is a proportionate balance between the needs of users and the protection of the community, especially given the everlasting orders that we are seeking to replace.

Amendments 44B and 49A—which I take to be an alternative to Amendments 41B and 44A—would ensure that orders could not be extended more than once. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, raised the specific point that the legislation allows only for renewal. I am sure that he has reflected on Clause 56; there are provisions specifically to allow for the recurrence of a renewal of an order. He is nodding so I am sure that he agrees with the point I am making.

Of course, there are situations in which longer-term restrictions could be necessary; for example, as I am sure my noble friend is aware, these orders will replace, among other things, dog control orders, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said. This means that a public spaces protection order will be required, as a dog control order is now, to ensure that the fouling of public land is dealt with. I am sure that my noble friend will agree that this is not a problem that can be fixed in three or indeed six years and an ongoing restriction is therefore required. As such, preventing the further renewal of orders would mean communities having to put up with dog mess as well as other potentially anti-social behaviours, such as public drinking.

Turning to Amendment 48, my noble friend will be aware that the orders being replaced by the public spaces protection order do not include a formal review and, as such, can last indefinitely. In reforming the powers, we believed that it was only right that a statutory timeframe was built in, and I am sure that my noble friend will welcome that in principle. As the legislation states, the review should be conducted every three years.

Of course, I understand the concerns raised by my noble friend about the potential impact of a three-year restriction if applied to all orders but, as I have already said, the legislation is clear that councils can limit the duration of an order to a period of less than three years. Indeed, as the draft guidance suggests, in a situation where a public right of way is being closed for the first time to try to deal with a specific issue, the council may well prefer to review this after a shorter period of time.

To make this amendment would mean that all orders covering rights of way would have to be reviewed every six months. This would include, as I have already mentioned, welcome restrictions to deal with dog fouling and the consumption of alcohol. This would turn the new power into a bureaucratic nightmare that resulted in councils that decided to use it living in a loop of constant consultation and review. As I have said before, in my own experience as a local councillor for 10 years, consultations were regularly part and parcel of our decision-making, but if we had to issue an order and then immediately start another consultation, I fear that we would be constantly in consultation mode.

[Lord Greaves]

Does my noble friend accept that there could be a difference between the kinds of restrictions he is talking about, which in appropriate circumstances we would all find sensible to last for a long period of time, and actually banning access itself? It is when access itself is banned on a right of way that the real problems start to occur.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I take on board what my noble friend is saying. That is why I believe that, as the clauses are drafted, there is flexibility with regard to the circumstances, the situation and indeed the tenure appropriate to the offence that is being perceived. I have already flagged up that in this instance, if an issue arose for the first time, the local authority may well be minded to apply an order of smaller duration to allow for exactly the kind of review and assessment that my noble friend is suggesting. I understand the point my noble friend makes and, as I have said, it probably refers more to the restricting of access than anything else. I have listened and we will consider how to make the guidance more specific in this regard.

Finally, Amendment 55A relates to appeals against public spaces protection orders. My noble friend has asked for clarification of whether there is a right of appeal against the extension of an order. That is a fair point. The amendment would provide an additional opportunity to challenge an order every time it was extended. This could result in additional appeals, even if the circumstances had not otherwise changed. That said, my noble friend has raised an important point and I will take it away and reflect further on it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked if I could predict the number of orders and renewals. Crystal balls are hard to come by and the important thing we are seeking to do here is to ensure that the orders are specific, time-limited and can be reviewed. Again, if the behaviour has been corrected, the order does not need to stay in place for ever. That is an important point to bear in mind. How often are we expecting the orders to be renewed? That is very much up to the local authorities to decide. One order can cover more than one behaviour with a shorter consultation process, so there is less paperwork, less bureaucracy and less delay. Reviews can be quite light-touch, so one review may be more intensive than another. It would be almost impossible to give a cost for each review.

We should not forget that there is an absolute need for democratic accountability for the continued operation of these orders. The Government feel that the balance has been struck. The noble Baroness talked about the Ramblers and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home. Perhaps she would like to respond and tell me whether she believes that what we are seeking to do in Clause 56 is appropriate, because the current situation means that there is no time limit. We are seeking to ensure three years, with the possibility to review, and a three-year period is allowed for only if the local authority chooses to persist with that; if it chooses to put one year down, that is its prerogative.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Greaves

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 22NC and 22QA are proposed by my noble friend to change the process at the point where a community protection notice is issued. Currently, when issuing a community protection notice, an authorised person—be that a police officer, an officer of a local authority or a person that the local authority has designated, such as a social landlord—would have to inform any body or individual that the person issuing the notice thinks appropriate. Amendment 22NC seeks to remove this requirement.

Amendment 22QA, in my noble friend’s name, then seeks to impose a requirement that an authorised person who is not the local authority must inform the relevant local authority of its issuing of a notice. I recognise that it is important that a local authority is aware that community protection notices are in operation in its area but, conversely, it is also important, as I am sure noble Lords will agree, that local authorities notify the police. The reality is that police and local authorities will be working together to tackle local anti-social behaviour and therefore it is not necessary to put into the Bill the requirement to inform the local authority. The existing provision in Clause 40(6) states that the authorising officer “must … inform” any appropriate individual or body of the issue of a community protection notice, and it is difficult to imagine any case where the relevant local authority would fall outside the definition of “appropriate”. I do not think it necessary to specify that the local authority must be informed.

However, there may well be others whom it would be appropriate to inform as well. As I have suggested, the police will often have an interest. I fear that the effect of my noble friend’s amendments would be to restrict the requirement to informing the local authority only.

Our guidance for front-line professionals states clearly that, where a community protection notice is being issued, there is clear merit,

“in involving the local council, which will have many years of experience in tackling environmental issues, when deciding whether or not to serve a CPN”.

As I and my noble friend have said on previous occasions, the guidance can be amended as we move through the parliamentary process. Of course, if there is a requirement, we can set a clearer expectation on the necessity of ensuring that the local authority is fully involved.

As an aside—I speak with some experience, although perhaps not with the same number of years’ experience as my noble friend—in my 10 years in local government, I served as both the cabinet member for the environment and then as the cabinet member for policing and community engagement. In that respect, my experience—albeit on a London council—showed that the local authority, the police and other local agencies work well on the ground, and we have faith that these agencies will continue to work well as we move forward.

