Grenfell Tower

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for what he said about the work carried out by the public sector. I certainly echo his thanks to people from throughout the country who have come to help at Grenfell on a voluntary basis. That shows our country at its very best.

The noble Lord asked about essential work and sprinklers. I think he raised a similar point somewhat earlier in relation to the Hackitt review. As I said then, having set up the review to look at building regulations and fire safety—it will obviously look at sprinklers, and the inquiry will doubtless want to look at that as well—I do not think we should prejudge what it will come up with. If it recommends that something essential be done, clearly, the Government will take that very seriously—I cannot imagine it being otherwise—and that would include points relating to retrofitting.

On the difference with Scotland and the devolution element, I know from a previous life that if you have devolved systems, policies may diverge, sometimes for very good reasons. Therefore, I will not tread on any toes by pontificating on something I am not clear about, except to say that these things are sometimes quite different.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, Newcastle is not the only city or place where in recent years a huge number of newly built multi-storey buildings have been constructed to house students. Do the Government have a view on requiring the builders of those buildings to ensure that they also check issues concerning cladding and sprinklers? In respect of the latter, I endorse the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. I hope the Government decide that it should be a requirement to install sprinklers. If so, I hope they will ensure that they provide appropriate finance, and that this will not simply fall on local council residents.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for that point about Newcastle and more generally on higher education. I can confirm that some higher education and further education blocks—on which I think we have published statistics—also fall foul of these concerns, and they are being looked at in exactly the same way. That is also true of one or two buildings in the health service. It does not extend more widely in other areas of government, at least not in England; separate considerations and reviews are going on in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I reiterate that we have set up the Hackitt review, which is looking at building regulations and fire safety, including sprinklers, for the specific reason that we want it to come up with evidence-based recommendations. We should not anticipate those, but I can confirm that, obviously, whatever it comes up with—this goes for the inquiry as well—will be taken seriously by the Government, and, no doubt, by opposition parties as well.

District Councils

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my local government interests as a Newcastle councillor and vice-president of the Local Government Association. The fact that I live in Newcastle tempts me to suggest to the noble Baroness that she should look again at the map and the distance between Hexham and Berwick. She may be right that they are 100 miles apart if you go via Newcastle, but she will find that it is possible to take a slightly more direct route. However, we are not discussing the geography of the north-east.

I commend the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for securing the debate but am disappointed, if not entirely surprised, that there has been no recognition of or apology for the Lib Dem role for five years during its partnership with the Conservatives as an accessory to the battering that local government sustained.

Councils across the country and of different political complexions have sustained unprecedented losses of support, with district councils suffering a 40% cut in their three prime services: planning, housing and culture. The total runs into billions. As I have had occasion to mention many times, in Newcastle alone the shortfall will be £280 million a year by 2020. How does this fit alongside the Government’s proclaimed housing policy? For that matter, how many properties do the Government think will be built as a result of the recently announced £2 billion for new council housing? Where will the 20,000 to 25,000 new homes be built and how will the money be allocated? Specifically, what proportion is envisaged for district councils, only 20% of whose income comes from government grants? Given the pressures on them, that figure is simply inadequate.

Do the Government recognise that councils are subsidising planning services by 30% because the nationally set fees do not cover the costs? That is a particular problem for district councils. Will the Government take the Local Government Association’s advice to increase fees for planning applications by 20%, and allow an experiment with a higher increase to test whether that would help improve the process? Above all, will the Government enable councils, including district councils, to borrow to build, and remove the borrowing cap, recognising that such borrowing, creating assets, should not be included in the public debt?

The 44% rise in homelessness in the last few years, accompanied by a 102% rise in the number of rough sleepers, also needs tackling. Such difficulties are not confined to major cities or unitary authorities. District councils face many of the same problems—not always to the same degree, of course; nevertheless, that is a real problem for them, as it is for the rest of local government. Many district councils struggle to support local transport schemes. Will the Government fully fund such schemes?

Everyone now recognises that social care funding is inadequate. District councils have a significant role, albeit an indirect one, in supporting healthy communities. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, pointed out, the King’s Fund estimates that every £1 spent by district councils in preventative services, such as home adaptations, leisure and environmental policies, can result in a public expenditure saving of £70. That is a huge return on that investment—an investment that district councils are finding increasingly difficult to make.

There is also concern about changes to the new homes bonus, which will make it more difficult for district councils, in particular, and others, to deliver much needed new housing. The King’s Fund report on the district council contribution to public health, both direct and indirect, has made 10 recommendations, including involving district councils in improving the relationship between clinical commissioning groups, counties and districts, and a wider collaboration over health economics, with greater district council investment in environmental health services and health impact services. For that to happen, appropriate funding will have to be provided. Will the Government implement those recommendations and ensure sufficient funding is available? Ultimately, they will save the health service a great deal of money.

In an Answer to a recent Question of mine, the noble Lord, Lord Prior, revealed that there are 278,000 domestic, and 200,000 non-domestic, privately rented properties with an energy performance rating below E. Some landlords may be exempted from the requirement to upgrade their property’s performance rating on the grounds of cost, but as yet, the Government have no estimate of the numbers. Inevitably, some of those properties will be in district councils. When the Government consult on making energy regulations more effective, will they look specifically at the situation in those councils?

There is as yet no clarity on how the changes in business rates will be implemented. Can the Minister enlighten us as to the approach, especially to ensuring an equitable distribution of business rates across the local government world? That is a hugely important concern of local authorities, many of which are likely to be able to raise exiguous amounts from local business rates. Has the recent revaluation affected the current distributional picture in relation to districts in particular, and all local authorities in general? What is the Government’s approach to ensuring there is some measure to redress imbalances between different authorities? Perhaps I can take this opportunity to ask the Minister about the sixth report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on the Draft Regulation of Social Housing (Influence of Local Authorities) (England) Regulations—a somewhat prolonged title, not untypically. In particular, will the Minister look at the involvement of local government in that respect?

We have before us an issue that runs right across local government: its capacity to meet and fulfil needs, many of them important both to individuals and communities. All types of local authorities have an interest in there being a proper reflection of their needs in the local government finance system.

Reverting for a moment to my previous point, on changes in board membership of social housing bodies, I do not expect the Minister to have an answer at his fingertips today, but will those proposed changes adversely affect local authorities, including districts, bearing in mind that the committee expressed doubts about the failure to have a formal consultation, including with tenants, on that set of regulations? In a way, it illustrates a somewhat cavalier attitude towards local government as a whole; but district councils in particular, with their interest in housing, will certainly need some assurances in that respect.

I believe Members will make a powerful case on behalf of district councils. I am sure they would agree that a similar approach needs to be adopted across the local government scene. We await the forthcoming local government finance announcement, which presumably will come just before Christmas. It will be interesting to see the extent to which the Government are prepared to change those policies—at least as much as they are apparently now prepared to change some of their other policies in the light of the recent general election results.

Property Agents: Registration

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, it will be soon. I am not sure that it will be tomorrow but it will be soon. I thank the noble Baroness for her customary patience and I understand the frustration that she must feel. She will know that there have been events over the past five months that have conspired to contribute to the delay, but she can rest assured that we are determined to take this forward. I think that she will be reassured very shortly and I look forward to talking with her and progressing this through the House.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, the Statement refers to the “billions of pounds of funding for new affordable homes” that has recently been announced. I take it that that refers to the £2 billion and the 20,000 or so houses that will be built. Will the Minister indicate how that money will be allocated and where we can expect to see the new houses? Further, will he indicate whether the Government are looking at the escalating levels of ground rent that are contained in some of these long leaseholds, because recently the problem of ground rents going up very substantially over a period has been frequently raised? Finally, I refer him to a matter that has arisen in Newcastle. A charity that wanted to enfranchise a long lease was apparently unable to do so because it contravened some provisions of the Charities Act. I will send him a copy of counsel’s opinion on the matter and invite him to look at it, because it seems to be anomalous. The charity in question would have been prepared to do it but apparently was not allowed to do so by law.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that. He rightly identified the £2 billion of additional money that was announced on 2 October for affordable housing. We will shortly issue details of how the money will be spent. On the ground rent issue, I mentioned in relation to leasehold reform that we will be responding to the consultation very shortly and looking at banning future long leaseholds with ground rents where they are inappropriate. I am very happy to look at the Jarndyce v Jarndyce situation he referred to in Newcastle—obviously I am not acquainted with it at the moment but I will have a look at the position and would be happy to meet him to discuss it if it would be helpful.

