Local Audit and Accountability Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Wednesday 24th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, Amendment 3 is a further minor consequential amendment to the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 following the closure of the Audit Commission.

The Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 transferred a number of powers from the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission to the Auditor-General for Wales. This Bill already repeals some sections within the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 which refer to the Audit Commission. Sections 69 and 70 provide transitional arrangements to enable auditors of Welsh local government and NHS bodies who were appointed by the Audit Commission to continue for the whole of their term, despite the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 transferring responsibility for auditor appointment from the Audit Commission to the Auditor-General for Wales.

Section 69 also makes transitional provision to enable the Audit Commission to complete any studies which include a local government body in Wales that were under way at the time of the transfer. The Welsh Government have now confirmed that the transitional period has been completed and that these provisions can be repealed. I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I am sure they will be putting up the flags in the valleys and hills of Wales tonight in celebration of this government amendment, which I am happy to support.

Local Audit and Accountability Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, the sun has already set; none of us wants to be here when it rises in the morning. I concur with the amendment moved by the noble Lord and I trust that the Minister will accept it.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)]

My Lords, I can be very brief. The Government cannot accept the amendment. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that council tax payers should have the final say on excessive increases and that the case for the inclusion of levies in the referendum legislation is compelling. The Government intend that, once made, the change to the legislation should remain on the statute book and that council tax payers should be protected from excessive increases permanently—not just for a few years. Local authorities and levying bodies would not appreciate the prospect of further change to legislation in three years’ time.

It may be helpful to the noble Lord if I also mention a major practical issue raised by the amendment. In 2016, as in all years, local authorities must set their council tax by 11 March. Any authority triggering a referendum must begin preparations almost immediately, so the referendum will be scheduled for the first Thursday in May 2016. The sunset clause would take effect on 30 April 2016, right in the middle of local authorities’ preparations to hold a referendum. Furthermore, if the amendment is accepted, by that time, the provision would have disappeared from the statute book and rendered regulations relating to the conduct of the referendum and its effect in direct conflict with the legislation on which they are based. That is because they would be based on the definition of the relevant basic amount of council tax, including rather than excluding levies. That would be a recipe for confusion and would not be fair on local authorities or council tax payers. So, for reasons of principle and practicality, the Government are unable to support the amendment, and I hope that the noble Lord is willing to withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, far be it from me to seek to mediate between the coalition parties on this matter, although of course I cannot resist the temptation to do so.

The noble Lord’s proposition is in many ways sensible. Even under the present law, councils certainly have the right to advertise in ways additional to publication in newspapers if they choose. Eventually, no doubt, that will become pretty much par for the course. The Government could facilitate the process by at least reviewing now rather than at some definite point in the future the list of items that have to be publicised, because frankly it is ridiculous. Planning matters are clearly important. However, when it comes to dog control orders or their revocation, the licensing of buskers, charges for street trading licences, abandoned shopping trolleys and charges for public baths and wash-houses, one wonders whether a formal statutory notice of any kind is desired. It is certainly not required, and certainly not in paid publications.

If the Minister were to indicate that the Government will address this matter—it is not that complicated; after all, there are only eight or nine pages of these things to work through—a sensible accommodation could be achieved that still leaves a statutory requirement for publication in newspapers. That should remain as part of a new framework, given that not everyone can look at the website, and there will at least be the opportunity to read a printed version. I hope that that would alleviate some of the concerns of the Local Government Association and, indeed, of the noble Lords who have already spoken. It would not be acceptable for the Government simply to reject the Motion and do nothing about this ridiculous list of notices that have to be published in a paid-for publication at the present time. A gesture from the Government in that respect, other than the normal gesture that one tends to get metaphorically across the Dispatch Box, would be helpful.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for those rather contrary views. Only three people have spoken, and their views were all different, so that is a pretty good start and leaves me with a fine path through.

The purpose of a statutory notice, as everybody clearly knows, is to inform the public about decisions that affect their lives, their property and their amenity. That is especially the case for issues where the public have a limited period in which to respond.

The Committee was in broad agreement that notices should be easily available for local people and that they are vital for local transparency and accountability. The noble Lord has highlighted the cost of statutory notices and suggested that local newspapers are one of the least effective ways to convey information to people. We do not agree. Research by GfK for the Newspaper Society found that the reach of local newspapers was much greater than council websites: 67% of the respondents to that survey had read or looked at their local newspaper for at least a couple of minutes within the past seven days, compared with 9% who had viewed their council website. Some 34% of adults questioned had not accessed the internet at all in the last 12 months.

The most recent internet access quarterly update from the Office for National Statistics, published in May, shows that 7.1 million adults in the United Kingdom—14% of the population—have never used the internet. Two-thirds of over-75s, a third of 65 to 74 year-olds and 32% of disabled people, as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act, have never used the internet. There are quite a lot of people, therefore, who do not, would not and could not use the internet for these notices.

The GfK research for the Newspaper Society showed that local papers are spontaneously cited as the way in which most people—that is, 39%—expect to be informed about traffic changes, for example. My noble friend Lord Shipley will be interested to know that the next placed source of information is street signs, at 26%—they come immediately to notice. When prompted, 79% of all adults responding said that they expect to be made aware of traffic changes in their printed local paper, second only to street signs and ahead of any other communication channels.

Undoubtedly, the requirement to publish some notices in newspapers comes from an age when there was no access to other means of communication. Under present conditions it could perhaps be removed, but the requirement to ensure that these notices are available easily remains as valid today as it always has.

As I said in Committee, the last Administration consulted in 2009 on removing the statutory requirements to publish planning notices in newspapers and found that that was not well received, as noble Lords opposite will remember. Some 40% of respondents to that survey were against the proposals, with a further 20% giving only qualified support. I acknowledge, of course, that that was four years ago. Things have moved on a bit. However, the party opposite concluded that some members of the public and community groups relied on the statutory notices in newspapers, and was not convinced that good alternative arrangements could readily be rolled out. A recent debate in the other place on alcohol licensing notices showed the strength of cross-party feeling against repealing the requirement to publish the notices in newspapers.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said that statutory advertising should not go altogether—I think he repeated that today—and that it was more a question of which statutory notices should be reformed and which should continue to be advertised in newspapers. That can already be done, because departments can put forward particular statutory notices for consideration under the Red Tape Challenge, and that provides opportunities to review a statutory notice. The amendment gives little consideration to which statutory notices are important to local people or where there is a case for retaining publication in a newspaper, and that of course would have to be looked into.

In the internet age, it is clear that commercial newspapers should expect less state advertising over time, as my honourable friend Brandon Lewis has made clear, as more information is syndicated for free online. We accept that newspapers need to develop new business models rather than relying on revenue from statutory notices. However, the newspaper industry is very clear that competition with local authority newspapers, for example, can be damaging.

It would be unfair to remove statutory notices in the blanket way that is being proposed while independent newspapers still face unfair competition from local authority newspapers. We must stop this first before looking at other issues. We acknowledge that the DCLG Select Committee’s recommendations a couple of years ago for a review of publication requirements of statutory notices cannot be ignored in the long term.

I hope that with those explanations the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his amendment.

Local Audit and Accountability Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Monday 15th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, in June, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee published its report on the Local Audit and Accountability Bill. The report made a recommendation regarding the provisions in the Bill to prevent local authority newsletters unfairly competing with local newspapers. We have considered the recommendations in this very useful report carefully, and this group of amendments is the result of those considerations.

The committee said that in certain circumstances it is inappropriate for powers to make the code mandatory to be exercisable by directions rather than by statutory instrument, and subject to no parliamentary procedure. The committee recommended that, where the Secretary of State wishes to exercise his power to issue a direction to all local authorities in England or to a specified description of authorities, the affirmative resolution procedure should apply. While recognising that there can be circumstances where it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to be able to give directions to a class of, or to all, local authorities, we accept the committee’s recommendation that the exercise of this power in relation to classes of, or to all, local authorities, should be by affirmative statutory instrument.