Amendment 22QF concerns remedial works carried out by the local authority where there has been a breach of a community protection notice. Remedial works may be carried out if a person fails to comply with the terms of a notice served on them. The local authority may carry out the remedial work without the consent of the owner or the person who had defaulted on the notice on land “open to the air”, and Amendment 22QF would prevent this. The local authority cannot simply enter premises at will; I am sure that my noble friend knows that to be true. It must seek the “necessary consent” of the defaulter and the owner of the premises if that person is not the defaulter. However, there may be circumstances where the local authority has taken all reasonable efforts to find the owner but has not been able to do so. I do not believe that communities should continue to suffer in such circumstances, and that is why it is important that the authority is able to carry out remedial works.

I hope that my noble friend is reassured by the explanations I have given of what is behind the Government’s proposals here, and that he will be minded to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, although I was a bit peeved by the first part of his response. If I have not made it absolutely clear that the first amendment is a probing amendment in order to find out what this subsection means, then I apologise. I shall try to be clearer in future. It is quite normal in Committee to table amendments that take out subsections, not because you want to take them out but because you want the Government to explain what they mean. They are called probing amendments and that is fairly normal procedure, but I am sorry that I did not make that clear in this case. Clearly, I do not want to take out the subsection; I want a clear explanation from the Government of exactly what it means, and I shall read Hansard before I decide whether I have had a clear explanation.

The Minister said that the reason why councils will have to be notified is that they have many years of experience. That is true but it is not why they have to be notified. They have to be notified because, as I understand it, they are the most important central body as far as community protection notices are concerned. I am not suggesting that the police are not important—they clearly are very important indeed—but the council is the body that has the staff and the ability to go on to the ground and do something about these problems, and remedy them if that is required. The Minister said that the Government have faith that these agencies will continue to work well on the ground as we move forward. I have no doubt that where this is working well already on the ground it will continue to do so, and I hope that it will be brought in where it is not yet working—so long as the people are still there on the ground.

I am sorry to hammer on about this, but in many parts of the country it is precisely those council staff and the local neighbourhood policing teams, who are so vital to this operation, whose employers are wondering how long they can continue to pay them, because of the cuts that are taking place. That is just a fact. I am not making a political point. If I were on the Labour Benches I would be making a horrible political point and attacking the Government over this, but I am not doing that now; I am just stating that this is the fact that we have to live with. Many of us are fighting hard to ensure that in our own patches the mechanisms, the structure and the networks continue, but with every year that passes that gets more difficult. It is one thing to pass legislation like this that puts forward exciting new ideas and measures to deal with the problems, but if we cannot do it on the ground because there are no staff left, it is very difficult. Having moaned in that way, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Greaves

Monday 18th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, in standing up and responding I feel like the Jedi knight next to the Jedi master. May the Force be with us all.

Amendments 20F and 22CA raise an important point in respect of the duty on the court to ensure, so far as is practicable, that any prohibitions or requirements attached to an injunction do not conflict with the manifestation—as my noble friend so eloquently put it—of the respondent’s religious beliefs. In line with the Equality Act 2010, reference to religious beliefs should go further than so-called “traditional” religious beliefs. I believe that this can be covered in guidance but I would like to go away and consider further the points made by my noble friend. We can return to the wording of this section if required. I hope my noble friend will accept my assurance that we will further consider this point and those made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I support the words of my noble friend Lady Hamwee: he raised bold and challenging concepts. As I said, in response to an earlier amendment, what may be perceived as perfectly acceptable to one person may not be acceptable to another. The courts are used to considering a person’s religious beliefs and do not need to be told that they can reject beliefs if they are spurious. In addition, to try to second-guess what would, in the words of the amendment, constitute activities “that would normally arise” is very difficult given that two people of the same religion may have different ways of practising their faith. I am a Muslim and there are 73 different denominations within Islam. During Ramadan, the time of your fast can differ depending on where you are. One obviously prefers to be at a place where the fast closes as the sun sets rather than when the sun is set totally. That is a practical illustration from a faith which is widely recognised.

The crucial point here is that, in considering an injunction, the court must avoid, so far as is practicable, any conflict with the manifestation of a respondent’s religious beliefs. If that is not practicable because, for example, avoiding the conflict would result in the respondent engaging in further anti-social behaviour purporting to be religious practice, the court would not be prevented from imposing prohibitions or requirements that it considered appropriate. This is something we can safely leave to the courts; they are more than capable of assessing the bona fide status of a respondent’s religious practice without express provision and, indeed, we have recently seen examples of that.

Amendments 20G and 22CB, tabled by my noble friend Lord Greaves, raise another important point. As we have made clear, the injunction should be available to help turn a troubled person’s life around, especially when they are young and impressionable. As such, it would not be helpful for requirements or prohibitions to unnecessarily stop them engaging in constructive training.

However, what is considered as training by some may not be worthy of special consideration by the court and some will try to use this term to delay the court’s process. Where training is worthy of consideration it is likely to be linked to an educational establishment or even a formalised work placement and, as such, is already provided for in the Bill. My noble friend also raised the issue of different wording in different parts of the Bill. We recognise that Clause 34(3) imports the word “training” whereas Clause 5(1) does not. I will certainly reflect on those two variations and return to them as required.

For the reasons I have given, I hope that my noble friend Lord Greaves will withdraw his amendment and that the noble Lord, Lord Harris—notwithstanding the important issues that he raised—will not press his.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I am very grateful for that helpful response from the Minister and I look forward to the results of his reflection. To my noble friend Lady Hamwee I say, I am never legalistic; I may sometimes be pernickety, but that is a bit different. I had great sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, said, and had great sympathy for him, having to go to his Labour Party meetings on a Sunday morning. However, that reminded me that in the old days, and perhaps here and there now, there were things called socialist Sunday schools. If lads and lasses were getting out of hand, I am sure that going to socialist Sunday schools might have helped them. I cannot see how it could have done so, but it might well have helped them at least to organise their lives. Therefore, the question of regular events—such as non-religious ethical meetings—is important. I am grateful for the Minister’s comments, and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 20F.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Greaves

Monday 18th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Greaves for his amendments and my noble friend Lady Hamwee for her comments. It is interesting that she talks about noise. In one’s own personal experience, what is music to some is noise to others. I think we shall be returning to this.

With regard to the amendments to the new injunction, it is our view that they could make the actual process much slower and more bureaucratic—akin to the orders that we seek to replace. It would not help professionals deal with anti-social people and, more importantly, would not help victims who have to endure the perpetrator’s behaviour.