Housing

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right about the consultation. Noble Lords will appreciate that this afternoon I will say something in relation to housing need, which of course was covered in the White Paper. Meanwhile, much in the White Paper is delivered independently of the consultation. I have referred to the infrastructure but there is also the land release fund, and increased planning fees will come on stream shortly. We are analysing the responses that came in as a result of the consultation and we will come forward in response to that in due course. I thank the right reverend Prelate for the work that his cathedral does. I was there not long ago—more than two weeks ago, I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes—taking account of what was happening there and the great work that is being done.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

When will the Government recognise that each notion of affordability of houses for purchase or rent bears little relation to the circumstances of vast numbers of people who require new housing?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the noble Lord may be aware that affordability is basically 80% of market rent. He will probably be reassured by some of the things coming forward which are to be presented in the Commons and which I will be repeating. He is obviously right that it is important that we help those people who cannot afford an affordable rent. We are doing that. We are looking at bespoke deals, for example, and we are progressing that with Leeds and the West Midlands.

Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2017

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Monday 11th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I defer to the noble Earl’s long experience in dealing with issues of this kind, as would many other Members of your Lordships’ House. His professional background is obviously important.

I declare my interests as a Newcastle city councillor and as an honorary vice-president of the Local Government Association. Over the years as a councillor, like many other of your Lordships who have served in that capacity, I have become familiar with the current rating system.

The complexity of the situation facing us is most clearly illustrated by the title of the documents that we are supposed to be debating: the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 and the Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations 2017. The titles are enough to deter almost anyone from looking any further into the matter—that, of course, is entirely the Government’s responsibility and not that of the noble Earl.

There is a history to this, particularly to the process we have just gone through. The noble Earl referred to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report, and it is unfortunate that, once again, the committee has had to draw attention to the Government’s failure, frankly, to behave responsibly in relation to dealing with secondary legislation. I refer to paragraphs 9 and 10 of its report. Paragraph 9 states:

“In our view, now that the Regulations have been laid before Parliament, the Department should make all the consultation responses available”.


It is remarkable that it did not do so at that time. The committee concluded by saying:

“We understand the sequence of events that preceded the laying of the Regulations, but we find it very regrettable that the Government have curtailed the opportunity for effective Parliamentary scrutiny in order to salvage their own timetable”.


Time and time again, Members from all sides of the House have complained about the way in which the Government are dealing with secondary legislation, which is potentially a hot issue given what is happening now at the other end of the Corridor in relation to Europe. I hope the Government will improve on this approach in future.

On the substance of the matters, the noble Earl referred to the substantial amount of money that local authorities estimated had been lost in having still 225,000 appeals outstanding as at 30 June. Obviously, quite a substantial number had been dealt with, but it is a long time since these evaluations were made and it is a terrible failure on the part of the Government not to have been able to ensure that there is a process which councils could deal with. The problem for councils is that they have to put substantial amounts of money aside—some £2.5 billion, according to the Local Government Association—against the risk of losing appeals which have been running on for years. It is an intolerable situation, and one hopes that it will not continue under the new system. Perhaps the Minister can give us some assurances in that respect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I am not sure whether that was a question or just an observation on what I said. But if the noble Lord is asking whether I will look at that report and take it seriously then, as he rightly says, it is a respected committee and of course we take its views very seriously, as indeed we do the views of noble Lords around the House.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, the Minister did not respond to my request about the funding of the VOA. It seems at the moment unlikely to have sufficient resources to carry out the job that the Government wish it to do.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I apologise for missing that point. I am not sure whether it was made when I slipped out—it conceivably was—but it is a fair point anyway. If I may, I will write to the noble Lord about it and copy that to other noble Lords who participated in the debate.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by referring to my interests in the register—my local government interests and my unpaid consultancy with my former solicitors’ firm—but also by thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who has chosen to celebrate his birthday with us today.

Portraits of Lord Eldon, the reactionary Tory Lord Chancellor who held office for 25 years, have followed me all my life, from school in Newcastle, to the Oxford college where I studied law and finally to this House. The last seven years have seen no fewer than five Lord Chancellors appointed, only one of whom has been a lawyer. If we have to have a Conservative Lord Chancellor, many Members of your Lordships’ House will wonder why neither the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, nor the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, was appointed. Had either featured in the recent reshuffle, the justice section of the Government’s programme would perhaps have been less of a disappointment.

Faced, as we have heard from no fewer than seven noble Lords, with a prolonged and growing crisis in the prison service, the Queen’s Speech has nothing to say about staffing or prisoner numbers—the latter reflecting the fourth-highest incarceration rates among the 28 countries in Europe. Time after time, we are confronted with stories of violence, drug abuse, overcrowding and serious criticisms of the management of prisons, which are all too frequently managed—or mismanaged—by oligopolies which purport to be able to deliver any service the Government wish to outsource.

Despite concerns regularly voiced around the House, noticeably by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, we continue to have large numbers of prisoners—some 3,000—serving indeterminate sentences long beyond the tariff of their offences. I acknowledge that the problem arose under a Labour Government, but we are now in the eighth year of Conservative Lord Chancellors—the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has clearly taken that point.

Just last week, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman reported that the number of prisoners over 60 has tripled in 15 years and that by 2020 it will be 15,000. The Chief Inspector of Prisons has called for purpose-built, older-prisoner jails, and the prisons ombudsman has stated that he remains,

“astonished that there is still no properly resourced older-prisoner strategy”,

such that he fears we,

“will simply continue to expose unacceptable examples of poor care of the elderly and dying in hospital”.

His predecessor points out that:

“Prisons are the largest providers of residential care for frail elderly men in the country”.


The Prison Reform Trust, which fully endorses these criticisms, called for additional action to cancel plans for new women’s prisons and provide a network of women’s centres, to review the arrangements for supervising short-sentence prisoners on licence under which 1,000 prisoners have been recalled since 2015, and to improve the support into employment on release.

Serious though these problems are, they are not the only ones with which the Government need to engage in their management of the justice system. The Law Society, although welcoming the ending of cross-examination of victims of domestic violence by their partners, seeks provision in the new courts Bill for qualified legal representatives to cross-examine the victim. Can the relevant Minister indicate how this will be arranged? We join the society in commending proposals to strengthen the law relating to domestic violence and abuse, and in particular its extension to child abuse.

On a different tack, will the Minister acknowledge that technology is not always the appropriate medium for criminal proceedings to be pursued? Indeed, the assumption that everybody is capable of mastering the techniques of this increasingly digitalised world, which is reflected in a number of areas of the proposed Bill, is perhaps too optimistic. I suspect I am not the only Member of your Lordships’ House who from time to time struggles with this new technology, as indeed we all have, not least in the light of the last few days.

The courts Bill promises,

“a better working environment for judges”,

with what it describes as,

“more leadership positions in the judiciary to be offered on a fixed term basis”.

Can the Minister explain, if not tonight then subsequently, what the Government have in mind? We have part-time district judges—I declare a paternal interest, as my daughter is a part-time deputy district judge—but do the Government envisage part-time High Court judges or merely term-limited service allowing judges to return to legal practice? What consultations have they held, or will they hold, about such matters? What do the Government intend to do in response to the concerns about recruitment to the higher courts, given the significant disparity in remuneration between such positions and practice, especially at the highest levels?

I turn to a matter touched on by the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Beith. The proposed civil liability Bill will resurrect proposals to deal with whiplash claims by banning offers to settle without medical evidence, which seems reasonable, but also by fixing a tariff for claims,

“with a duration of two years”.

Perhaps the Minister could explain that wording. Why should there be a fixed tariff? And why on earth should we believe that insurance companies will indeed pass on the estimated £35 a year savings to their insured in the form of reduced premiums? They have shown no disposition to do so in the last few years despite making very large profits. The real problem here is the parasitic and effectively underregulated claims industry, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, referred. We welcome signs that the Government intend to tackle this issue in the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill, but will that also include oversight of paid McKenzie friends?