We also agree with the committee’s implicit view that, where the power is exercised in relation to a single authority that the Secretary of State believes is not complying with the code, it would be appropriate for this to be by way of direction. However, we do not agree with or accept the committee’s recommendation that, where the power is exercised in relation to a single authority otherwise than where the Secretary of State believes the authority is not complying with the code, this should be by negative statutory instrument.

Our aim is simple: to be able to take effective action against those authorities that are giving rise to concern about their publicity, particularly relating to the publication of newspapers. Above all, in the case of such authorities, quick and effective action needs to be taken. These amendments ensure that the Secretary of State can continue to take that quick action against individual authorities. In cases where groups of authorities or all local authorities in England are being required to comply with some or all of the publicity code, we agree that this should be by order, subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament. I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, we are now coming to that part of the Bill that reflects several of the obsessions of the Secretary of State, not necessarily of the Minister. It is interesting that the draft Bill committee had, of course, no opportunity to consider these matters because they were not part of the original Bill; they were tacked on to the Bill at a later stage. I suppose we should be grateful that at least the Delegated Powers Committee has had an opportunity to comment on it. In fairness, I am grateful to the Minister and to the Government for accepting at least part of its recommendations, the part that referred to directions given to all local authorities. However, I find it difficult to follow the reasoning for the rejection of the second recommendation about directions to an individual authority.

The committee indicated that a power does not merely afford a specific and targeted enforcement mechanism but could—and would, if the relevant subsection is relied on—have the character of a legislative power. It took the view that it is inappropriate for powers of this kind, to make the code mandatory, to be exercisable by directions rather than by statutory instrument. Hence the two recommendations it made; in fairness, the Government have accepted one of them, although they did not accept the other. That decision was communicated to the committee and is reported in its sixth report, which was printed as recently as 11 July. In fairness, the report was written in June, but it does not indicate exactly when. However, it was considered by the committee only a matter of a few days ago—or at least, its report was published only a few days ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, this amendment stems from concerns raised at a meeting of the all-party group inquiry into electoral conduct, to which I referred in Committee. Doubts have been expressed about whether it would be possible for local authorities at any time, but even during elections—perhaps especially then—to correct mis-statements of fact that could give rise to problems in relation to the Equality Act, such as racist or discriminatory statements that might apply to particular groups.

The noble Baroness said that she would look into this and write to me to clarify the position. I am grateful to her for doing that. She confirmed that it is permissible for local authorities to do exactly that, even during an election period, which is probably the most urgent time, provided that it is a factual statement. The purpose of the amendment is simply to allow the Minister to repeat for the record and Hansard the assurance that that is the position. That would be of some comfort to electoral officers and local authorities that might be confronted with this situation. Given some of the things that are being said up and down the country by various groups, it is likely that at some point local authorities will feel constrained to issue material of that kind, perhaps during an election period. It would be good to have that assurance on the record. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness and indeed to the Government for acknowledging that perhaps there was a doubt and for clearing it up so comprehensively.

[Baroness Hanham]

I am happy to confirm what I have written to the noble Lord and I will read it out. The publicity code explicitly provides for a local authority to correct or rebut misinformation, making explicit provision in the sections about objectivity and care during periods of heightened sensitivity. Moreover, it contains provisions about equality and diversity, specifically allowing local authority publicity to seek to influence the attitudes of local people or public behaviour in relation to matters including equality, diversity and community issues.

During an election period, for example, local authorities may publish factual material. A local authority should take care when issuing publicity and should not be issuing publicity that seeks to influence voters. However, this does not prevent an authority from fulfilling its role in seeking positively to influence people in terms of equality and diversity. Hence if there is disinformation in circulation promoting harassment, a local authority may take action to correct it at election time or indeed any other time. The provisions in the Bill do not change the contents of the publicity code that have been agreed by Parliament. Rather they give the Secretary of State the power to ensure that taxpayers’ money is not being wasted by local authorities by disregarding the publicity code. Nothing in the publicity code prevents local authorities addressing issues of discrimination or harassment and tackling them head on. No local authority can claim that the provisions in the Bill to tackle non-compliance with the publicity code prevent them complying with the Equality Act.

In short, this amendment is not necessary and I hope that, with the reassurance that I have given the noble Lord and what I have said in the House today, he will be willing to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

Indeed, I am, and I repeat my thanks to the Minister for making the position clear. Now it is on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, in the parallel universe occupied by the Secretary of State, Pulitzer prize-style municipal correspondents can no longer haunt the corridors of town halls, rigorously holding local authority leaders and councils to account. They have now been supplanted in his imagination by what he describes as “town hall Pravdas”. To adapt a phrase, it seems that the local authority devil wears Pravda. In so doing, the local civic newspapers disseminate propaganda at public expense.

As I have demonstrated, there is very little evidence to support any of that, still less that the effect has been damaging to the local media. On the contrary, local media have very consciously and over many years withdrawn from reporting local government. I remember in the early 1980s, when I was leader of Newcastle City Council, urging the BBC to appoint a local government correspondent. They had a very good reporter there who has now made a national reputation, Mr Michael Blastland, who covered local government and much else. That was rather unusual for a local television and radio station, but it was not by any means a full-time job and the idea did not seem to catch on.

Furthermore, at a later point, the local papers in Newcastle, the Journal and the Evening Chronicle—which, strange to say, my constituents and those of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, when he was a councillor and leader of Newcastle City Council, were able to distinguish from the city council newspapers occasionally distributed, contrary to what the Government appear to think happens in the real world—apparently decided that they would reduce the amount of coverage of local affairs. They attended meetings and contacted members of the council, me and others, less frequently.

I raised the point with them and made it nationally as well. The Journal in Newcastle, the morning newspaper, said that it had conducted a survey and its readers were not interested in local affairs. Therefore, it ceased to be to any extent a paper of record, which is what good newspapers ought to be. It did this not because of competition from half a dozen issues of Newcastle City News but because, in its judgment, the readers were not interested. Some of us like to think that the virtue of local media is that they seek to educate and inform the local community. They have abdicated that responsibility; they have done it of their own volition and it is ridiculous to suggest that that has been caused by local authorities.

The conflation of a variety of issues that have been adduced to support the Government’s position on the whole issue of a code of publicity is entirely unconvincing. There is no significant cost to local authorities. There is no evidence, as I have already reported, via the National Union of Journalists, that it has had an impact on the circulation of local papers and the decline of revenue. On the contrary, there are many other explanations, which I will not rehearse again. As for the other main argument, that there is a danger of political abuse by some of these papers advocating a party line or support of the authority in control of the local council, of course that can and should be dealt with without a code, because it would be unlawful as matters stand to conduct propaganda in that way.

We have debated at considerable length the role of the auditors. The auditors have a responsibility in this and other matters. They are entitled to look at whether council expenditure, in the area of publicity, for example, is lawful and appropriate. In addition, there are other sanctions that can be applied, including, in extremis I suppose, judicial review. Therefore, both props of the Government’s case fail. It is not necessary to emulate the man on the wire to deal with these matters. It is simply the case that the Government are overreaching themselves.

I have to comment on the hypocrisy of a Government who allow, possibly promote, their Civil Service spokesman to make statements using the personal pronoun. Therefore, government spokesmen—not Ministers, or even MPs or Peers—in the form, presumably, of press officers or civil servants are all too often quoted as saying, “We are taking action on it”. It might be on welfare benefits or whatever. That is a politicisation of the Civil Service that is a step too far. It happens all too regularly. I do not say that it did not happen under the previous Government. I cannot recall such events, but it may still have happened. Under any Government, it is wrong for that to happen. If that were to happen in local government, there would be a legitimate outcry. It would be quite wrong for a chief executive or an officer of an authority to use the personal pronoun on a political issue, as opposed to saying that it is the council’s policy.