The new injunction is designed to be used quickly and, in many cases, preventively, to stop problem behaviours before they escalate. These problem behaviours will not always relate to a statutory nuisance. Therefore, to include an additional condition which suggests that statutory nuisance should be considered every time would, in all likelihood, result in some social landlords or police forces being unable to act quickly to protect the victim. We expect social landlords and police forces to work in partnership with local councils to deal with shared problems, such as anti-social noise nuisance. If social landlords and police forces felt obliged to seek advice from the local council’s statutory nuisance team before every injunction, this could delay the process of the application unnecessarily, and lead to victims suffering even more. Moreover, this new third limb of the test could open up the process to prolonged and costly legal challenges, as respondents sought to argue that their conduct amounted to a statutory nuisance.

The same is true of my noble friend’s amendment to Clause 40. As he will be aware, we had originally excluded statutory nuisance from situations in which a community protection order could be issued. However, after discussing the matter at length with environmental health officers and other professionals, we discovered that this exemption could result in an undesirable scenario. Some perpetrators might use the appeal mechanism to go unpunished via either the statutory nuisance or the breach of the community protection notice.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee is correct that the Opposition Front Bench raised such concerns in Committee in the Commons. Having considered the matter further, the Commons was content to make this change on Report. So I ask my noble friend to accept my assurances that we continue to work closely with statutory nuisance experts, to ensure that the guidelines reflect the important rule that the regime plays in protecting communities from behaviour that is a nuisance or prejudicial to health. In addition, I assure my noble friend Lord Greaves that the issue of a community protection notice, or the granting of an injunction by the court—which was a specific question he asked—in no way discharges the local authority from its statutory duty to serve an abatement notice where behaviour meets the required threshold.

I say to my noble friend Lady Hamwee that our draft guidelines already deal with the interface between statutory nuisances and the new powers in the Bill. I can reassure her that we continue to engage with environmental health practitioners on how this guidance can be further developed in advance of the commencements.

My noble friend Lord Greaves also asked about the choices available. There is no choice as to whether a local authority serves an abatement notice for statutory nuisance. It must serve one if it is satisfied that a matter is a statutory nuisance. He referred to the Explanatory Notes. There is a good example in there that is illustrative of what may be a nuisance, but not a statutory nuisance. A dog bounding over a fence, or through a hole in a fence, can be a nuisance. Recently, I experienced that with my young son, aged 20 months. Suddenly, a dog scurried under a fence, and appeared next to him. It was certainly more than a nuisance to his father, who was far more startled, whereas the dog was just being playful. In those cases, the first and most sensible thing for anyone who is trying to be a good neighbour to do is to talk their neighbour and see if the matter can be resolved locally. Where such behaviour persists, a non-statutory injunction is not appropriate, and a sensible solution is required before putting it on to a more serious basis.

Let me reassure my noble friend Lady Hamwee once again that the Government continue to talk to experts in the field. Based on my explanation, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendments.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I have found the Government’s answer to these amendments a bit less satisfactory than their answer to the previous group. We will get on to community protection notices later but I think that the last example that the Minister put forward was a good one. It provided a good reason why CPNs may be a very important and useful new power compared with what currently exists: they will not relate specifically to one thing, such as litter, dogs or whatever, but will be a general power based on whether an anti-social nuisance is taking place.

If I may say so, the other examples that the Minister gave show that the people here who are preparing these things and explaining to us how they will work do not fully understand how things work on the ground, if they work well. Noble Lords seem to think that the police and social landlords operate in one little area and that the local authority is something quite different. Where these things work well, those different groups work together on these issues all the time. The first people to go and investigate the noise may or may not be the police and it may or may not be the social landlord. However, most people who experience anti-social behaviour do not live in social housing. In my experience and, I think, that of many people, most people who experience anti-social behaviour live in private tenanted accommodation, and therefore social landlords are not relevant. The people who turn up to deal with the noise nuisance may be local authority officers. In my part of the world, there is a scheme in which the local authorities work together. They have an out-of-hours service whereby, even at three o’clock on a Sunday morning, somebody will answer the telephone and try to do something about it.

Therefore, if things work well, they work well because people on the ground from those three agencies, as well as from other agencies that may exist locally—some of them voluntary—work together in that way. That is why I think that saying that, on the one hand, there will be the council and the environmental health officers with their statutory nuisance abatement powers and, on the other hand, there will be everybody else with these powers is not quite how it is going to work. I hope that it will work but locally everything has to be much more flexible than the Minister seemed to suggest.

The guidance is going to be crucial but, as it stands, I do not think that it is adequate in this area. I am aware that work is taking place to improve it but, when it comes down to it, the idea that local authorities will stop the police or a social landlord going ahead and taking action because they may be investigating and they have other powers is just not how it works. In any case, even a local authority may have a statutory duty to serve an abatement notice if it is satisfied that a statutory nuisance is taking place, but in practice that is not how it works. In practice, a local authority will always go down the route of contacting the people involved, as well as the landlord, and attempting to resolve the matter without serving a notice. If it does serve a notice and the matter gets to court because people appeal against the notice, then, if the local authority has not gone out of its way to resolve the matter, the court will send it back and say, “You’re not having this. Go and do it properly”.

Having said all that, if they are willing, some further discussions on this matter with the Government in the mean time would be very helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Local Elections (Ordinary Day of Elections in 2014) Order 2013

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Greaves

Wednesday 24th July 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, we are considering today the draft of an order to move the date of the local government elections in England in 2014 from Thursday 1 May to the same date on which elections will be held across the United Kingdom for the European Parliament. The elections to the European Parliament in 2014 will be held between 22 and 25 May. In the UK we are planning to hold these elections on Thursday 22 May, and an order under Section 4 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 will be made in due course.

If Parliament approves the draft order before us today, the 2014 election date for 160-odd principal councils in England would be moved—that is, all the London boroughs and metropolitan councils and more than 90 shire and unitary district councils. The order would also move the elections in around 250 parish councils across England. In addition, as a result of this order moving the ordinary day of election, the elections for directly elected mayors to be held in 2014, in Hackney, Lewisham, Newham, Tower Hamlets and Watford—I feel a bit like a train announcer here—will also be moved and held at the same time as the European parliamentary elections.