The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, raised the issue of the discount rate, and we certainly share his views about that. The Government also propose to increase the small claims limit, under which costs cannot be recovered, to £2,000. While that is much better than the original proposal to increase it to £5,000, it will still have an impact, with people being deterred from making a claim or, if they do without legal assistance, the potential clogging of the courts in much the same way as we have seen resulting from the loss of legal aid. The increase in the limit is estimated to mean that 90% of claimants will be denied affordable or free assistance.

While we are in the area of compensation claims, why are the Government reviving proposals to weaken recourse to employment tribunals when the number of claims has already fallen by 70% as a result of the fees required? Moreover, why do they propose to reduce further the role of lay members of tribunals, representing both employers and workers; to delegate judicial functions to case officers; and to allow changes to tribunal rules and procedures to be determined by the tribunal procedures committee without requiring any consultation with trades unions and employer organisations?

There are no references in the Queen’s Speech to access to justice either geographically, where court closures have had a serious impact on the system and where the role of lay magistrates and the convenience to parties, witnesses and advocates seem to be in decline, or, more importantly, with regard to the problems occasioned by the massive reductions in legal aid and advice. What would it take for the Government to review the provision of legal aid in the particularly sensitive areas of family law and housing law? For that matter, is it not time, as the Labour manifesto suggested, to provide for no-fault divorce, and to remove the requirement for domestic violence victims to pay perhaps as much as £200 for a medical report in order to make their case? While I am mentioning the Labour manifesto, which deals with this issue, will the Government review their negative position on the funding of judicial review cases, in which, by definition, they have an interest?

The Prime Minister has produced a couple of phrases that have been endlessly repeated. One of course was “strong and stable”—which has gone missing. The other was “just about managing”. It is our view, which I suspect others may endorse, that government policy should be about managing justice in ways that reflect the need to protect and foster access to justice for all who need it, and to ensure that our custodial system is humane and capable of facilitating rehabilitation as well as securing the safety of the public.

I turn now to other issues. I have to say that, during the 50 years in which I have served as a councillor in Newcastle, local government has never suffered such draconian cuts as are now in progress—something referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. In my own city the budget has taken a £270 million cut, and it is proving impossible to maintain the level of services that people and communities need. In this, of course, we are by no means unique. In particular, the pressures on the social care budget are severe. Newcastle’s audit committee, on which I serve, last week discussed a depressing report on the current situation in children and adult services.

Interestingly, our auditors, Ernst & Young, reported that the National Audit Office had declared, in relation to the financial and service targets of the Government’s better care fund, that not only is the fund missing its targets for reducing emergency admissions but it is exceeding them, with a planned reduction of 106,000 emergency admissions turning into an increase of 87,000, while delayed transfers increased by 185,000 instead of reducing by 203,000 as planned. Of course, these figures illustrate difficulties in the National Health Service, but they necessarily have a knock-on effect on local council services up and down the country. Moreover, there appears to be a growing decline in the number of suppliers of residential care and support services, on which councils have, regrettably, increasingly relied.

What comfort can councils and communities hope for from a Government who have steadfastly refused to fund the soaring costs of deprivation of liberty safeguard cases, which they have refused to recognise as a new burden—albeit making small, one-off grants in 2016? I illustrate the position by again relating Newcastle’s experience. In 2015-16, under this new responsibility, we received a one-off grant of £160,000. The number of cases has risen from 100 in 2013-14 to 2,226 in one authority last year, at a cost of £1.2 million. Multiply that across the country and it is a significant amount of money lost from the provision of basic social services. The Government need to get real about the unrelenting pressure on councils endeavouring to meet the palpable need for these and other services.

I conclude by asking whether the Minister can respond to the question posed by my noble friend Lord Smith about business rates, and how far the Government have got in working out how devolved business rates will operate. It is entirely unclear at the moment. I understand that a phased introduction is intended. How will that work between different authorities?

We have had a long debate tonight. I have contributed somewhat excessively to it, but only by a minute or two. I look forward to the noble Lord’s response and the follow-up, which will no doubt be directed in correspondence with Members, which will obviously be produced in the Chamber.

Update on the Grenfell Tower Fire and Fire Safety

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Monday 26th June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Perhaps I may track back on to something that I should have mentioned earlier in relation to those blocks that have, after testing, been found not to be compliant. In those 75 cases, my department will nominate a specific employee to liaise about the necessary action. That is in relation to all those public sector or social housing blocks that have been identified. In relation to the private sector blocks, subject to the same sort of constraints at 18 metres and above, we have been in contact with all the private sector landlords and are recommending that they test the cladding. It is not compulsory; we are making a facility available to them without charge, but those are not part of the 600 blocks which I mentioned. I am sure that we will want to follow up on that but, as things stand, it is not compulsory. We are focusing on the social rented sector at the moment because that seems the right thing to do.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, there has been a systemic failure to deal with policy in relation to fire for some years. One reads newspaper reports, which I think the Minister has confirmed, that some action was intended in recent years after reports were received, but nothing has yet happened. Can he confirm that, as the situation is reviewed after this tragedy, it will be a cross-governmental engagement? All departments ought to be involved—one thinks, for example, of education, health and indeed justice, with prison establishments. It will need to reach out to the private sector as well. It has already been indicated that there are potential problems in private developments, which also need to be covered.

Can the Minister confirm that, so far as local authorities are concerned—and it may be that a similar principle will have to be extended to other areas, such as health—the full costs of this will be met by government? I remind him that a reduction is going ahead now in council house rents, which will help the Government’s finances by significantly reducing housing benefit. Some billions of pounds will be involved over a long period. I suggest that, if the Government are looking for a resource to fund the necessary work, that would be one way—by using the money being diverted from local authorities at the moment—to ensure that they are at least able to carry out all that is required of them.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

First, I thank the noble Lord for his point on the involvement of other government departments. As I have indicated, it is absolutely right that this is wide-ranging. I also mentioned in the Statement the fact that some of the people on the ground in the Westway centre near Grenfell Tower are from DCLG; they are also from many other government departments as well. There is certainly a recognition— more than a recognition, an embracing of the fact—that this involves many other government departments. He is absolutely right to mention education, health and justice.

The most important duty of any Government is to keep people safe. We recognise that, and there will obviously need to be a discussion about the cost of this. We do not yet know what the cost will be. I suspect that the testing we have seen so far has indicated some of the more urgent instances. We cannot conclude that this is the case, but it may well be that local authorities have recognised those blocks where there is a concern and therefore submitted those samples in a timely way. We might therefore find that the 60 in one category and the 15 in another category are not representative of the rest of the 600 blocks. Let us hope and pray so; we do not know that yet. We will want to engage with local authorities once we know the sum total of what it will cost, to see how that is determined, but some local authorities—notably, Kensington and Chelsea—are perhaps not quite so short of money as others.

Localism Bill

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

My Lords, I am rather more sympathetic to the Government’s attempt to find a formulation than some of the demurrers and I congratulate my noble friend on finding an admirable way through. That is another example of the way in which she has conducted the Bill. If I may help my noble friend Lord Tope, surely the answer to the question of committees or bodies to which councils mandate members is that in the first instance questions of misconduct must come from those bodies themselves, to which the people are mandated. It seems inconceivable that any council would wish to be represented by somebody who had attracted censure. It would certainly be within the power of any council to withdraw a nomination and I would hope that every authority would do that.

My noble friend Lord Shipley raised a point on subsection (3). I rather like that subsection although I agree with my noble friends Lord Shipley and Lord Tope, and the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, that there has to be some sense that there is independence. Often these matters can be dealt with by arbitration and a sensible person who will put two people together. It is clearly sensible, as my noble friend Lord Shipley says, that we may need to get two committees. However, there may be things that can be dealt with more effectively without getting to that process, but giving everybody along the way the sense that they can go to an independent body. I would not want my noble friend to be much more prescriptive, but I agree with the sense of what my noble friend Lord Shipley said. We have found an admirable way through and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and others who have contributed to it.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of a council—hence my straying into jargon that we apply in council debates—a member of the standards committee, which meets later this week, and vice president of the Local Government Association. I join other of your Lordships in extending warm congratulations to the Minister who is clearly responsible for, and indeed embodies, an outbreak of sweet reasonableness over this issue that we hope to be pursued by some of her ministerial colleagues when we come to other legislation after this evening’s proceedings.