In addition to all the other grievous sins of omission and commission that the Government commit in this area, this is something that they ought to look at on their own account before they descend on local authorities in the way that they propose in the Bill. Again, I remind your Lordships that the draft Bill committee was given no opportunity whatever to discuss matters of this importance. It is not surprising that the Local Government Association is completely united across the political divide about this, hence my amendment opposes that the clause should stand part.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, the trouble with clause stand part debates is that they tend to come after everything else has been said. The danger is that one says it all over again. As I said, three groups of amendments have all covered more or less the same ground. I must ask the Chamber to forgive me if I cover some things that have already been said. It is clear that the Government do not see the situation in quite the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has laid out tonight, nor as the Local Government Association has seen it in wanting all these provisions removed. We do not believe that should happen. We accept, as I said, that the great majority of local authorities will never breach the code. They will always do, and be guided by, the right thing.

I shall not say which local authorities we already know are breaching the code. I have them. I could do it, but I think it is probably not helpful. I hope noble Lords will accept my assurance that at least a dozen are breaching it at the moment. Either they are publishing publications, very frequently, outside the terms, or they are including propaganda or their own political statements. It is there and it is wrong; that is not what was meant to happen. As I say, with legislation the opportunity comes to try to put that right. Once again, it is putting it right for a minority—I totally accept that—but put it right we must. The Secretary of State is not taking very draconian powers. If the Secretary of State would have to put a broad direction out to a whole lot of authorities, we would be very worried about what local authorities were doing. That provision is there in case it is needed, but we are much more concerned at the moment about the individual authorities doing individual transgressions.

There are two elements of this, as I have said right from the outset. The provisions are necessary to make sure that taxpayers’ money is not abused; to see that local authorities produce publicity, not propaganda; and to ensure that local newspapers—which the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, slightly downgrades—hold local government to account. They are often full of what is going on; they are the proper means by which that should be done. The provisions do not change the publicity code itself; the guidance remains the same, allowing local authorities to communicate effectively with their communities. However, the clause provides the Secretary of State with the power to direct one or more authorities, as I have said. The clause also sets out the procedure to be followed, as we discussed—14 days’ notice in writing—and provides for a direction to be modified or withdrawn in writing.

Council Tax

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, if the noble Baroness is referring to the extra rooms associated with the welfare reforms, I am sure there will be opportunities for local people who are affected by those to see whether they can take on a lodger as long as their subletting arrangements are sufficient for the local council.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, in light of the fact that 50% of councils have not taken up the transitional grant, will the Government apply the unallocated fund that they originally created to extend the transitional period to perhaps two years for those authorities which have taken up the offer? In that way, they could mitigate the problems that have been referred to by other noble Lords today.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, it was made clear from the outset that the transitional grant would be for one year and one year only. Therefore, I do not anticipate that the question asked by the noble Lord will be answered in a way that he would like.

Local Audit and Accountability Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, this rather intimidating-looking amendment is a probing amendment. It arises somewhat curiously from my membership of a committee set up by the All-Party Inquiry into Electoral Conduct, which is preparing a report on material produced in elections that might be racist or discriminatory in one way or another. In the course of discussions, some doubts were expressed about whether, under the present code of practice, it is possible for authorities to publish statements of fact correcting statements of that kind. I put it no higher than that there is a doubt about that. There is a legal opinion that it is perfectly legitimate to do so but certain reservations are held in the world of community relations and local government that it may not be permissible to make clear that what other people are saying is wrong in particular areas.

The reference here to the characteristics set out in the Equality Act cover the following areas: race, gender, age, gender reassignment, sexual orientation, and religion and belief. The concern is that particularly—but not exclusively—around the time of elections we may get significant misstatements which can be calculated to mislead people and may indeed in themselves be unlawful. The amendment seeks to clarify the position. The Minister may be able to say today or subsequently that, having taken advice from government lawyers, the position is okay and authorities are able to correct such misstatements.

To illustrate the kind of problem that one might face, a ludicrous urban myth is currently developing around the infamous bedroom tax, purporting to say that if you are a Muslim householder, you can describe one of your rooms as a prayer room and that will avoid the bedroom tax. This is complete nonsense but one can see how statements of that kind can cause considerable problems and, in the context of an election, be influential.

Therefore, the amendment seeks simply to sanction or confirm, if it is indeed the case, that it is permissible for authorities to publish,

“factual material by way of correction or rebuttal of inaccurate statements that promote discrimination, harassment or promotes or constitutes other unlawful acts”,

in the areas to which I referred. It is particularly important that it be made clear that that is permissible during the purdah of an election period because that is precisely when it may be that those with a particular axe to grind will be most likely to produce such material. It is important that it be rebutted, not in a party or political sense but in a purely factual sense, as quickly as possible in order that the situation should not be inflamed.

I hope that the Minister can assure me that the advice is that such publicity is permissible, including during an election period. If not, I invite the Minister to consider the position further and see whether the amendment or something along the same lines can be incorporated into the Bill. It is an area where, particularly given present tensions, councils acting responsibly can correct factual misstatements, thereby helping to promote community cohesion and avoid any discrimination or harassment of any of the groups identifiable within the characteristics listed in the Equalities Act. Of course, authorities have a duty under that Act; the question is whether we can confirm that that duty will allow them to take the steps to which I referred. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I just want to check for the noble Lord the exact position regarding elections because that is probably the most salient purpose of the amendment. Perhaps I may first reply in general.

As the noble Lord has acknowledged, Section 149 of the Equity Act 2010 places a duty on local authorities to tackle discrimination in all the areas that he mentioned. The Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity, to which local authorities have a statutory requirement to have regard, sets out the seven principles that local authorities must abide by when producing any publicity. Publicity must be, lawful, cost-effective, objective, even-handed, appropriate, have regard to equality and diversity, and be issued with care during periods of heightened sensitivity.

The publicity code, in its guidance on the principle of publicity about equality and diversity, is clear that local authorities may seek to influence the attitudes of local people or public behaviour in relation to matters including race relations, equality, diversity and community matters. The provisions in the Bill relating to the publicity code allow the Secretary of State to make a direction requiring a local authority or group of local authorities to comply with some or all of the publicity code. As I understand it, the amendment is intended to ensure that any direction about compliance with the code would not prevent a local authority from exercising its obligations under Section 149 of the Equality Act. The code makes provision for just this sort of publicity; a direction to comply with the code would serve only to put the guidance on a statutory footing.

Paragraph 35 in the current code states:

“It is acceptable to publish material relating to the subject matter of a referendum, for example to correct any factual inaccuracies which have appeared in publicity produced by third parties, so long as this is even-handed and objective and does not support or oppose any of the options which are the subject of the vote”.

I think that that clears up the matter as regards being able to respond during elections, in particular.

[Lord Beecham]

Is an election to be treated the same as a referendum because a referendum is putting an issue? I am not sure that that is right. If that is the intention and that can be confirmed, that would be sufficient.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, this is an important point. If the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, perhaps we can discuss this further before the next stage and identify whether, in parliamentary terms, a referendum would cover elections. If that is so, the noble Lord is right—the issue is not covered. Is the noble Lord happy to withdraw the amendment with that assurance?

[Lord Beecham]

Yes. I am grateful for the assurance and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, as I understand it, the noble Lord has grouped together Amendments 19BB and 19BC. Amendment 19BB challenges the Secretary of State’s power to determine categories of authority and to set excessiveness principles which apply to them accordingly. Subsection (15) makes it explicit that, in doing so, he may differentiate between authorities on the basis of past council tax decisions. The amendment would remove subsection (15) because of concerns, as raised in our discussion, about retrospection and about it providing much wider powers to the Secretary of State when setting excessiveness principles.

I am happy to confirm that subsection (15) does not apply referendum principles retrospectively. It does not make any changes to the setting of council tax in previous years or change the referendum limits that applied. The Government were clear before council tax and levies were set for 2013-14 that they would take into account the decisions taken by local authorities on council tax in setting future principles. As already stated, no changes will be made to those principles that applied in 2013-14 or, indeed, to any other year. Both authorities and levying bodies can continue to plan accordingly.

In light of the fact that local authorities have had a pretty clear indication that their decisions for 2013-14 would be taken into account—what they did, where and why—in setting future principles, there is no argument that authorities were not aware of the Government’s intentions or justification for accusations of unfairness, given the Written Ministerial Statement of 30 January 2013, followed by an information note sent to all to local authorities on 8 February. Decisions taken on council tax increases for 2013-14 were taken in full knowledge of those warnings. Subsection (15) does not radically extend the Secretary of State’s existing powers. It clarifies those powers and removes any doubt as to whether they allow him to continue to take into account past council tax decisions when making decisions on the following year.