This is an important change. All electors in the UK will be eligible to vote in the European elections, and 73 Members of the European Parliament will be returned. More than 23 million people will be voting in the local elections scheduled for 2014. That is just over 40% of the electorate. Approximately 4,000 seats on principal councils will be contested. The order has no effect outside England; in 2014 there are no local elections for councils in Scotland or, indeed, Wales.

Following agreement among member states, the date of the 2014 European parliamentary election is being moved from 5 to 8 June to the period of 22 to 25 May. This is to avoid a clash with the Pentecost holiday, which could impact on electors’ availability to vote across member states. This will therefore mean that the UK European Parliament election will be held on Thursday 22 May 2014.

It is appreciated that the arguments about combining local and European elections are finely balanced, but on this occasion we have decided that it is right to bring forward this order so that the two elections can be combined. The Government are clear that, with the European parliamentary elections on 22 May, just three weeks from the date on which the local elections would have been held, the case for moving the date of the local elections and combining them with the European ones is strong. Were the period between the elections longer, the decision might be less clear-cut. I stress that this does not necessarily create a precedent for any future set of elections.

Our aim in all of this must be that we consider the voters’ interests above all other considerations. If the local election date were not moved, there would be two elections within three weeks. In such circumstances the balance of argument, in terms of minimising inconvenience and confusion for voters and of ensuring that the polls are soundly and efficiently administered, lies in favour of moving the date of the local elections and combining the polls.

I want to talk through one or two arguments about things that would occur if we did not hold these elections together. For example, the start of the European election period will overlap with the end of the local election period. This could be confusing for voters —for example, a few days before voting in the council’s elections, voters might receive a new poll card with different details for the European election, and postal votes for the European parliamentary election would be arriving with voters during the week of polling day at the local elections. Anyone who has been involved in elections at any level knows the challenges when you knock on the door and find that people have received different cards for different elections.

Another argument to be put forward is one of resources. As we look at how we can make savings across the piece, it is important that we look at what savings can be realised here. There would be increased costs for others such as political parties and the Electoral Commission in providing entirely separate voter awareness campaigns if we were not to combine the two elections; for example, in contacting voters and in canvassing. The Electoral Commission estimates that holding the 2014 elections together would save £0.95m from its public awareness campaigns budget alone.

There may be difficulty in finding polling stations, as well as in hiring polling stations and staff. Many schools host polling stations. Would we be looking to close schools for two days? All these factors I mention briefly because they strengthen the argument for holding the two elections together.

It is of course true that the procedures become more complex the more electoral events are held on the same day and the more polls are combined, but, on balance, this is preferred to the difficulties and duplication of effort and resource involved in running separate elections within a few weeks of each other.

In addition, experience of combined elections is now high among returning officers and we are confident that the elections will be run successfully together. European parliamentary elections and local elections have been combined in the past without undue problems arising, and I see no reason for that to be different this time. As I have just pointed out, our own electoral staff are more much competent and can converse effectively with those who seek guidance on different ballot papers in terms of what they need to do—though not so much in terms of where to put their cross.

We are not of course proposing to move the local elections in 2014 without consulting those who are most affected and who have specialist knowledge of elections and electoral matters. On 26 March, the Government published a consultation document inviting views on whether we should, subject to parliamentary approval, move the date of the English local elections from Thursday 1 May 2014 to the same day as the European parliamentary election. That consultation closed on 13 May, by which time we had received 155 responses. This included representations from the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Local Government Association and some 64 councils.

While the consultation shows that there are mixed views on moving the date, some two-thirds of the 155 responses, including that from the Electoral Commission, favoured the change of date. The Explanatory Memorandum which accompanies the order summarises consultees’ views and sets out the Government’s response to the consultation and provides the rationale for the change.

Concerns were raised about the increased complexities in the administration of elections and the risk of voter confusion. For that reason, the view was expressed by some that the local elections should not be moved. There were also concerns that such a move would weaken the democratic mandate of local government, as the public focus would inevitably be drawn towards national issues with the importance of local issues being overlooked. It was felt that a proper debate on the separate issues of Europe and local public services would be prevented.

We do not take these concerns lightly, but, after careful consideration based on the responses that we received from, among others, the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators and local authorities, which are responsible for administering elections, the Government are confident that local authorities and the suppliers they work with will have the capacity to manage local and European elections held on the same date in May 2014.

I am also sure that sufficient public awareness work will take place to reduce risk of voter confusion both at the ballot box and when distinguishing between the different issues on which they are being asked to vote. We should not underestimate the intelligence of the electorate to grasp the issues and to be discerning at the polls. Indeed, it could be argued that holding two polls at the same time is likely to increase, rather than decrease, interest in both sets of issues. In its response, the Electoral Commission agreed that the balance of argument lay with the date of the local elections being moved. This view was equally shared by the Association of Electoral Administrators. The Local Government Association and many councils also supported the move to elections on the same day.

This order also addresses consequential issues. It contains the necessary provisions that will enable elections to parish councils to take place alongside the principal council and European elections on 22 May. It extends the term of office for sitting councillors and mayors, although for no more than three weeks, which is an issue that I raised with officials. It provides that a by-election will not be held where a casual vacancy arises in the office of councillor within six months of the European parliamentary election held in 2014. It also provides for annual meetings of joint authorities and parish councils to take place at a date later than currently required by statute, given the later date of the local elections, in particular for the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority.

In conclusion, the balance of argument is such as put forward in the order, which is both sensible and pragmatic. There are good reasons to hold both elections on the same day. I commend this order to the Committee.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, Liberal Democrats in this House have no objection to this order and are quite happy to support its passage. However, it raises one or two issues about the principle of joining elections together, which I will come to shortly.

I ought to declare an interest—not because I think I have one, because I do not think I have—but I remember when we spent a lot of time in this Room 10 years ago debating elections, which turned out to be joint elections, where there were all-postal vote pilots in some of the northern regions of this country. I took part in those debates, which were well in advance of the elections. There was a formal complaint afterwards from the Labour Party, which wrote to the authorities in this House asking that I should be dealt with in an appropriate manner—perhaps taken to the Tower, I do not know—because I had not declared an interest, because at those elections I turned out to be not only an election agent but a candidate, and indeed got elected to the local council.

The Labour Party has enough problems on its hands at the moment and I do not want to create more, and more time and expense for it in writing letters of complaint, so I will be clear—although I do not think it is an interest—that it is quite likely that I shall be an agent in the local elections next May for at least some candidates, although my seat is not coming up. So that saves the Labour Party all that time and effort and it can worry about its membership rules, trade unions and the rest of it instead.