Like other noble Lords, I believe that there are issues that one might have wished to have taken a little further. A mandatory code would have perhaps been preferable. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, indicated, in all probability we will end up with something like that. I hope that the Local Government Association, with others, will draft something that will be useful and will be adopted by many local authorities. It is very important that this independent role should be reflected. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that mandatory committees, perhaps with that independent element, would have been preferable. Nevertheless, we have gone a long way forward since the original Bill and our earlier discussions on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. For that we are clearly indebted to the Minister.

I am not quite so sure about the sanctions that are available and whether they are sufficient to meet some of the more serious cases. A huge range of cases has applied at national and local level. I note that people from all political groups have transgressed, sometimes quite significantly. A prominent Conservative ex-leader of a council was found to have leaked a confidential document related to a land sale and was suspended for 28 days by his council. A Labour deputy group leader was also found to have breached confidentiality in relation to a compulsory purchase order. These are not insignificant issues, and they are not personal issues either. He was suspended for three months by his local authority. A Lib Dem councillor was suspended for six months for bullying and disrespectful behaviour at a training session. One of the worst cases was an independent borough councillor who had undermined and humiliated the council’s press officer systematically in front of other councillors until she began to cry and had to leave the room. That is intolerable behaviour in any circumstances and is certainly not consonant with holding a public office. A suspension for three months took place in that case.

However, I wonder whether suspension from a committee or even removal from outside bodies is necessarily sufficient for the more serious types of case. We clearly cannot pursue this further tonight, but it may be that over time, and bearing in mind that we need to see how this works in practice, we might have to revisit that element. Another place has quite draconian powers of discipline. I am not quite sure that they are quite as draconian in this place, although there are matters currently under consideration of a very grave nature and one hopes that one would not see anything like that again in your Lordships' House. It may be therefore—given that the national framework has been dismantled and that there may still, unfortunately, be a few cases where really serious misconduct occurs—that one must wonder whether the sanctions currently available and reflected in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, are adequate. We have clearly moved on and I am grateful and pleased that we have achieved this. I congratulate the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and thank them for the work they have done on this matter.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I thank everybody for the very kind compliments. It is unusual to hear them, so I am basking a little bit. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, who fought very hard with the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, to make sure that we took this matter on board. He has been very persistent and was gracious in saying that he will not move his amendment.

We think that these procedures will have a real impact on the conduct of local councillors. While not spelling out how councils should put a scheme in place, it is clear that they have to. They must have some means of dealing with complaints. It seems almost inescapable that if you are going to do that, you are probably going to have to have some sort of committee structure to deal with them. That would be fine if local authorities decide for themselves, but to be fair and independent, they will need to have a balance.

I do not think that anybody has misunderstood. However, I want to make it clear that whatever the system and whether local authorities have independent members in that committee structure, they will still be required to have a further independent member who will act outside the committee system and will have to be referred to.

The noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked about the monitoring of the process. From the Government’s point of view, there will not be any further monitoring. It is possible that the Local Government Association will want to know what is going on, but unless things are very different from what we anticipate, it will be up to local authorities themselves to see their systems through and to make sure that this structure works.

I have been asked questions about representation on outside bodies. I think the answer must be that where the council is appointing somebody to another body, if there is a complaint about the councillor, the council is still responsible for them so it would be able to take action against them.

The other aspect that must be clear is that this has to be a transparent process. Each step must be open to comment and it must be dealt with openly. If there is a complaint that results in a warning or a letter, that must be clear so that local people who have elected these councillors know exactly what has happened or can find out. Some of the sanction will therefore be imposed by the electorate. They will know that somebody has transgressed or offended before they chose to re-elect him. The day-to-day monitoring will be carried out under the transparency of the decision-making process. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned the decision on allegations. I hope that I have covered that. If not, I will talk to him subsequently.

I think this system will work. It leaves a big localist element, but it has structure and elements that were not there before. I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

14: Clause 29, page 40, line 21, at end insert—
“(b) members of a designated neighbourhood forum under section 61F of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990”

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, this amendment deals with another issue of standards, but of a rather different nature. It relates to the position of members of the neighbourhood forums which the Bill establishes and which, of course, will have the responsibility of initiating, potentially, local plans which will be, it is hoped, a significant part of the planning process. Originally, as your Lordships may recall, the Bill proposed that such forums could be constituted by a mere three individuals. That has been expanded sevenfold and now 21 individuals can constitute themselves into a neighbourhood forum and may be involved in the process thereafter that gives rise to a local plan.

There is effectively no restriction on those who might constitute this forum, and it may well be that in some cases they would have interests. They might be interests as residents or landowners in the area, or they might be as employees of a concern wanting, for example, to open some facility such as a shop. They might be employees or participants in such a business. As matters currently stand, there would no obligation for any of those interests to be disclosed. I would have thought that in the interests of transparency, they ought to be. This would not be a complicated process. Those who apply to be designated as a neighbourhood forum would, in making the application, simply indicate their relevant interests in exactly the same way as councillors, certainly when elected, have to declare their interests. The Bill has dealt very fully with that, so it is not an inordinately complicated process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, Amendment 14 would require local authorities to maintain a register of the interests of members of designated neighbourhood forums. From the outset, I remind Members and my noble friend behind me that 21 is a minimum. You can have as many as you like on a forum—if he wants the whole bloomin’ neighbourhood, he can have the whole lot on it. There is nothing to stop that happening. I would take his view that if you are going to have most of the members of a ward or an area, which might amount to 1,500 or so, this proposal would probably be otiose.

A neighbourhood forum is designated by a local authority for the express purpose of preparing a neighbourhood plan or order for a designated neighbourhood area. The neighbourhood forum will not make decisions on planning applications or on whether a neighbourhood plan or order should come into force, nor will it take on wider duties and responsibilities. Neither is the neighbourhood forum intended to form an equivalent governance function to that of a parish council. The neighbourhood forum is simply a group designated by the local authority to prepare a neighbourhood plan or order.

We have worked hard to ensure that the Bill reflects this position by imposing minimum requirements that community groups must meet in order that they can be designated as a neighbourhood forum. This will enable existing groups to take a leading role in neighbourhood planning. To avoid forums acting inappropriately, the Bill gives local authorities the power to remove the designations of neighbourhood forums in certain circumstances. In addition, requiring their members to register and declare interests would be unnecessary. Since the forum is similar to a planning applicant submitting a planning application to the local authority, it is not making a decision in the public interest.

Furthermore, in practical terms, maintaining a register of the interests of neighbourhood forum members would be extremely difficult for the authority to achieve, given the wide range of individuals who could be members of a neighbourhood forum and the likelihood of frequent change in the forum’s overall membership throughout the process of preparing the plan or order. The Bill requires all neighbourhood forums to include, as I said, at least 21 members who live or work in or are elected members of the neighbourhood area and to have an open approach to their membership.

In addition, of course, there was the requirement that we put into the Bill—I think at Report stage—that there should be consultation before any plan is put to the local authority. I hope that Members will accept this view and not push this amendment today.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I am grateful for the conditional support of the noble Lord, Lord True, which I occasionally receive. I quite take his point, and I also listened carefully to the Minister. I think that the noble Lord, Lord True, is right, and this may be an issue to be revisited at a later stage. I am not entirely sure that we will in fact have large neighbourhood forums. I think the surveys that have taken place so far indicate that there is not—at the moment, at any rate—a huge appetite for the formation of these things. Therefore, we may be in the position where they tend to be rather small and in that case we will perhaps need to look again. In the circumstances, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 14 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

15: Clause 46, leave out Clause 46

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, there have been significant changes wrought by this Bill. One of those that we debated in earlier days was the abolition of the duty to promote local democracy, which I thought was somewhat inconsistent with the general localist agenda. That elicited little or no support on the Benches opposite and did not seem to me to be worth while bringing back at this stage. However, in respect of another issue, which was the provision about petitions, it does seem to me that the case for some provision—as opposed to the elimination which Clause 46 of the Bill would have carried through—has been heightened by at least two recent developments.