Amendment 19BC would provide that during a transitional period specified expenditure could be exempt from inclusion within the calculation on whether a council tax increase was excessive. The noble Lord will be aware that the excessiveness principles, which are set annually, already allow for different principles to be set for different categories of authority. For this reason, I assume this amendment is intended to press the case for the additional flexibility that we have been talking about.

It is intended that the detailed excessiveness principles for 2014-15 will be made later in the year. However, the principle will remain that local taxpayers should be protected from unwanted excessive council tax increases. It is local residents who should have the final say on whether to accept an excessive increase. We recognise that there may be specific reasons as to why a particular local authority may wish to set an increase above that level; the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to the city deal in Leeds, and the noble Lord, Lord Smith, referred to Manchester. The city deal with Leeds on private sector investment has been predicated on increases in levies from the West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority. It is right that the levy set by the 22 elected councillors from the five district councils that manage the authority should be treated in exactly the same way as the costs of every other local authority investing in local transport projects. The Government accept that neither this nor any other city deal is dependent on setting an excessive council tax increase, nor that excessive increases in levies were agreed as part of the deal. The chair of the West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority put it well himself. He said that,

“transport will be managed locally rather than from Whitehall, with decision making to suit local needs, accountability to Council Tax-payers and creating a transport network fit for purpose”.

Local decision-making and local accountability to council taxpayers are what the current clause would provide by extending the transparency of decisions taken by bodies funded from council tax receipts and ensuring that local residents have their say when those decisions would require larger increases. In summary, the Secretary Of State already has flexibility to set referendum principles that address particular situations and the right to take into account the 2013-14 council tax level. With those explanations, I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his amendments.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, of course I am not going to seek to test the opinion of the Committee today, but this is a matter to which I and other noble Lords from different parts of the House will want to return. I confess that I used the word “sophistry” to my noble friend to describe some of the assertions made by the noble Baroness—assertions no doubt made at the behest of those in somewhat higher positions within the department. This is not a satisfactory position. We will clearly need to look in detail at what she said but the reality is that decisions were taken in good faith, along with the Government, to establish a range of agreed policies without the expectation that these would somehow be affected by decisions of the kind to which the noble Baroness referred. If those agreements reached with government and other partners are to be sustained, it will, on the basis of the Government’s announced policy, be at the expense of core services. That was not envisaged at the time these deals were entered into, and it will make councils extremely reluctant to enter into any further arrangements with government when that could have the impact that it appears is now facing a number of significant authorities that are doing their best to work with government. It is an unsatisfactory position to which we will no doubt return on Report, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I shall be brief. The position is a curious one in relation to what the Government regard as an area of excessive increases and what they regard as something else. An increase of more than 2% in council tax is excessive but an increase of 5.8% in social housing rents is acceptable. Indeed, the Chancellor has said today that social rents will increase by CPI plus 1% a year for virtually a decade. That actually will be rather less than the increases imposed in this past year but whichever way you look at it, it means that what is an unacceptable increase for council tax payers is well below what social housing tenants will be expected to pay. It is an interesting anomaly.

However, on the referendum point, it should be noted that three sets of organisations are involved in local government finance at the local level—the council, the levying bodies and the precepting bodies such as police commissioners. Several police commissioners increased their levies by significantly more than the 2% figure. That was acceptable because it did not raise the overall increase significantly. On the other hand, technically, their regime is rather different and rather more generous in terms of potential increases. However, if they breach the limit for precepting authorities, I understand that they would have to have a referendum. Therefore, there are two referendum systems here, as it were. It is odd that there are in effect two external bodies—some bodies, admittedly, comprise a combination of local authorities, but many do not—which can, by means of a levy, potentially force the council to have a referendum on its overall council tax levy, whereas precepting authorities are in a different category. That anomaly certainly raises questions to which we may want to return on Report.

I anticipate that the noble Earl will not seek to test the opinion of the Committee tonight. Given the fact that referendums are now, unfortunately, part of the system, despite the opposition of many of us when the Local Government Bill went through, I am not sure that we will get very far in that regard on Report. However, in this curious area of anomalous situations and differential rates of what is acceptable and what is not, we might at least provoke the Government into thinking about the system they are creating and the degree to which it is being made more elaborate, complex and, ultimately, less accountable to people with every successive announcement.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I shall try to deal with one or two specific questions at the end of my remarks. I shall lay out the purpose behind Clause 39 and pick up some of the questions as I go along.

Clause 39 amends the calculation that authorities must make each year to determine whether their council tax increase is excessive and therefore requires the approval of local people in a referendum. It changes the definition of excessiveness from an amount that excludes levies to one including levies. It will ensure that people get the final say over an excessive increase in the total council tax charged by an authority. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, properly drew attention to the fact that precepts are already part of the local government charge. Currently, the excessiveness calculation is based on the relevant basic amount of council tax, defined so as to exclude changes in levies raised on an authority by levying bodies. The level of levies varies in different areas, but can make up more than 50% of an authority’s council tax requirement. This year, many council tax payers have seen their total bill increase by a higher percentage than they might have expected due to the impact of levies, with the overall increase appearing to be above the referendum threshold set by the Secretary of State and approved by the other place.

In short, a levy is a demand for payment by a levying body on a local authority. A large number of organisations and bodies have historically been granted the power to issue levies. Some of these are relatively small organisations but others are much larger. We have discussed more recent creations such as integrated transport authorities and joint waste disposal bodies, which carry out substantial functions across cities or regions.

Combined authorities can bring together a number of others to pool their resources and make savings, removing duplication and giving them an opportunity to make sure that the levy is not as much as it would otherwise be. However, we are clear that levying bodies are part of the local government landscape; they are funded to varying degrees by local council tax payers. We discussed the levies briefly. They were removed from the provisions of the Localism Bill, and it is partly an attempt now to exempt certain types of expenditure from the excessiveness calculation, such as that which has been approved by a local referendum. I have missed a page and shall go back.

[Lord Beecham]

It is retrospective.

[Baroness Hanham]

I was trying to be brief; it is always a mistake.

I want to make it clear that the Secretary of State is able to set excessiveness principles which compare council tax figures in 2013-14 with 2014-15, using the methods set out in this clause, and now including the cost of levies. This remains consistent with current arrangements, where the Secretary of State takes into account all relevant factors, including previous council tax levels. Noble Lords will be aware that the effect of the clause is to reinstate the model for council tax referendums contained in the Localism Bill when it was introduced to Parliament in 2010. Not one objection was raised to the inclusion of levies during the consultation or the parliamentary debate on council tax referendums. The concept of taking account of those is familiar, having been part of the consideration of the excessiveness under the old capping regime, to which reference has been made.

Levies were removed from the provisions of the Localism Bill as part of an effort to keep certain types of expenditure from the excessiveness calculation, such as expenditure which was approved by referendum or which was not under the direct control of the authority. However, since the passing of the Localism Act, there have been two developments. First, the rate of levy increases has outstripped the national increase in council tax. In total, the levy increased by 4.1% in 2011-12 at the time of an overall council tax freeze. The coalition Government have been clear from the outset about their wish to protect people from excessive council tax increases, and the inclusion of levies in the referendum legislation supports that. Secondly, authorities have shown themselves to be consistently capable of working with levying bodies in setting them and considering the cumulative pressure on council tax. Local authorities are well represented on the majority of boards of levying authorities, and there are hundreds of examples of councils and levying bodies already meeting the terms of the schemes which require a freeze or reduction in the overall council tax bill.

The Government do not accept that local councils will simply have an excessive increase forced on them by levying bodies. We have had representations that this clause could constrain authorities that have already come together to collaborate and pool resources. We must be clear about this, too. In many areas, transport and waste disposal are run by local authorities—the noble Lord, Lord Smith, drew attention to that—and are funded through the council tax, which is subject to referendum principles. In larger metropolitan areas, these functions are carried out by joint waste and transport authorities, funded by levies that are not currently subject to the referendum principles. It is right that the spending by these large organisations, with budgets in the hundreds of millions of pounds, should be subject to the same scrutiny and accountability as happens elsewhere in the country.