The consultation on these proposals was quite interesting. The explanation of it in the Explanatory Memorandum is interesting. It seems that about a third of the people who responded in fact suggested that the elections should be kept separate. They put forward what I think are perfectly respectable reasons, such as that,

“combining the elections would weaken the democratic mandate of local government, since the focus of the elections will inevitably not be on local issues, and would dilute localism”.

Now there is a thought. I do not think that is true, actually. Certainly, in the part of the world I live in, where there are combined European and local elections, the local elections tend to have a higher profile than the European elections. One of the arguments for combining them is that people who vote in the local elections might not usually vote in the European elections and that will put the European turnout up—and vice versa.

It is not set out in the Explanatory Memorandum but the word on the grapevine is that many of the organisations and persons who objected to combining the elections were actually local Conservative associations, which are worried about precisely that. They are concerned that in the European elections lots of people who normally do not bother to vote in the council elections will go out and vote for UKIP because they read the Daily Mail or the Daily Express, or whatever other reasons they may have, and this will cause problems for the Conservatives in the local elections. That is a problem for the Conservative Party; it is not one about which we are too bothered. However, it is interesting that there is this confusion.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Greaves

Monday 4th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

That would be speculating but I will come to the specific issue of judicial review in a moment and perhaps address the question at that time.

In more general terms, there is also the strong argument that has been made about the threat of delay, for whatever reason, impacting on the confidence of investors and developers. We are, after all, looking at infrastructure which is supporting the economic growth of our country. In total, new infrastructure creates thousands of new jobs and billions of pounds of new investment, as we all know. Consents for such infrastructure must be provided as quickly and efficiently as possible. We cannot afford to lose those jobs and investment because of delays in finalising consents.

The Government are committed to reform of the SPP and want to ensure that in future SPP is used only in cases where there is a genuine need for further scrutiny by Parliament of a particular ministerial decision. We therefore consider that SPP under the Planning Act should be limited to cases where there is a need for further scrutiny, as I have said. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin rightly said, it should be invoked where there is a real need for further scrutiny based on public interest and, indeed, a general need to weigh up competing public interests of allowing infrastructure development and the protection of certain types of specially protected land.

[Lord Greaves]

Does my noble friend agree that what is set out in the Bill is not a balanced view of the public interest, as he is suggesting, but a one-sided view of it? New subsection (4A)(d) states that,

“it is strongly in the public interest for the development for which the order grants consent to be capable of being begun sooner than is likely to be possible if the order were to be subject (to any extent) to special parliamentary procedure”.

If the new subsection referred to a balance of public interest in having a development as opposed to retaining a public open space, it would achieve what the Minister says that it does. However, that is not the case. It is a very one-sided consideration of the public interest.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I thank my noble friend for his intervention, but I do not agree with him on this point. We are not seeking to do away with the procedure altogether: we are ensuring that the procedure is still in place and can be invoked where there is a genuine public interest. This is not about sweeping the procedure away, although perhaps, on this occasion, we have different ways of looking at what is in front of us.

Clause 22 would repeal those sections of the Act that require special parliamentary procedure where land belonging to a local authority or land acquired by a statutory undertaker is compulsorily acquired. Repeal of these provisions would bring the Planning Act into line with other, similar consent regimes, such as the Transport and Works Act 1992.

The Planning Act 2008 already provides extensive opportunities for representations from local people, local authorities and statutory undertakers to be made about the compulsory acquisition of land. There are also comprehensive requirements for pre-application consultation. Examination of an application provides opportunities for parties to make representations as to whether the proposed acquisition of the land should proceed. These include hearings as part of a public examination. Persons whose land is acquired can require such a hearing to take place and, importantly, relevant representations will continue to be taken into account in the recommendations made to the Secretary of State and will inform his subsequent decision. I stress that the requirement, under Section 122 of the Planning Act, for there to be a compelling case in the public interest for the land to be compulsorily acquired, will also remain unchanged. This will be a crucial factor for the Secretary of State when reaching a decision on whether to authorise the compulsory acquisition.

The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, very clearly set out the effect of his amendment. It would mean that transport undertakings would still see the compulsory acquisition of land acquired by them for the purposes of their undertaking being subject to SPP, but the land of other statutory undertakers and local authorities would not be. I understand the noble Lord’s concern about the removal of statutory undertakers’ land from those types of land which can give rise to SPP. It would, however, be wrong to think that such land can be compulsorily acquired without any opportunity for statutory undertakers to present their case against the acquisition before the decision is made. There are ample opportunities to do so. I therefore hope that noble Lords will understand why the Government consider there to be no need for an additional level of scrutiny for such land through special parliamentary procedure.

I move on to the other provisions in Clause 22 and will address the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and supported by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. These would amend the definition of an open space used for the purposes of considering whether such land would trigger special parliamentary procedure under the Planning Act. Clause 22 also amends the provisions in the Planning Act 2008 which cover the compulsory acquisition of commons, open space land and what are known as “fuel and field garden allotments” or the compulsory acquisition of rights over those types of land. The Government have considered carefully the extent to which SPP should apply when open space is compulsorily acquired or a right over such land is acquired in respect of nationally significant infrastructure projects. At present, the main situation where the Secretary of State can decide that SPP should not apply is when replacement land is given in exchange for the land subject to the compulsory acquisition. However, the Government consider that there could be a very limited number of cases where such exchange land may not be available or, if it were available, would be available only at a prohibitive cost.

Clause 22 therefore proposes extending the circumstances, under the Planning Act 2008, in which the Secretary of State can decide that the compulsory acquisition of open space or rights over such land should not trigger SPP. The proposals would allow the Secretary of State to decide that SPP should not apply where open space is compulsorily acquired and suitable replacement land for the land being acquired is not available or available only at prohibitive cost. This would, however, apply only where it is demonstrated to be strongly in the public interest for the development to start sooner than is likely to be the case if it were subject to SPP. We expect that, in most cases, developers will continue to provide suitable replacement land to avoid the need for SPP. However, there may be limited occasions, such as in heavily urbanised areas, when such land is not available. Given the importance of infrastructure to growth, there may be cases where development should be able to proceed promptly without going through SPP.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his general support for government proposals in the Bill on infrastructure. Turning to his amendment, the current definition of open space, used in the Planning Act is,

“any land laid out as a public garden, or used for the purposes of public recreation, or land which is a disused burial ground”.