The first is the changes in the Bill around the issue of democratic engagement. I very much welcome the withdrawal of the proposals for local referendums, which I thought were misconceived, overelaborate and calculated to produce a great deal of mischief and trouble. Nevertheless, they were a form—and in my view a very unsatisfactory form, and I think that has ultimately been accepted by the Government themselves—of promoting public engagement. This still leaves the issue of how one does promote particular forms of public engagement.

In another place a week ago, there was a diverting evening using the petition process which the Government have initiated to debate rather grander matters, I guess, than will normally be the case at the local level. Of course, the Government have proceeded with their electronic petitioning and the right of the other place to debate matters that receive a significant degree of support—a policy which may not have entirely produced the results anticipated last week and which some members of the Government may even have cause to regret. At any rate, the procedure is there.

For some time, in some councils, there has been an approach which has welcomed, and indeed encouraged, the bringing of petitions and discussion of them. Looking back, about three years ago the New Local Government Network, which is not a partisan organisation—it has councils in it that are controlled by all three major parties and indeed some independent members—advocated a proposal for a more defined process for bringing petitions. That proposal was, in almost the last gasp of the previous Government, embodied in legislation which, as the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, pointed out in his typically robust fashion was somewhat overelaborate, to put it mildly, and that certainly was the case. I think the legislation was announced in December 2009 and passed into law shortly after that, and it was certainly much too overprescriptive in the way it laid down how the process should be implemented.

Nevertheless, although a significant number of councils have a process to facilitate the bringing of petitions and their consideration, it is by no means universal. It seems to me important that there should be an obligation on local authorities to foster that kind of engagement with the communities they represent so that matters can be brought to the attention of the council and discussed in whatever form the council decides is appropriate, on the basis of the basic requirement that Amendment 49 would create, of having a scheme under which the petitions might be considered. This would also include another right that was brought into being by the previous Government, the right to call an officer of the council to account, in a properly structured way.

This is not an overbureaucratic process. As I say, many councils have their own procedures now. Mine certainly does; I dare say the councils of the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Tope, and perhaps even that of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will have similar procedures. However, it is not universal, whereas it seems to me that it should be, so that any number of people—the council may lay down a minimum if it chooses—would know that they have the right to have matters raised at the level of the local authority, not just with their individual councillors, although that is always an option, but in a more systematic way.

The amendment also provides for a simple enough procedure for the council to give an account of what happens to those petitions, so they do not just disappear into a black hole. That certainly is the case in my own authority and I suspect in many others, and all there really needs to be, perhaps even just once a year, is a brief summary of what matters have been raised and how they were dealt with, so people can know that their views and concerns have been taken care of. It is not a huge obligation and would contribute to a healthier relationship between a local authority and its members on the one hand and the community on the other. I hope that even at this late stage the Government will have second thoughts. I beg to move.

[Lord True]

My Lords, that is a nice try by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, but I am afraid I am going to be conditional in my support again. Petitions are important and he is quite right to say that my own authority considers them: tomorrow night we have a debate on a petition from the public; and there are two running petitions, both with over 2,000 signatures, which I am sure will lead to debates at future council meetings. I agree that it is good practice for local authorities. I do not think the Government are withdrawing from encouraging that but it would be a pity if they were.

I have not had time to study the details of his new clause so for that reason alone I would find it hard to support it. However, I am slightly worried about the concept of public petitions calling an officer to account. All those who have been in positions of authority in local government will know the amount of, frankly, sometimes libellous and hostile comment one gets about officers, and one of the duties of people who are elected is to take responsibility. I do not care for the encouragement of petitions to call officers to account. For that reason, as well as not having studied it, I would be doubtful about the form; the spirit is right but I do not think that it is something we could add to the Bill at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have spoken on this matter. Clause 46 of the Bill repeals the duty on principal local authorities in England and Wales to have a petitions scheme and the associated provisions. Amendment 15 would omit this clause, therefore reinstating the duty, and Amendment 49 would then amend the original legislation, which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to when he mentioned the eight pages. Incidentally, I have a note that there would be still four or five pages left of that, including the requirement to call officers to account. So a lot of it would still be there.

While the intention behind the amendments to ensure that councils treat the receipt of petitions sensibly and appropriately is laudable, I am not persuaded that reinstating this prescriptive and burdensome duty, albeit in a revised form, is either necessary or desirable. The revised duty proposed would remove Section 11 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, which provides for principal local authorities to have petition schemes, but it is clear that they would continue to need such schemes, given that Amendment 49 includes several references to petition schemes. Even with this change, the revised duty would mean a significant new burden on local authorities. The effect of subsection (6) of the proposed new section is that the statutory petitions schemes would have to go into far more detail than is currently required about how particular categories of petition will be treated.

In addition, the extension of the statutory duty to all categories of petition—including mayoral petitions and council tax petitions—which the amendment creates, will create further additional burdens, as a scheme would then need to provide for different processes for different types of petition. To reinstate the current overly prescriptive duty not with a clean sheet but with a confused mishmash of some retained elements, with some changes and some provisions dropped, is not at all helpful. We trust local authorities to make the best choices for their local areas and to respond to residents’ concerns in a locally appropriate way. However, how that looks should be a matter for local discretion, not central prescription.

We simply do not believe that we need to reinstate this duty in order to force local authorities to have a petitions scheme, any more than we believe that we need to tell local authorities how to respond to petitions from their own residents.

The noble Lord, Lord True, asked whether the Government still support the concept of petitions. Let me make it clear that they absolutely support and encourage the use of petitions but at a local and not at a national level. It seems to me that people want to put up a petition in a post office or whatever. They do not want to have to scratch about wondering what the proper way to organise a petition is for that council. They want to get on with the petition, get the names together and get on with it. That is how it is in democracy and how it is in local areas. In the circumstances, I trust that this amendment will not be pursued.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, can be forgiven for a sense of déjà vu since the issue has arisen, but he should have looked at the amendment rather than the Act. The amendment would substantially reduce what I entirely agree was a ridiculously overprescriptive regime for the presentation of petitions. It simply provides for councils to have a scheme to deal with petitions and is not about the detail of how petitions are to be presented, except that they would be acceptable in electronic or written forms. After that, it would be very much a matter of local discretion as to how they would be dealt with. There is no intention in the amendment to prescribe how petitioners should present their case. It is not at all a bureaucratic substitute and is significantly shorter than the three volumes that the noble Lord would have us believe the Act required.

The difficulty is that, by abolishing the provision without any alternative, the Government are sending a signal that petitions do not seem to be important. They are important and it is unfortunate that the Government are sending a signal to the contrary by neglecting this when Parliament is now adopting a procedure, for good or ill, which appears to place considerable value on petitions. However, it is clear that there is insufficient support for me to test the opinion of the House. I regret what has happened and I hope that at some point the issue will be revisited. In the mean time, at the very least I hope that Ministers will use their best endeavours to encourage councils, even if not on a statutory basis, to promote the use of petitions as an important element in local democracy. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 15 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I shall not detain the House for long. This is in my view a model amendment. It does not require local authorities to take action but creates a power for them to do so, which is absolutely right in the circumstances. It is for them to make a judgment about whether in particular circumstances it is likely that they can secure convictions in an urban area—to respond to my noble friend Lord Berkeley. It would be easier to do so than in a rural area, obviously, because there would be witnesses and people who would take note. Frankly, I suspect that the situation is worse in urban areas even than in the rural areas about which we have heard.

The noble Lord is to be congratulated on his amendment. This is not a party issue. However, if the noble Lord were minded to divide the House I would certainly go through the Lobby with him.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for moving this amendment. We have had some discussion about it and have had two serious debates in this House. I am afraid that there are serious problems with the amendment. One of them was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. The fact is that it is extremely difficult when most enforcement law is not carried out anyway and you are just adding to it. As the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, himself said, there are already powers regarding littering offences under Section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act. What happens is that they are not enforced; there are not enough enforcement officers, or they are not around at the right time to ensure that littering does not take place. There are already penalty charge notices that can be given by enforcement officers, particularly in the towns, but all over the country, to enable enforcement on litter dropping. So I do not believe that the amendment is necessary.