I should like to make it clear that a number of authorities lobbied for this change. One was Liverpool City Council, which approached the department last year, making the case for increased consistency in the treatment of different classes of local authority. That council may be alone, but it has been done.

The question was asked about elections, including those for thirds. Decisions on council tax and on the amount of council tax charges are taken in March and local elections take place in May. If there was a referendum at the same time, local electors would be very clear what the situation was and what they were voting on. I hope that that will, if not satisfy noble Lords, clarify the points raised, and as a result I beg to move that this clause stand part of the Bill.

Local Audit and Accountability Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Monday 24th June 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Beecham]

If I might add to my noble Friend’s question, will that not deter smaller firms from engaging in the tendering process?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I am not sure that the Westminster case is very helpful now. We are a very long way down the line. As others will know, it was not a straightforward case by any stretch of the imagination. The legal action was taken to recover the surcharge, so it was not only to do with the report, but with trying to surcharge the councillors.

If the company concerned appoints an auditor, it has to stand behind them as well. That would be the expectation of indemnity in this case. I am sure it will not be unique to a company to have to do that. With regard to small auditors, the situation would remain the same. They would presumably cover themselves for the risks.

I hope the explanation is sufficient. If not, and the noble Lord has other points that I have missed, perhaps we can pick them up by correspondence.

Local Audit and Accountability Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Beecham]

Perhaps I might respond before the Minister replies, since we are in Committee. My preference would be for exclusion but as a fallback, at the very least, to have a proper tendering process, as I have explained.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for raising this interesting point, but I am bound to say that I have the same scepticism about this as the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, and my noble friend Lord Tope. It is scepticism about whether it is necessary.

The Bill currently requires local authorities or local bodies to make a new appointment every five years, as the noble Lord said. In most cases, this will require them to go through a full EU tendering process. We expect that most authorities would have that as a requirement, if not in their code of procedure then in their code of conduct. They will also have to go through the process with the independent auditor panel, which will have to manage the tendering process so that it is both independent and transparent. The independent auditor panel will also look regularly at the quality of the audit from the auditors currently doing the job. If they are not doing the job, it will not recommend that they are allowed to proceed. The Financial Reporting Council has ethical standards as well, and will require that key audit staff are rotated on a regular basis. The Government believe that the requirements for a maximum five-year term and the rotation of key staff provide sufficient assurances, along with the other measures on auditor appointment and removal, to safeguard auditor independence and the local bodies’ independence of view in taking on their auditors.

I know that there have been wider discussions about, for example, a recent Competition Commission report on the need for mandatory auditor rotation. However, we understand that the evidence that mandatory rotation supports improved auditor independence and auditor quality is inconclusive. Bearing in mind what my noble friend Lord Tope and the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, said, sometimes there is benefit in the continuation of an auditor, not on a cosy basis but because of the mere fact that, particularly with bigger authorities, you have somebody who understands the processes and what has been happening during the past five years. In any event, I think it would be wrong to exclude them from being able to tender, to bring down the barricade and say, “No, you can’t do that”.

There is sufficient professional involvement to ensure that auditors are not reappointed where they are unsuitable, where they have not done the job properly or where the local body thinks that they could do with a change of auditor and makes that clear. I do not think we need to make it mandatory that they cannot go beyond five years; that would be too draconian. I am satisfied that we have the processes in place to ensure that a full appointments system takes place every five years. If the current auditors were seen to be the most successful, they should be able to be reappointed.

I hope that that explanation will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and that he will be able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, I am not easily satisfied, and I am not completely satisfied by her reply, although I am grateful. In particular, there is still an issue about market share and the domination by large firms, which I fear will not be addressed by allowing the system outlined in the Bill. However, having heard the debate, of course I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Local Audit and Accountability Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Monday 17th June 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, the amendment would remove a regulation-making power to lift or modify the duties imposed by Clause 3 as they apply to particular bodies. Clause 3, as the noble Lord has said, requires relevant authorities other than health service bodies to keep adequate accounting records and prepare an annual statement of accounts. These are fundamental duties, and I can see why the noble Lord might question these powers. Nevertheless, there is a need for them.

Changes in the structure of local bodies may mean that the production of a statement of accounts is unnecessary or that financial accountability would be better served by including the financial transactions of an authority in the statement of another authority. To give an example of this, last year the police authorities were replaced by police and crime commissioners. In November, accountability for police finances was better served by the commissioners producing a single statement for the full year, including the transactions of the police authority. The police authorities were therefore relieved of their duty to produce published accounts for their final months, and the police commissioners thereby took on that responsibility.

I would expect the use of the power to be confined to such situations where there is a strong case that financial accountability would be better served by a modification of the duties in the clause. The accompanying power to modify the financial year has existed in audit legislation for many years but has rarely been used. I hope that that explanation will satisfy the noble Lord and enable him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

I want to ask the Minister a question that I should perhaps have raised when speaking to the earlier amendment. The Comptroller and Auditor-General was quite critical of the proposals to take policing out of the Audit Commission framework. Given that the commission is going, to what extent have the Government responded to his concerns about the auditing of police authorities?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, the police authorities are included in terms of this clause. Does that answer the noble Lord’s question? If it does not, perhaps the noble Lord will come back to me.

Local Audit and Accountability Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Wednesday 22nd May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I will follow what the noble Lord said about the Yeoman Usher. We do not like losing senior members of staff in this House. We always like them and he has been no exception. We, too, wish him well. I thank the noble Lord for giving the background to his appointment and time here. It saves me from having to do so, but I certainly endorse what he said and wish the Yeoman Usher well as he leaves this House. We will remember him fondly and affectionately for his time here.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is looking slightly sceptical. He is always very kind, although there is usually a sting in the tail. I do not I accuse him of being a scorpion—

[Lord Beecham]

That is my star sign.

[Baroness Hanham]

That was a lucky hit.

We have had a long debate on three matters within one Bill. That was most unusual. Usually we have many more and we have managed to spend nearly two hours on these three matters. Noble Lords have raised a number of points and clearly we will come back to all of them. I hope that the noble Lords who spoke today will take part in Committee, because sometimes there is a tendency for people to come and deliver their thoughts but not carry them forward in Committee. I hope as many noble Lords as possible will do that.

I have no doubt that the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Beecham, will be in their seats in Committee, and we will pick up many of the remarks and comments that have been made about the detail of what happens with the abolition of the Audit Commission. I did not get a sense of any great exasperation—except perhaps from the noble Lord, Lord Christopher—that the Audit Commission was coming to the end of its days. However, I understand that there are questions to be asked about how the process will go forward to ensure that local government has in place a proper system and that the integrity of the process of auditing is maintained.

I have sheaves of answers to questions and I do not want to go through all of them. Because of the time, everybody will want to go. I will deal with just one or two areas. The question was raised about the training and supervision of auditors. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, raised this point. Recognised supervisory bodies are being put into place and they will lay down the rules and the training that must be implicit in auditors applying to do work for local authorities. We can discuss this further, but we can be sure that there is an understanding that auditors must first understand local government finance, apart from anything else; that seems pretty basic. They will also have to be independent from the authority. This point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. There should be absolutely clear independence between the audit committee and the auditors. I think we shall be able to satisfy the noble Lord that this is what will happen.

A number of noble Lords raised the question of whether just four companies would bid for this audit. I said in my opening remarks that we expected considerably more than those four. Thirteen fulfilled the pre-qualification when it was put out. With the expectation that local authorities will seek auditors independently, or perhaps come together in a small cohort, there will be a requirement for more local auditors who are smaller companies. They will have to be properly qualified and be able to do their job, and while the suggestion is that for safety’s sake everybody will go for the big four, I hope and believe that there is an opening for others to take part.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about the difference between the auditor panel and audit committees. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, was also interested in this aspect. The audit committees were clearly the supervisory committees of the councils’ own accounts and finance; they were in-house. The auditor panel will be there to ensure that auditors are selected and chosen properly against proper backgrounds. They will also be there to ensure that the external auditors carry out their role.