The noble Lord’s amendment would have the effect of amending the definition of open space for the purposes of triggering SPP under the Planning Act. Such a distinction does not reflect the rationale for open space being given special status in terms of compulsory acquisition. The need for additional scrutiny through SPP in cases involving open space derives from the public use of such land and the wider public interest in its continued availability for such use. Whether such land is designated for such purposes is immaterial in this context.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I wish to put on record that I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for explaining the reasoning behind his amendments. I have also noted his opposition to the Question that Clause 23 should stand part of the Bill. In my response, it might be helpful if I set out the reasons behind the approach that the Government have taken, how Clause 23 delivers that and take up some of the noble Lord’s questions.

Clause 23 amends the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945. That Act sets out the procedural requirements for any order that is subject to special parliamentary procedure. Clause 23 ensures that where a development consent order under the Planning Act 2008 is subject to SPP, consideration will be limited to the order only in so far as it authorises the compulsory acquisition of special land. This is to reflect the wording and intention of the 2008 Act.

The clause also makes similar provision for certain other compulsory acquisition powers that require an order to be subject to SPP. It applies to any order involving the compulsory acquisition of specially protected land as a result of Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. It also applies to the Harbours Act 1964, certain provisions of the New Towns Act 1981 and the Transport and Works Act 1992. The clause will ensure that SPP applies in the way originally intended, where legislation makes clear that an order is to be subject to this procedure to a limited extent.

The need for Clause 23 reflects an inconsistency between the 1945 Act and certain more recent legislation. This was drawn to the Government’s attention by the Chairman of Committees and the Chairman of Ways and Means in their initial joint report on the Rookery South order which, as the noble Lord Faulkner knows well, has been subject to SPP. The Planning Act 2008 provides that a development consent order which authorises the acquisition of special land is to be subject to SPP to the extent that the order authorises acquisition of such land. Consideration of that order should therefore be limited to that part of the consent order authorising the compulsory acquisition of special land.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, Amendment 77ZH introduces a new clause to provide a new procedure for the appropriation and disposal of open space land by local authorities. This does not apply to common land, for which there is already a different and better system.

The proposed new clause is a slightly modified version of the amendment I moved during the Committee stage of the Localism Bill on 28 June 2011. It amends the present Local Government Act 1972 procedure for the appropriation or disposal of non-common land open space, which dates from amendments made in 1980 to simplify the previous procedure. A local authority has merely to publish its intention in a local newspaper in two consecutive weeks and invite objections for its consideration. This can be done in private—for example, by a cabinet member who is under no obligation to give reasons for, or even publish, the decision. There is no right of appeal by the objectors. The land can then be used, sold or let for other uses free of all existing open space trusts and without regard to the fact that a park or recreation ground may have been gifted to or acquired cheaply—often, perhaps, with major contributions from public appeals—by the council’s predecessor on trust for the perpetual enjoyment of the public.

The trust may have been imposed for a particular open space in a local Act of Parliament which authorised its acquisition, but most of these open spaces are now held under the general trust in Section 10 of the Open Spaces Act 1906. Others were acquired or appropriated under Acts which do not specify a trust. However, high judicial authority has decided that all are held on trust for the benefit of the public and are not simply council property easily available for any of its services or to sell off.

The leading judgment is known as the Brockwell Park case, which noble Lords will remember discussing during proceedings on the Localism Bill. The House of Lords decided Lambeth Overseers v London County Council in 1897. This was summarised by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Halsbury, as follows:

“One sentence was sufficient to dispose of the case—namely, that the public, for whom the County Council were merely custodians or trustees, were not rateable occupiers, and that there was no beneficial occupation of the property whatever”.

In the fuller judgment, Lord Herschell drew a parallel with the then recent Court of Appeal decision in relation to Putney Bridge. In other words, what is applicable to a highway is equally applicable to a park. However, the procedure for extinguishing any type of highway, whether motorway or public footpath, is by no means simple.

In a further judgement, slightly more recently in October 2012, the Court of Appeal held in Barkas v North Yorkshire County Council that land laid out and maintained as a recreation ground under Housing Act powers was,

“appropriated for the purpose of public recreation”,

and therefore local inhabitants indulge in lawful sports and pastimes by right and not as of right, as would be necessary to prove for the creation of a town or village green. This decision confirms that, if land acquired under other Acts for regeneration or major development is allocated for recreational purposes, it becomes equated with land acquired specifically for those purposes.

The present wording in the Local Government Act positively encourages breaking a trust imposed by the Open Spaces Act, never mind one implied by other Acts. If the land had been owned privately subject to a similar trust, it would be deemed to be held for charitable purposes and its use could not be so easily changed. It is surely wrong for a public authority to be encouraged in this manner, often in contradiction to its own planning policies. The proposed new clause is intended to rectify the situation.

During the Committee stage of the Localism Bill, my noble friend Lady Hanham was rather anxious about the provision for land in exchange. However, this was a standard requirement before the Local Government Act was amended in 1980 and remains where Section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 applies. This is when compulsory purchase powers are used and in certain other cases such as for the appropriation of commons under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It is an important disincentive to choosing open space as a cheap and easy solution for obtaining other development requirements. Where major regeneration is proposed, it is accepted that compulsory powers should be used to obtain the full site required. This may include new or enlarged open space under the CPO.

This is a complicated matter. I am grateful to the Open Spaces Society for its assistance in proposing this amendment and I look forward to the Minister’s reply. I beg to move.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Greaves for explaining his proposed new clause. He is of course greatly concerned with the protection of open spaces such as commons and what are known as “fuel and field garden allotments”. I am sure that that sentiment resonates with many in the Committee. My noble friend also explained that when a local authority, including a parish or town council, wishes to appropriate this type of land for another purpose or to dispose of it, notification procedures should be beefed up and exchange land should be provided. His main point is that the present arrangements are inadequate and that more protection is required to prevent open space and other similar land from being lost to development.

The system that my noble friend seeks to amend concerns two types of land and two types of transaction. The types of land are commons, including town and village greens, and open space. The transactions are appropriation and disposal. The Committee will not be surprised to hear that the legislation that governs all of this is not confined to the Local Government Act 1972, which this amendment seeks to change. Significant elements are contained within the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. For commons, I think that my noble friend already has most of what he wants. Appropriation of common land larger than 250 square yards requires an order to be made by the local authority and then confirmed by the Secretary of State. Exchange land must also be provided, on pain of special parliamentary procedure—which we have just debated extensively—in the same way as for compulsory purchase orders.