What we need is proper education and proper campaigns. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, his authority is not sitting around waiting for a by-law—it has got itself up and going and is running a campaign with a quite attractive title. I have to say that it strikes one as something that might have had the noble Lord behind it. So we do not really need this.

There is a further difficulty. Local authorities can make by-laws only for themselves. If one authority has a by-law and another does not, where is the fridge going to be dropped? It will be dropped within the one that does not have a by-law. Furthermore, local authorities cannot deal with motorways or main roads outside their control. Those are in the power of the Highways Agency, which has not been included in the amendment.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is going to be very upset with me, because we have had a discussion that will make him upset with me, but I want to go back to the position that we do have the London Local Authorities Bill, which has powers in it. I appreciate that it is largely urban, but London local authorities stretch out beyond the urban to the suburbs and even, may I say it, border on greenbelt and places that could be tempted to be rural. What we want to do is to see what happens as a result of that Bill. The Bill is a private Bill, as everyone knows, and is before Parliament now. It has completed its Lords stages and is at an advanced stage in the House of Commons. The expectation is that if there are no more challenges to it, it will proceed on its way. When that is implemented, we will be able to see what can be done. The Bill will allow a local authority to issue a civil penalty to registered keepers whereas the amendment of the noble Lord would make it a criminal offence. This would make it a civil offence with a penalty charge notice of £100, and that would be to the registered keeper.

There has been some discussion about whether the registered keeper is the person who ought to be responsible for this. Under the amendment of the noble Lord, the registered keeper would have to be asked who was in the car—very similar to a charge within a court of an offence asking for a statutory declaration. If we can move it into the civil area, I think that would be a worthwhile approach. The Bill will also enable local boroughs to issue civil penalties. We hope that is going to receive Royal Assent later this year. We want to see whether that can be a good route out.

In the mean time, I am going to use those terrible words about getting people to understand what they are doing. The Government are already supporting Keep Britain Tidy in developing the Love Where You Live campaign—that is nearly as good as the tosser. We are also supporting other campaigns in order to make people realise what they are doing. I do not underestimate in any way the problem of litter. I appreciate that it is an absolute eyesore. I think fridges may be outside the scope of litter, but I appreciate that is also part of a wider problem.

I cannot accept the amendment. I know the noble Lord will be upset with me about that, but there are still too many problems associated with it to make it one that we can put into legislation at this stage. I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it after my explanation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I beg to move government Amendment 76 and speak to Amendments 77 to 83.

Your Lordships agreed to government amendments to provide that a council tax referendum could not be triggered solely due to expenditure that had been supported in a local referendum. However, the agreement reached at Report stage to remove local referendums from the Bill means that any link between council tax referendums and local referendums is no longer relevant. These amendments, therefore, remove the references to local referendums from Schedule 5. I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, these amendments come in Schedule 5 which deals with referendums, including council tax referendums. I apologise at this late hour for raising an issue which has only just come to light in relation to council tax referendums; that is, a communication from the Electoral Commission— received extremely late in the day, it must be said—raising concerns about the procedures. I had a word with the noble Earl previously under the misapprehension that the noble Baroness would be replying to this amendment. I am not asking for a definitive answer tonight, because I do not know whether the noble Earl has actually seen the communication from the Electoral Commission. However, it was recommending that the proposed arrangements that any council tax referendums should commence from next year—Spring 2012—should not take place and that referendums should not be required to be held until 2013. There has been a principle, apparently accepted for several years now, that regulations including conduct rules should be clear no later than six months in advance of the date of the first poll to which they will apply. It is clearly of the view that that will not be possible in this case, as it has seen only a very small part of the draft secondary legislation which will be required for referendums. It has not seen details specifically for these referendums. There are a number of factors, including the fact that there might be multiple referendums held because of the variety of precepting authorities which would be potentially involved in the issue of such referendums as and when these might be held.

The Electoral Commission’s assessment is that,

“there is a high level of risk that any council tax referendums held in Spring 2012 may not be well run … There is not in our view enough time before then to adequately ensure”—

I notice it is splitting its infinitives—

“that regulations are well drafted and electoral administrators are properly prepared, and campaigners are ready to engage with others”.

Therefore, it is asking for,

“a clear commitment to not hold these referendums until Spring 2013”.

It makes the helpful suggestion that we might table amendments, but of course we are out of time to table amendments. It raises questions about how the Electoral Commission works and I know my noble friend Lord Kennedy has already raised questions about that. However, it makes an additional point that has been touched on in previous discussions on the funding of referendums and whether the rules about donations and campaign spending and so on ought to be brought into play to deal with these referendums.

It is very late. I am not expecting the Minister to give a definitive answer but I would be grateful if he could assure the House that these matters will be considered. Obviously, I expect the Government to take seriously the views of the Electoral Commission. In practice, I suspect that next year there will not be many councils that, given the general state of play, will be proposing council tax levels such as to trigger potential referendums. We cannot be certain, of course, but it is probably unlikely. There is little to be lost and indeed much to be gained, I venture to suggest, by looking closely into these matters and responding positively to the belated recommendations of the commission. An indication that the Government will at least think about that would be very welcome. Subject to that, we will certainly agree the amendments, which are simply a tidying-up process following the welcome decision to abandon local referendums at large.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, does not disappoint me. I have read the letter from the Electoral Commission carefully. All organisations would love to have the maximum possible time to implement changes, and I understand that these are complex changes. However, council tax payers expect to have protection against excessive council tax increases. That is what we are delivering through the Localism Bill. We have a duty to consult the Electoral Commission. We are fulfilling that duty to make sure that the right processes are in place. However, the Chancellor recently announced a council tax freeze in England for 2012-13. We expect most if not all authorities to take up the freeze, in which case there will be no need for referendums next year, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, graciously recognised.

The Government intend these provisions to become effective from 2012-13 onwards, subject to the Bill receiving Royal Assent in sufficient time. We will of course reflect on what the Electoral Commission has said as part of our ongoing engagement with it. Noble Lords should also remember that the Secretary of State will set the excessiveness level, which will have to be approved by another place, and if necessary a local authority can be put into a special category if it has any specific problems. With that, I beg to move.

Localism Bill

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

29: Clause 142, page 136, line 35, leave out subsections (3) and (4)

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, this amendment relates to the position of tenants under the new flexible tenancies who seek to improve their property with the consent of the landlord. There is, of course, existing provision for this to happen; this matter is dealt with fairly routinely. The local authority or social landlord does not have an obligation to consent to an improvement. That is still within their remit to determine. However, under the Bill, the tenant will no longer be able to apply for consent or secure compensation for such improvements if he has a flexible tenancy.

It does not seem to me sensible to deter tenants who wish to improve their property from carrying out that improvement as long as the authority is prepared to agree to it. That case was strengthened today by the meeting—this has been referred to on more than one occasion—which the noble Baroness convened this morning with her right honourable friend the Minister for Housing. The latter was clear—indeed, the noble Baroness echoed his thoughts earlier today—that only in a minority of cases would a two-year flexible tenancy be granted, and that he did not expect to see many of those. He was bullish—that characteristic has earned him some notoriety—about the extent to which short flexible tenancies were unlikely to be granted, and said that most would be longer. I think he anticipated that 10 years or longer would be par for the course, in which case it is surely not sensible to put any difficulties in the way of tenants improving a property. Such improvements would still be subject to the consent of the local authority. I cannot see any reason why that option should not remain open and why a property should remain unimproved by the tenant when there is a real possibility that he might carry out such works for the benefit of future tenants as well as himself.

This is not in any sense a political or ideological amendment. It is simply a practical one that seeks to retain the present position, in the hope that people will be encouraged to improve their properties without the difficulty that Clause 142 would put in their way. I hope that the Minister, if she cannot affirm tonight that the Government are prepared to accept the amendment, will take the issue back and have a serious look at it, because I cannot see who gains from the clause as it stands. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I can probably reassure the noble Lord about this. While the amendment would provide flexible tenants with the same statutory rights as traditional secure tenants to improve their properties with the written consent of their landlord, and be compensated for those improvements on leaving the property, our proposals provide flexible tenants with many of the same rights as other secure tenants—for example, a right to exchange their home with another tenant or a right to succession for a spouse or partner.