It is important to take a step away and have independent members in the majority. These committees do not have to be big. I should think that most authorities would be able to find two or three people who will fulfil the role of being independent and who have some idea of what it is all about. It is not unusual for local authorities to have to find independent members; they do it for standards boards and other things, and many of them have them on their pension fund committees as well. It is not beyond the wit of local authorities to find suitable people to sit on these committees to ensure the integrity of what is being done.

The internal audit is not in the Bill because it deals only with external audit arrangements. The requirements for local authorities to maintain effective internal audit has been included in the accounts regulations since 1974. A point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, who is obviously very experienced, and he will recognise that that is the situation. The regulations are made under the Audit Commission Act but we intend that those regulations made under Clause 31 will make similar provision in the future. The requirement for health service bodies to maintain the internal audit is dealt with separately under the National Health Service Acts.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about the national fraud investigation and what will happen when the Audit Commission is abolished. A final decision has not been made on where it will be placed but it is extremely important that it carries on the work that it is doing, so we will consider it very carefully. I am sure that we can discuss that.

The noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked why the opportunity to broaden the scope of the audit was not taken. We understand that the audit of public funds needs a broader scope than the audit of companies. After consultation we decided that the same scope of the audit provides a good balance between maintaining the high quality of audit and audit fees. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, again with his experience, suggested that auditors will be reluctant to criticise that appointment for fear of not being reappointed. They have statutory duties to consider whether they need to make public interest reports; so they cannot be so biased in favour of the local authority that they do not do that. Local people have a right to appeal and they will have to deal with that as well. I do not think that they will be in a position to be reluctant; it will be part of their duties to ensure that they take those up.

We have dealt with the big four. The noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord True, and the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, asked how we would prevent mission creep in the National Audit Office’s role and said that it should not undertake studies that are not required. The National Audit Office already does studies on government spending. We expect it to add no more than about six to that, which will include local government on a wider scale rather than individual local authorities.

I shall turn to the other two areas on which we received some comments. On levying by external authorities, there are examples where those levies are a very substantial part of the council tax bill. Often, very little consideration is given by those bodies to what those levels are. It is important that they are taken account of.

On the question of retrospection and whether anything this year will be taken into account for next year, no decision has been taken at all about referendums yet. The principles for 2014 will be set out by the Secretary of State later on when he has taken into account all relevant factors, including the position of levies, in due course.

The issue of the principles that might trigger council referendums has long since passed; it was dealt with in previous legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about levies and city deals, particularly with Manchester. Again, the Secretary of State can take account of this when he is looking at the principles that might trigger a referendum, but we intend that local people should have a say before any excessive bills are imposed upon them—in other words, with a referendum.

On publicity, there have been a number of triggers. One of them is that there has been pressure on the local press from local authority newspapers; the other is that some of them have been overtly political. There are examples of where local government publications are still within the political area, and also where they are being issued so often that they are becoming a pressure on the local press. We all agree that the local press is a very important part of being able to inform local people of what is going on, and what the councils are doing. It is worth pointing out that taking action about these papers was not only in the coalition agreement but was a pledge in the general manifestos of both the coalition partners. There is a publicity code already, as noble Lords know, and it will just be a question of giving the Secretary of State powers of direction where he thinks there is an overenthusiasm on the part of local authorities undertaking these publications.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, described the direction requiring compliance with the code as being nebulous. I am sure that we will have an opportunity to discuss that further in due course.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked about statutory notices. We are aware of the burden that placing statutory notices in newspapers has on local authorities. The Secretary of State has stated that,

“in the internet age … commercial newspapers should expect that over time there will be less state advertising”.—[Official Report, Commons, Seventh Delegated Legislation Committee, 23/3/11; col. 18.]

That would imply that they can be carried out in other ways.

I know we are going to come back to many of these points. Noble Lords must forgive me if I have not specifically picked up any of the points that they have made. If they think that it would be helpful to have a reply before we go into Committee where I have not answered them I will make sure that happens. Otherwise, I look forward—

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Monday 28th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

There is, of course, also £300 million in the Government’s programme for affordable housing. I have today tabled a Question for Written Answer, which might be anticipated by the Minister, as to where that is going.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I apologise. I was not sure whether the exchange across the House had been totally completed.

[Lord Beecham]

Neither was I.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, within this group of amendments we cover some of the ground we have already covered, so I will try only to fly over the top of that. These are important amendments and I want to do them justice.

Clause 6, as we have discussed, has a clear and specific purpose: to get houses built. It will deliver private and affordable homes where those homes are currently stalled. As I said at Second Reading, stalled sites represent no local growth, no community benefit and no new housing. Across the country, we have 1,400 stalled sites, with the capacity for 75,000 homes, including affordable housing. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked me whether we could say how much affordable housing was caught up in this. Local authorities hold that information; it is not necessarily passed back to central government. I therefore cannot give him a definitive response to that, except to say that we know that a good percentage of that 75,000 is affordable housing.

We know that many councils are voluntarily renegotiating to bring sites forward; we have discussed how this can be voluntary. We are in favour of this good practice. We are supporting this approach through a mediation service, bringing together local authorities and developers to help unlock sites, so that they can come together, discuss it and see how they can move on. But where authorities and developers are unable to come to agreement, developers should have a right to challenge. Current legislation prevents the developer appealing formally for five years. This is too long when we need homes.

There may need to be a fundamental review of obligations for those agreed at the peak of the market. We intend to make regulations in the coming weeks to allow earlier renegotiation of all planning obligations agreed prior to April 2010. That was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham: voluntarily, before 2010, you could do that but the regulations will make that part of legislation. These negotiations can take time and be costly and complex, so we are also ensuring that there is a rapid, focused mechanism for a review of the affordable housing element only, where the viability of the scheme is at stake, with a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

Affordable housing often comprises the largest single contribution on residential schemes, which is why we have focused there. Research in 2007-08 found that about 50% of all planning obligations are for affordable housing. There should also be capacity to vary the affordable housing provision in most cases. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked what we meant by “affordable housing”. That can be found on page 50 of the National Planning Policy Framework. I will give a snapshot and then the noble Lord can look it up for himself. Affordable housing is:

“Social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing, provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market … Homes that do not meet the above definition of affordable housing, such as ‘low cost market’ housing, may not be considered as affordable housing for planning purposes”.

Those are the three major elements.

It is important to understand that we are not proposing that developers can somehow avoid their obligations, which was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, earlier. We are simply allowing a review to be made to ensure a viable and deliverable scheme as agreed. Furthermore, we are not proposing that developers can ensure blanket removal of affordable housing requirements for their schemes. We are requiring an evidence-based approach that will adjust the affordable housing requirement by only the amount necessary to bring the scheme into viability. This would not be wholesale removal except in the most extreme cases.

Evidence will be key to this process. Developers will have to submit revised evidence to the local authority to justify why their current planning obligation is not viable. The local authority will be free to respond to this proposal and be able to collect its own evidence if it wishes. Concerns are often expressed about the quality of viability evidence. However, robust evidence must be the best basis on which to make a judgment on the viability.

To assist as much as we can in ensuring consistency in how developers and councils approach this new process, we intend to issue guidance to support this clause. The guidance will not advocate a single methodology for viability assessment, but it will work with industry practice. It will be clear on what developers need to do to support their application for review. We will discuss the guidance with professional bodies and it will be published in due course, but I hope that we will be able to have a discussion about it before Report. The guidance will also be clear on the flexibilities open to local authorities to encourage developers to start on site and to get development going.

Overall, this measure presents a real opportunity to stimulate local housing growth by ensuring that consents are viable and realistic. The provision will not affect those affordable housing contributions that are planned on viable sites; in other words, where the costing stacks up, the developers cannot come back and suggest that they contribute less affordable housing. However, the measure provides for adjusting unattainable levels of affordable housing on unviable sites. Those values may have been estimated during a high point in the market, and we are clearly not there at the moment.