In many cases, disposals also need the consent of the Secretary of State. For open space, the publicity and related arrangements for the consideration of objections are the same for both appropriation and disposal. If local authorities fail to consider objections properly, they run the risk that their decision will be challenged in the courts. Although protection for open space may appear lacking in legislation, this is not the whole story. Open space has had strong protection in the National Planning Policy Framework. Paragraph 74 states that existing open space should not be built on unless an assessment has been made to show that the land is clearly surplus and, moreover, that the loss should be replaced by the equivalent or better provision. It is therefore the Government’s view that the protection of open spaces should be through the planning system and not front-loaded on to the procedures for appropriating or disposing of land. I hope that my noble friend will be minded to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I might be persuaded to withdraw my amendment when I have said one or two more things. One difficulty we are having in this Committee is that the Government are trying to deal with issues such as open spaces just through the planning system when in practice, as the Minister said, there are different laws that relate to open space, commons and so on. This is precisely the problem that we had when we talked about the registration of town and village greens: trying to align two clearly separate systems. You cannot simply say that the planning system is the way to deal with this.

I am grateful to the Minister for reminding us that the National Planning Policy Framework strongly proposes that, wherever possible, open spaces should not be built on, but that is not the purpose of this amendment. It is about buying and selling open space, not about the planning regime that refers to it. However, I am grateful for what the Minister said. I will carefully look at his response and again take advice. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Greaves

Wednesday 30th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Dare I say it? HS2 may well also assist.

[Lord Greaves]

It did not reach Newcastle.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I am glad that the city deal has. I was concerned by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, about the expansion of areas and Manchester connecting with Newcastle. As a Liverpool fan, for football reasons alone, that is something that we would want to park.

Coming to noble Lords’ points, I first reassure your Lordships on where we are on city deals. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, it is not a one-size-fits-all proposal. City deals are about bespoke solutions unlocking local growth and trialling different and innovative approaches. Perhaps it would not be appropriate for every single trial to be rolled out wholesale to every single council across the country. That said, the Government have a strong record of commitment to the localist agenda and are working directly with local authorities to provide the powers and support that they need. Where local models and city models make sense, I say to my noble friend Lord Jenkin that we will seek to make them more widely available.

On what we have already done with local authorities, we have given them greater control over their own budgets. First, an estimated 70% of income will be raised locally, compared to 50% to 60% under the current formula grant system. Secondly, from next April, councils will retain nearly £11 billion of business rates. Thirdly, the Government intend to devolve a greater proportion of future growth-related spending, based on the recommendations to which many noble Lords have alluded, as detailed in my noble friend Lord Heseltine’s recent, excellent review. My noble friend Lord Jenkin quoted my noble friend Lord Heseltine. We agree with him that local leaders and businesses are best placed to set the strategic direction of the area. He made a powerful case for increased devolution, and the Government agree with that.

Local people and businesses are better placed to take greater economic powers from central government, particularly in terms of funding and responsibilities, as the LEPs have. They can act as a stronger voice for local people, incorporating the local private sector. As several noble Lords have acknowledged, we have allocated funding. The Chancellor announced an additional £250,000 of capacity on top of the £625,000 core funding announced in September. So steps have already been taken, and I am pleased that noble Lords have acknowledged that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I am sure that there are instances where that is the case. For completeness, it may be appropriate if I write to the noble Earl on that specific point. However, I assume that appeals procedures are available to parish councils to take forward where orders are not adhered to.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and should be grateful to receive a copy of his letter to the noble Earl. It may be that what is now required is for the NALC to circulate to its member councils the fact that there is a need and a requirement for them to start to demand their rights from higher authorities. However, I am very grateful for the Minister’s care in setting out the details and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Greaves

Monday 28th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Greaves. He does himself an injustice in describing himself as not understanding issues to do with local authorities and planning. I certainly always learn a great deal from his contributions, as I have again today.

My noble friend’s amendment would remove the statutory tests for the use of planning obligations, the effect of which would be to return to a much broader use of Section 106. These statutory tests were introduced by the previous Government. Their purpose was to scale back the use of Section 106 so that it must be necessary, proportionate and directly related to the development in question. In these times of market uncertainty, it seems absolutely right that Section 106 is used to mitigate the impact of developments and no more.

The second purpose was to ensure that Section 106 could operate alongside the community infrastructure levy in a fair way. I remind the House that the community infrastructure levy was brought in to provide a transparent, non-negotiable and fair charge, addressing many of the concerns around the operation of Section 106. At this late hour, I will write on the specific question my noble friend raised about how many local authorities are already within this. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has asked, I will ensure that I copy that letter to all who have taken part in this debate.

The levy continues to be the Government’s preferred mechanism for collecting contributions to infrastructure. The scale-back of Section 106 sits alongside the roll out of the levy and prevents developers being charged twice for the same item of infrastructure. The effect of this new clause would undermine this, causing a dual system, which would serve to confuse; I am sure that that was not my noble friend’s intention. We therefore do not support the inclusion of this new clause which would undermine the progress that we are making with the community infrastructure levy. I hope that my noble friend is willing to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I made it absolutely clear that this is a probing amendment. It is simply a means of putting these questions on the table. The questions will clearly be set out in Hansard and I hope that the Minister’s welcome offer to write on some of these matters will tackle each of these questions in turn and provide some answers fairly quickly.

I will bring the amendment back on Report if I am not satisfied. This is an important question. There are parts of the country that CIL is really designed for. Where there are developments which are clearly profitable, even in the present financial circumstances, then CIL will work. In parts of the country, even on the best sites that may be available through the planning system, the imposition of CIL will make the developments unprofitable and unviable. That is the problem. If you do away with Section 106 on the one hand but you cannot impose CIL on the other, there is nothing left. That is the stark problem that is facing probably more parts of the country now than was the case when CIL was introduced five years ago. I am happy to withdraw the amendment now but I would be very grateful indeed to hear from the Minister. No doubt I will spend some happy hours trying to understand his letter and perhaps have some further discussions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Greaves has spoken to his amendments. I want to outline the Government’s position because we will be resisting them. However, he said that they are probing amendments. I also take on board his final point. I will refer to his comments when I get to Amendment 57D.