However, the right to make improvements is, we feel, less appropriate for a tenancy that may be for five or 10 years than it is for a traditional secure tenancy, where a tenant may be in the same property for the rest of their life. That does not mean that tenants on flexible tenancies cannot make improvements to their house or, indeed, be compensated for them. What it does mean is that it will be for the landlord to decide what improvements the tenants can make, and that that would be included in the tenancy agreement. If the tenants are there for a full term, a whole lifetime or more, they can do what they like. Effectively, they can improve their property and the landlord would compensate them subsequently. However, in shorter tenancies, landlords must delineate what they will allow tenants to do; then there is nothing to stop them being compensated for that.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, looks more puzzled than cross—which he sometimes looks. Perhaps he may not be willing to withdraw the amendment, but I invite him to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

I am sure that I never look cross when I look at the noble Baroness. I accept her assurances, which I shall perhaps investigate further. For the time being, I am prepared to accept those assurances and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 29 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I confess that I was puzzled by these amendments until my noble friend patiently explained them to me. She completely persuaded me and that persuasion has been reinforced by the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. It seems that we are dealing here with two potentially vulnerable groups of people—those who may themselves suffer from an incapacity or disability and those who care for them—and it would be sensible to give some assurance and security to both those groups in the context of the provisions of the Bill.

The amendments suggest that the Secretary of State should publish directions to the social housing regulator. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, is a fair one and needs to be taken into consideration. It could well form part of the directions that might be given to the social housing regulator in terms of the standards that would be set so that, where a carer remained in a property, an alternative offer of accommodation would have to be made. I should have thought that that would meet the noble Baroness’s point.

I hope that the Government will respond positively to the amendment—if not tonight, then perhaps at Third Reading. I cannot see that it would in any way violate the thrust of the Government’s policy. I believe from the Mencap briefing that some 500,000 to 600,000 people are living with parents or carers. Presumably they would not all be eligible for security of tenure but a significant number would be, and it is right that, given the problems that they are already confronting, they should not have the added problem of feeling insecure about their future. They are an important group in the community, and the community as a whole must take responsibility for ensuring their continued security and comfort.

I hope that the noble Baroness will respond positively—if not definitively tonight, then at Third Reading. I understand that there have been discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I assume that a potential way forward would be agreed with him and I hope that we might see that way forward, if not tonight then at Third Reading. The Opposition would certainly warmly support that.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I hope that we will not have to return to this at Third Reading, as I trust that I shall be able to reassure the House on these matters. I did indeed have the opportunity to talk to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, about his concerns, as well as to people at Mencap. I think that we largely reassured him, although there were one or two areas about which I know he was not content. However, we covered quite a lot of ground.

I am immensely sympathetic to this whole problem. People who have children with learning difficulties, or anyone who looks after someone with an illness, a disability or a mental illness, have enough problems to worry about without being concerned about what will subsequently happen to the person they are caring for.

Our proposals in the Bill will enable decisions about succession to be made on a case-by-case basis. I am sure that noble Lords will be aware that at the moment carers have no right to succeed to a tenancy, even if they have given up their home. There is absolutely nothing that gives them any rights to take on the property. They can succeed only as a spouse or a family member and only in certain circumstances. Therefore, we are trying to make succession easier by giving social landlords the power to give rights as they see fit. This is important. It will be left to landlords to decide to whom they give succession rights. They can, and, I imagine, will, decide that someone who gives up a property to care for a tenant will be entitled to such a succession. Under the provisions, they can also grant succession rights to an adult child with a learning disability living with their parents when either of those parents is unable to maintain where they are. We already require landlords to publish their policies setting out the circumstances in which they will use the new flexibilities that they will have around succession, and the tenancy standard will also require them to set out their policies on how they take into account the needs of vulnerable households. That is what we are talking about today—people with needs.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, spoke about the need for flexibility to recover property that had been adapted. We absolutely agree with that. Landlords can already do that and can recover property adapted for disabled people. The only thing that they must do is house the successor elsewhere. If a tenancy is granted to a carer—a successor—and the property is completely unsuitable, they must be offered an alternative. The provisions are there. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, may worry because we are not categorically saying that that is what will happen. What we are saying categorically is that, within the terms that we think could be adopted, landlords must now take account of the position of people who are in the property and that it does not necessarily have to be a spouse who takes the tenancy of it. The people we would worry about are those who have given up their homes or who are caring for other people without having somewhere else to go.

I hope that, with those reassurances, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I thank her for moving it on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Rix.

Localism Bill

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

What sort of categories might the Secretary of State have in mind? Is the noble Earl referring to types of authority, or are there some other criteria that the Secretary of State is likely to adopt?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, my understanding is that they are the different types of precepting authorities, but I will clarify that in writing to the noble Lord. No doubt there will be other matters that we will need to write on in due course.

Many noble Lords have asked me questions. The noble Lords, Lord Greaves, Lord Tope and Lord McKenzie, suggested that the word “excessive” in a referendum question might prejudice the result. Noble Lords made me think hard about this point but inspiration arrived. It might be possible to ensure that referendum questions do not prejudice the matter, and we will consider this point over the Summer Recess.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked whether these measures are capping powers and whether the Government would be happy to see voters support a higher and excessive level. If voters make an informed decision to support higher council tax, the Government will be perfectly happy. That is the principle behind the legislation. In view of what I have said, I hope noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

The noble Baroness is, unusually, wrong. It is not a new form of coalition Government; it is how most coalitions work. Different parties bring different proposals to the table, compromises and trade-offs are reached and, one hopes, the best ideas from each of the parties come through. All I am saying is that it is no secret that the community right to challenge, as it is now called, and indeed the community assets that we will move on to discuss after this, came from the Conservative Party. I am not criticising that party for that or saying that I do not support it.

When I opened my remarks I said clearly that what we have to do with a new, untried, untested idea is ensure that it is going to work. If it does not, one of two things will happen. A lot of difficulties will be caused on the ground because the idea has not been thought through properly or, alternatively, it will be realised that it has not been thought through properly before these myriad regulations are produced and it will never happen, the regulations will never happen and perhaps the chapter will never be commenced. What I and the Liberal Democrats are trying to do is to be satisfied that the proposals are workable before they leave us so that they are actually a great success when they go out there.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, the amendments in my name start with Amendment 130ZBA. In estate agents’ parlance, the key to property is always described as “location, location, location”. When it comes to this legislation and the work of the Civil Service in advising Ministers, the phrase seems to be “regulation, regulation, regulation”, and it is to that that this amendment is addressed. The purpose of Amendment 130ZBA is to require the Secretary of State, before making regulations prescribing which services may be tendered and which not after an expression of interest, to consult with the Local Government Association or any public bodies to which the relevant section would apply. That echoes pleas that fell on unsurprisingly deaf ears last night in this Chamber on the police reform Bill where similar requirements were sought that the Home Secretary would require that police commissioners consulted with local authorities in respect of various matters. That did not appeal to Ministers but I rather hope that on this occasion Ministers will acknowledge that it would be sensible and right for the Secretary of State, before making regulations around this issue and indeed others in the Bill, to consult with a representative body for local government.

The second amendment would simply take out Clause 68(9). It is similarly designed to reduce the regulatory function to which other noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord Greaves—have referred. I hope the Government will acknowledge that no harm will be done to them, and indeed the general tenor of the legislation will be improved, if they were to accept these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I thank those who have contributed to this series of amendments. We have a fresh start here, in that the community right to challenge will hand the initiative to voluntary and community bodies with good ideas about how services can be run better, and more cost-effectively, ensuring these ideas get a fair hearing, and will give them the time to organise themselves to bid to run these services.

In making my preparations for the day, I spotted the word “regulation” more than once. I thought the best thing to do is to take this head on. Much of the detail of how the community right to challenge will work is to be included in regulations. In response to amendments from noble Lords which touch on this detail, I will often have to explain that we are currently carefully considering issues that have been raised in our recent consultation. It is important that we get the details right. I would like to reassure noble Lords that, on various issues on which we have consulted, we propose to set out the way forward prior to the Report stage of the Bill. I am not promising, but if we can, we will see if we can get some draft regulations. That may not be possible in all cases but we will endeavour to do so.