I turn now to the amendments in this group. Amendments 55A and 55CD would limit the life of the clause to those planning obligations in place at the time of Royal Assent or three years after Royal Assent—this is the sunset clause. I understand the arguments being made that the intent of the clause is to address obligations made in different economic circumstances. It is about giving developers the opportunity to review affordable housing requirements and bring forward stalled sites. The difficulty that I have with the amendment, which allows applications in relation to existing obligations only, is that it assumes that we are now in a period of stability in the market and that any obligation made currently should not be challenged on the grounds of viability because we know that all is well in the property market. If we knew all the factors that were to be involved and their impact on a developer’s viability—namely, construction costs, sales values and borrowing costs—and if those were certain and fixed for the foreseeable future, we could focus on the past only. However, evidence from public sources, such as the Office for Budget Responsibility, indicates that we are not actually there yet. Evidence indicates varying performance up and down the country. House price growth remains subdued across most of the country. The recently announced 2.5% house price increases in England were driven by a 5% rise in London and a 3% increase in the south-east. Elsewhere across the country there is still a wide variation in house price growth.

There remains uncertainty in the housing market. The Government continue to provide strong support for housing growth—for example, the NewBuy and FirstBuy schemes—and we are making progress. Net additions are up 11%. Nevertheless, the wider market remains uncertain. While transactions are up year on year, they are down around 47% compared to pre-recession levels. So we do not yet have the certainty that we would like on the housing market and associated viability. The clause already includes, as noble Lords have said, a provision to allow the Secretary of State to switch off the provision by order. This has been drafted in a way that allows for a judgment to be made at the appropriate time, based on the state and stability of the housing market.

However, I am clear from the debate that we have had today that greater certainty on this would be desirable. I am also very conscious of the report published last week by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House. We are giving the report and its recommendations very careful consideration, especially in relation to the suggestion that a sunset date should be considered. Therefore I think it would be more helpful if we return to this matter on Report, and I hope that I can have some further discussions with noble Lords before we get there.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Monday 28th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, can the Minister enlighten us on the robustness of the attribution to affordable housing allocations in terms of the 75,000 houses affected by this lack of viability? The information was given in a Written Statement last September by Mark Prisk MP, the relevant Minister. It did not distinguish between general viability issues and those that might have been occasioned by the inclusion within the affordable housing provisions, which have not been acted on.

Mention has been made of the £300 million the Government are making available to compensate for losses under Section 106. Has any of that been used to reduce this number of 75,000 and, if so, upon what basis? Can the Minister enlighten us on that—if not tonight, then subsequently? Viability can of course be called into question. There is a variety of problems, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has just mentioned. They might particularly relate to buying at the top of the market and finding that land and other values have fallen since. That makes the problem of viability clear, but there could be other factors as well. If we are moving towards a position where guidance is to be given on viability after the consultation that has already been referred to, it would be sensible to distinguish between the different factors that contribute to the viability problems that are perceived to occur.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for his brevity in moving the amendment. He was so brief that I thought I might be able to leap up and be as brief in response; I have been thwarted on that.

There are two or three questions with which I want to deal quickly. First, on the availability guidance, I cannot promise to have the guidance available but I think I will be in a position to talk to noble Lords in a general way before Report, which they might find helpful. So I am arranging to set up meetings to discuss one or two technical aspects of the Bill before we get to Report. That will be for all Peers, so I hope that that will be useful.

With regard to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Burnett, the consultation was on the pre-2010 regulations rather than Clause 6 of the Bill. The Government’s response to the consultation will be made available to noble Lords shortly. I cannot say when “shortly” is, but I hope that we will have it before us.

I have a long reply here for the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, but I suggest that I write to him. With that, I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his amendment.

Local Government: Provisional Finance Settlement

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his contribution. I also thank him for acknowledging that we recognise that local government is efficient—at least most of it is, although some is not. As regards the 50 areas of good practice that my right honourable friend in the other place has produced, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, is correct: local authorities can learn from each others’ good practice, and there is good practice. There is good practice already across the piece where people are sharing services, chief executives and back office services and are procuring together. However, this applies to by no means all local authorities. This is where they need to learn from each other.

The Local Government Association has in its midst councils that are doing this and organisations within councils that are setting these good examples. I agree that local authorities can do good practice, but what they need to do is to bring it together and work together as much as they can.

The new efficiency support grant affects a very small number of councils above the 8.8%. I will let the noble Lord know the exact amount of it, but it is there to help them bring down their expenditure. Regarding public health announcements, we are still waiting for those but I cannot tell my noble friend when they are going to be announced.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of Newcastle City Council not in receipt of a council pension. I ask the noble Baroness, the Minister to explain the relevance of the comparison of Wokingham to Newcastle, given that, for example, the rate of unemployment in Newcastle is four times that of Wokingham. Does she not consider that there may well be a greater spending need in Newcastle and authorities like it than in councils in the Royal County of Berkshire, such as Wokingham, Windsor and Maidenhead, which has also been adduced in support of the Government’s position?

Secondly, given that the Secretary of State is so exercised about reserves, what are the Government proposing to say to the Greater London Authority which has added 60% to its reserves—£585 million in the past year—while at the same time receiving £27 million of damping grant? What will she say to Surrey County Council, which has received £40 million of damping grant, which it put into its reserves and added further amounts to it? Is this a matter of concern, and if so what will the Government do about it?

I have two other questions, the first of which is: will the Government reconsider their position on the cost of appeals against rating valuations for business rates, which at the moment they propose not to finance, even in respect of appeals relating to the period before the new business rate regime comes in. The Government, having had the money, apparently do not intend to contribute to the cost of any successful appeals. What is the logic behind that?

Finally, in relation to council tax benefit and the grant that is to go to local authorities, why have the Government chosen to ignore the most recent figures of benefit claims for the current year with the result that, in Newcastle for example, an anticipated 10% reduction will probably translate into more than 14% because of the failure to use the most recent figures. If it is too late to alter that figure for this year, and I hope it is not, will the Government at least use the most up-to-date figures for the remaining years of the settlement?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, let us start with the reserves. The Government have a very firm position on this. They recognise that local authorities need reserves; indeed, in the current economic situation, they may have to call on reserves to help them deal with some of their finances. However, there are local authorities that are sitting on enormous unallocated reserves, and those are the ones that the Secretary of State believes ought to be challenged. Where local authorities are sitting on vast sums, they should be looking at how best they can use them to support their expenditure.

Regarding the cost of appeals, within the business rate retention scheme an allowance will be made for appeals that are already in the pipeline. Those that will come subsequently are a different matter and they will have to be dealt with at that time. The 10% reduction in council tax benefit is there to help with efficiency; to ensure that local authorities administer this in the best way that they possibly can; and to ensure that any system they set up can, if necessary, be supported by other reductions within their council tax budgets.

Housing Act 1996 (Additional Preference for Armed Forces) (England) Regulations 2012

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)]

My Lords, these regulations, which were laid before the House on 18 October, will ensure that members of the Regular and Reserve Armed Forces and bereaved spouses and partners of service personnel are given priority for social housing if they need it when serving or after they have left the Armed Forces. If approved by this House and the other place, the regulations would come into effect later this month.

The Government are determined to help current and former members of the Armed Forces to gain the housing that they deserve. We have already put in place a raft of measures to deliver on our commitment. For instance, we have already made sure that serving members of the Armed Forces have top priority for all government-funded home ownership schemes, including the FirstBuy scheme, which help families to get a foot on the housing ladder. Former service personnel also have priority for FirstBuy for up to a year after active service and, if they die in service, this priority can be transferred to a bereaved spouse or civil partner. Forces personnel are already benefiting from FirstBuy, with 143 members of the Armed Forces having already been helped to buy a home. In addition, a further 5,500 service personnel have been approved for government support to buy their own home through FirstBuy, shared ownership and the Ministry of Defence’s Armed Forces home ownership scheme.