Before I respond specifically to the amendments in detail, it might help the Committee if I set out briefly what Clause 7 is intended to do. Local authorities have wide powers to acquire, appropriate and dispose of land. The main constraint on disposals of land is that if an authority wishes to dispose of land at less than the best consideration reasonably obtainable, it must obtain the consent of the Secretary of State. In order to avoid having to give decisions on minor disposals, the Secretary of State has the power to give general consents for specified classes of disposal for housing land and other land not held for planning purposes. However, there is no power under Section 233 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to give a general consent for the disposal of land held for planning purposes at less than best consideration. So local authorities must apply to the Secretary of State each time such consent is required.

Before I continue, I remind the Committee that this clause had the support of all parties in the other place. The shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government stated at Second Reading in the other place that the clause was sensible—I am sure that he did not say that about other clauses—and he supported the removal of the anomaly on disposal of land for less than best consideration.

Amendment 57B will stop the power of having a general disposal consent by preventing consent being given for a particular class of disposals. Perhaps I may illustrate this by reference to the general disposal consent under the Local Government Act 1972 for all land not held for housing or planning purposes. The class of disposal in that consent is all those disposals where the difference in value between the open market value and the selling price is less than £2 million, subject to certain conditions.

Amendment 57C will also wreck the point of having a consent by preventing it applying to local authorities generally or those of a particular class. I do not want to anticipate how a new general consent might be worded but I might speculate that the Government would want to give consent under this new provision to all local planning authorities, or all authorities to which Section 233 of the 1990 Act applies. Amendment 57C would prevent this.

My noble friend Lord Greaves referred to the deletion by Amendment 57D of subsection (3), which he said he did not quite understand. Here is my attempt to explain it and I hope he is clearer at the end. Subsection (3) adds a new subsection (9) to Section 233 to directly apply the protection set out in Section 128(2) of the 1972 Act. I am sure that that is clear but I will nevertheless continue to explain. The protection set out in Section 29 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1959 will no longer apply. This will mean that disposals of planning land and “other” land under the 1972 Act will be subject to the same procedures. The amendment would therefore remove a convenient provision for local authority users who are accustomed to using the Local Government Act.

I accept that that last point may require some re-reading of Hansard and some technical points may arise, but we will, if we can, between this stage and Report make any other clarifications that are sought. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, noble Lords will understand why, in working my way through all those references, Acts and regulations, it felt like a game of snakes and ladders and I was not getting anywhere. However, I am grateful to my noble friend for those explanations, which I shall read carefully. It will form some good bedtime reading if I have difficulty getting to sleep one evening. Clause 7 is clearly highly desirable and I am pleased to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Greaves

Monday 28th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, again, this debate widens. I made the point earlier that these are not draconian measures. This is not about two Secretaries of State making policy on the hoof. This is about two Secretaries of State relevant to this issue working together to ensure that we get a policy that works for the local community. The measure applies to any new state-funded school.

As to the question raised by the noble Baroness, I have already alluded to the fact that any new application for any school is subject to the same criteria. Therefore, if the scenario that she indicated has arisen—historically, if it has happened previously and people have had to look at where to locate schools—I am sure that remedial action has been taken. The proposals do not contravene health and safety or issues of security and the safety of children because they are ultimately priorities for any Government of whatever colour or coalition. The measure does not compromise them at all.

I assure any noble Lord who is thinking in that way that while one can never plan for all probabilities, this does not do away with the planning process in terms of the health and safety of children—just to be clear, nor does the issue of free schools negate the role of local planning authorities. They will continue to play a key part in decisions on the location of schools. Let it be absolutely clear that a new school is only established where a community need is highlighted: our new policy allows people to set up a school in response to local needs.

[Lord Greaves]

The Minister is goading me into one final contribution—I apologise to him. Again, I will avoid the issue of free schools themselves, which I do not think is relevant to this debate. They exist and they can be built, but it is a question of the role of the planning system in relation to them.

I am lost for words when the Minister says that this clause will not negate the role of the local authority in deciding the location of these free schools. It clearly will, because they will be set up in a location without the need to get permission from the planning authority. When he writes to us, can the Minister set out what the role of the planning authority will be in relation to a free school? The “prior approvals” process applies to two particular things. Can he tell us exactly how that will operate and, in particular, what the timescale will be; will it be the same as a normal planning application, or will it be a very informal thing? Will he also tell us what will happen if there are strong reasons for opposing the location of a free school after it has been set up and is in operation? Presumably, it will be spending money, perhaps on the building. What will happen if that is turned down subsequently by the local planning authority?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As I have already indicated to my noble friend, we will write and cover those matters.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Greaves

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves]

The Minister said several times that the purpose is to increase the efficiency of the appeal system or of appeal-handling in pursuit of economic growth. I am not sure what the direct correlation is between the efficiency of the appeal system and economic growth, except that decisions might be taken more quickly. Is the phrase, “increase the efficiency of appeal handling”, a euphemism for more applications being passed and therefore not going to appeal at all? Is that what is behind all this?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The short answer to the second question is no. This is about making things more efficient. I am sure that anyone involved with the planning process would welcome greater efficiency. If a decision is more efficient—if it is quicker—it makes the planning process more in line with requirements and, ultimately, saves costs for all involved. I commend the changes because they are simply making something more efficient. To anyone involved with the public or private sector, increased efficiency is always a welcome development.

[Lord Greaves]

I agree entirely with that. Whatever you are doing, doing it more efficiently is a good idea. However, I do not understand what the allocation of costs—increasing the costs on local authorities and increasing the number of cases where costs are allocated—has to do directly with efficiency. I said earlier that, in my experience, the Planning Inspectorate has not always been the most efficient organisation in the country. However, my perspective is that that is not because the Secretary of State could not get his costs back at the end of it all or that more costs might be allocated to other people in the process but that, as a bureaucracy, the Planning Inspectorate was not very efficient. Either it did not have enough people working for it or those people were not working sufficiently efficiently. The long delays that there were in planning appeals—there still are in some cases, although it has very much improved—do not suggest that the Planning Inspectorate has always been the most efficient organisation in the world.

What on earth has that got to do with the Secretary of State being able to take money off local authorities following the end of an appeal?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As I said, from my experience of life, whether in business or the public sector, it helps growth because things progress that much more quickly. My noble friend also raised a point about added costs for local planning authorities or developers. On the contrary, no local authority or developer will face an award of costs if they behave reasonably. It is in everyone’s interest that all parties behave reasonably at all stages of the planning process. If anything, making these changes will prevent delays, drive good behaviour and therefore reduce unnecessary expense and delay for everyone.