I understand what my noble friend Lord Greaves said. I had not thought of “jolly wheeze” as featuring in his vocabulary. However, community organisations are part of the Liberal Democrats’ vocabulary. Therefore, this measure may have been suggested by one part of the coalition but I readily embrace it as a means of giving communities an opportunity to come forward with better ways of delivering local services. However, we need to see what is in the regulations, on which consultation is still taking place.

[Lord Beecham]

Will the noble Lord confirm that the Government accept the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee regarding regulations under this part of the Bill being subject to the affirmative procedure?

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, the Government are considering those recommendations. I will not make any promises on that but I believe that they are very likely to take serious account of the committee’s views. It would be very unusual if they did not.

Amendment 129V would remove the Secretary of State’s powers to specify requirements for expressions of interest in regulations. We have taken this power to ensure that power really is pushed down into the hands of communities. The majority of relevant authorities will act within the spirit of the right but this power would prevent a recalcitrant authority requiring an unnecessarily burdensome amount of information that would stymie a relevant body wishing to use the right.

Amendment 130ZB would remove the Secretary of State’s power to exempt services from challenge. Taken with Amendment 133ZK, which would remove the power for the Secretary of State to specify the grounds for rejecting an expression of interest, which we will consider later, this amendment would give relevant authorities discretion to reject a challenge to any of their services. As I have already explained, we have taken these powers to ensure that power really is pushed down into the hands of communities. The majority of relevant authorities will act within the spirit of the right, but this power would prevent a recalcitrant authority rejecting expressions of interest out of hand.

Amendments 130ZA, 131ZA, 131G, 131H, 131E, 131F and 131DA would remove the Secretary of State’s powers to make changes to the right in regulations. Amendments 130ZA and 131ZA would remove the power to add relevant authorities and bodies. Amendments 131E and 131F concern the power to amend the definition of a relevant body and voluntary and community bodies. Amendments 131G and 131H concern the power to make any amendments to this chapter of the Bill that are necessary as a consequence of adding relevant bodies and authorities, including making changes to regulation-making powers. Amendment 131DA would remove Clause 68(9), which contains many of these powers.

We have taken these powers to enable us to keep pace with change and appetite for extension of the right. For example, the powers to add, amend and repeal relevant bodies and amend the definitions of voluntary and community bodies enable us to ensure that these definitions continue to reflect the types of organisation representing communities.

Amendment 130ZBA would require the Secretary of State to consult representatives of relevant authorities and other public bodies affected by an extension of the right. We have recently concluded a consultation on our proposals to use the various powers with all those with an interest in the right and we will consider the need for consultation on future changes. Before extending the right, we would need to have detailed discussions with key interested parties, in particular to understand whether additional services might need to be excluded from the challenge.

I should respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who mentioned one type of social enterprise. I have certainly seen in my life numerous names representing organisations that are not a sole trader or public limited company but which have some social, community, environmental or other involvement. It seems that it does not stop. I think that the important thing is that other forms of enterprise might appear but that we are yet to hear from. The way that the script is written covers anything that might happen in the future. In those circumstances, I trust that the amendments will not be pressed.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

Letting many flowers bloom is the position. Clause 68(5) refers to a “voluntary or community body”, and the noble Baroness has mentioned the differences there; to a body “established for charitable purposes”; to the parish council; and then to “two or more employees”, and “more” could be considerably more. How that “more” then establishes itself is another way forward. There are clearly two features here: the elements of “voluntary”, “community” or “charitable”; and the way in which employees choose to organise themselves. They are lumped together, but in many minds—in my mind at any rate—they are two distinct ways forward.

[Lord Beecham]

The noble Lord may recall that I have an amendment dealing with precisely that matter, which we will discuss later.

[Lord Greaves]

My noble friends Lady Hamwee and the Minister are straying on to matters covered by future amendments. I remind my noble friend that she might have suggested some of those amendments. As for the idea that this is all about letting 1,000 flowers bloom, I invite my noble friend the Minister to come on over the tops and have a look at Colne at the moment. It is in an absolutely beautiful condition thanks to Colne in Bloom. There is a massive display of flowers; far more than 1,000. On the other hand, letting 1,000 flowers bloom did not do much good for Mao Tse-Tung. It has different connotations.

The Minister referred to recent consultations. Can he give us an assurance that the Government will publish a pretty full account of the results of those consultations and the evidence that they got? Will it be possible to access them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, the council concerned will have its own procedures for dealing with these things, but the chances are that one submission will be better than the other. If they are bang on equal, it might come down to price, but councils have their own decision-making ways. If the submissions are almost identical, councils will just have to look at them with great care. But it would be strange if they were identical. One could look at what lies behind the application, the strength of the body, whether it looks sustainable and whether the committee of the organisation looks as if it is there for the long haul. I am quite certain that these are all things the authority will be looking at.

[Lord Beecham]

Can the Minister indicate that on this topic, at least, there will not be regulations from the Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I want to build with a couple of questions on what my noble friend Lord Greaves and the noble Baroness have said. Definition seems to me to be quite an issue on my scanning of this clause. The question that has just been asked about what community you have to be in, so to speak, is at least worth asking and it will be interesting to see the answer.

The other question is that I understand that there are definitions of charitable bodies and of industrial and provident societies. Is there a definition of community bodies? Where does the type of body known as a social enterprise come in all this? If you ask the Library for information on social enterprises, as I did once a few months ago, you discover that there are about six different definitions from different quarters. Is social enterprise embraced in all this? Is it defined in all this? Is it intended to be dealt with in the wrap-up clause about the Secretary of State having the right to define other bodies? A lot of definition problems are raised but not answered by this clause.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I want to assist, in a sense, the noble Lord, Lord Newton, by clarifying the description of one particular—

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, but for those of us who rely on the loop, the microphone is rather important.

[Lord Beecham]

I shall be very brief. My Amendment 131AA looks at the definition that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to in Clause 68(7). It seeks to tighten the reference to the surplus by saying that the fact that a body’s activities generate a surplus does not prevent it from being a voluntary body for the purposes of the section. The original clause says:

“so long as that surplus is used for the purposes of those activities”.

With my amendment, it would say:

“so long as that surplus is required to be and is used”.

In other words, it is not a casual use; it is a prescribed use of the surplus in the way that you would find in a charitable organisation. I hope the amendment is not unhelpful and that it just emphasises the nature of the organisation and that the surplus is required to be used—as well as, in practice, that it may be used—for the purposes outlined. I hope the noble Lord will think about that and perhaps take the amendment back or accept that it strengthens the intention of the clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

If there are not to be clear structures which are recognised as appropriate, how do you prevent the situation in which two employees make a right to challenge when they have absolutely no support from the rest of the employees, but because they have made the right to challenge, the process has to take place?

[Lord Beecham]

Before the noble Lord replies, may I point out that I have an amendment dealing with precisely that matter as well?

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

I am quite clear that, if there are two employees, we are back to the whole business about looking at who is backing this and whether the people who will ultimately benefit from this service think that it is a good idea. It is unlikely that the local authority would say, “Off you go; you look a great pair”. It is very doubtful that that would be the case. That is the route to putting a stop to that. It may well be that our friend, regulations, will come into this as to the power of stoppage that there would be in these circumstances.

Amendment 133ZN would prevent the Secretary of State providing advice and assistance in using the right to a body that is formed of, or includes, any employees or ex-employees. That would introduce a disparity. It would mean that advice and assistance could not be provided to a voluntary and community body formed of employees and ex-employees, but could be provided to other voluntary and community bodies that did not contain such individuals. No decisions have been made on the form of any advice and assistance in using the right, but we expect to focus on those that need it most. This is likely to mean smaller, newer voluntary bodies, but it is sensible that we have the powers to provide assistance to any relevant body that might need it. I understand that an impact assessment has been done on this and the suggestion is that, across the country, £20 million will be required. It is not yet in any budget, but that is the suggestion in the impact assessment.

Clause 73(4) ensures that this includes employees who have formed a body to take on the delivery of a service, including where they have left the employment of the authority. This supports the Government’s commitment to give public sector workers the right to bid to take over the running of the service that they deliver. I trust that these comments will mean that these amendments are not pressed at the present time.