We are providing support for wounded service personnel through increased funding for home adaptations so that those who are injured or disabled on active duty can live independently or with support in their own homes. Preventing and tackling homelessness among veterans has been one of the priorities of the Ministerial Working Group on Homelessness. However, we are also determined to ensure that service families are not disadvantaged by their service requirements and that they are given proper priority for social housing if they need it. That is why we have already changed the law by regulation to ensure that, when local authorities set the rules that decide who qualifies to go on their waiting list, they cannot apply local connection criteria to disqualify service personnel. This is in recognition of the fact that a local connection rule can disadvantage forces personnel, because the nature of their service requires them to be mobile and often not to have a permanent address. These regulations came into force on 24 August.

The law already ensures that anyone, including service men and women, who has an identified housing need—for example because they are homeless or have medical needs—is given “reasonable preference” for social housing. The statutory reasonable preference categories make certain that, overall, priority for social housing is given to those who need it most and that local authorities take a consistent approach to housing need. Nevertheless, the pressure on social housing in many parts of the country means that even those who have reasonable preference may have to wait for some time before suitable housing becomes available. The regulations before us today will go further and require that, where former and serving members of the Armed Forces are identified as having an urgent need for social housing, they are always given the highest priority—so-called “additional preference”. For other people in urgent housing need, local authorities will continue to have a power to give them high priority but will not be required to do so.

We consulted on proposals to give additional preference to those who had previously served in the Regular Forces and who were identified as having an urgent need for social housing. The consultation closed at the end of March this year. The response to the consultation was supportive of the proposed regulations, but it highlighted the housing needs of those who are still serving but who may have been seriously injured on active service and those of bereaved families. We have decided, therefore, to extend these regulations to apply to: serving members of the Regular Armed Forces who are suffering from a serious injury, illness or disability as a result of their service; bereaved spouses and civil partners of service personnel when they have to leave service family accommodation following the death of their spouse or civil partner; and serving and former members of the Reserve Forces who are suffering from a serious illness, injury or disability as a result of their service

We set out our intention to broaden the scope of the regulations in this way in the summary analysis of responses to the consultation that we published at the end of June. We think that it is right to extend this additional priority to wounded service men and women—not just to those who have left the forces—as we recognise that they may need to move out of military accommodation to suitably adapted social housing before they complete their service. It is also right that we recognise the part that members of our Reserve Forces play, many of whom serve on the front line alongside Regular Forces. I am glad to say that most reservists return safely to civilian life. However, if they are injured on active service, they may find that their current accommodation is no longer suitable for their needs or no longer affordable, or they may have to move to access care or support.

Where members of the Armed Forces have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country, we must ensure that we continue to support their bereaved spouse or partner when they are required to leave military accommodation, just as they have given support to their spouse and partner by giving up their independence to accompany them from base to base.

Our service men and women are practical, resilient and resourceful. The vast majority of those who leave the Armed Forces will have made arrangements to meet their housing needs, often long before their service comes to an end. Nevertheless, there will continue to be some who, for whatever reason, have no home to go to when they leave. They will often be the most vulnerable. I need hardly say that we all owe a huge debt to those brave men and women in the Regular and Reserve Forces who lay their lives on the line for their country and to those who have lost their loved ones serving on the front line. We must ensure that, when they urgently need a place to live, social housing is available for them. These regulations are intended to do just that. I commend them to the House.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, all Members of your Lordships’ House would welcome any steps taken to realise the aspirations of the military covenant and to support members of the Armed Forces and their families, who do so much for us all, often in conditions of great danger and often with unhappy results in terms of their own health and well-being. To that extent, of course, we join the Minister in supporting these provisions. They build, to a degree, on actions taken by the preceding Government, who for the first time accorded equality of priority to members of the Armed Forces for housing allocation.

I cannot resist the slight temptation, however, to point out that the Localism Act 2011, which freed councils to determine who should have priority, has to a degree been superseded in this case. I do not dissent from the judgment on that through a requirement that the military should indeed receive the highest priority, but it puts the repeated assertions of the virtues of the Localism Act in a slightly different perspective. However, I suspect that that will not much interest those who will benefit from these provisions.

Housing is a major concern of the military community. There has been a study by the Army Families Federation, from which it would appear that housing remains the most significant issue for members of the military and their families. I cannot forbear to point out that the Government have reduced their budget for providing their own direct accommodation.

Of course, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, there is a great demand for social housing. I repeat that it is right that the military should come top of the list. The fundamental problem, of course, is simply that we do not have sufficient social or affordable housing. Other measures that the previous Government introduced, in conjunction with those that the present Government have adopted, have perhaps made some impact on the access to housing and the various ways in which houses might be purchased. However, affordable housing has very much slipped down the Government’s housing agenda. It looks as though it is going to slip further, because from the recent announcements about the building programme and so on it seems that the builders will not be required to maintain the same proportion—many of us frankly thought that it was too low in any event, even under the preceding Government—of new build in the affordable category, let alone in the affordable rented category. I therefore have some concerns that, valuable though this provision is, against the context of the diminished social housing and affordable housing pools there will be greater stress on those requiring accommodation. I therefore argue for a substantial expansion of affordable housing provision, particularly in the rented sector.

Housing is a key issue for members of the military and their families, but it is not the only issue; I am sure that the Minister would agree with that. Unhappily, veterans are found in greater numbers among those who come before the courts and who suffer from post-traumatic stress and other mental health disorders. In addition to providing adequate, proper social housing places in which people who have served their country in this way want to live, we need to provide the other services that will help them to reintegrate into the community and lead the normal life to which they would aspire.

My authority, on behalf of the Association of North East Councils—I was not personally involved in this—produced a report last year about the position of veterans in relation to health services and other matters. I will ensure that the Minister receives a copy of that. It is not just a matter for her department; it clearly extends to other departments, notably, but not exclusively, the Department of Health. A more holistic approach would complement the priority that these regulations justly provide for those in the community to whom we all owe a great deal.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for all the information he provided. I turn again to the position that local authorities will make up their own schemes, work out their budgets and decide within the mechanism of what they have got what they need to do. We have already said that they have the flexibility within those budgets to decide what they do to make the council tax support work. Considering putting this back for three years would not give any stability at all to this whole process.

[Lord Beecham]

The noble Baroness means “bringing this back in three years”.

[Baroness Hanham]

I am sorry; that is quite right. I hope and expect that, by that stage, things will be well settled down and we will have moved on substantially so that that is not necessary. The Government will resist the amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, in the absence of any indication of positive support from the Government or anywhere else in the House, and given the lateness of the hour and the relatively small number of Members, however talented, that we have around us, I feel obliged—very reluctantly—to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

I certainly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said and support the thrust of the noble Baroness’s amendments. The first is a matter essentially for the local authorities. The second impinges on the role of bailiffs. We had a discussion in the Committee stage of the Crime and Courts Bill when I moved an amendment urging the Government to produce a regulatory system for bailiffs, about which there had been a great deal of controversy. The previous Government had passed the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 which envisaged a code of practice dealing with a whole range of issues, some of which were touched on in the noble Baroness’s Amendment 109ZB.

We were informed in the Committee stage of the Crime and Courts Bill that the consultation period that the Government had initiated about that whole area was ending on 14 May and that conclusions would be reached in the autumn. Well, we are in the autumn—we avoided having a summer in the mean time—and it would be interesting to know how things are going in that respect, although I do not expect the noble Baroness the Minister to know offhand. It seems to me, and it might seem to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, that it would be sensible to draw the two discussions together, because certainly as far as the role of bailiffs is concerned, clearly critical to Amendment 109ZB, there are also wider implications. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, was dealing with this matter, but I think that she may have moved on and it is probably the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who now has the remit for this. It would be helpful if the Minister could consult with whoever is now dealing with this matter to see what is happening on that front so that we can have a clear indication of the Government’s thinking—I hope before Third Reading, which does not leave a lot of time—so that the noble Baroness might have an opportunity, if necessary, to press something on that occasion. Therefore it would be helpful if the Minister would indicate that she would be prepared to take this issue back, looking at it with the other department and letting noble Lords know how the land lies in respect of bailiffs and enforcement measures generally, but in particular in relation to council tax.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for moving this amendment. Again, we had some discussion about it in Committee. I have some sympathy about the way in which these enforcements are carried out and the fact that, as the noble Baroness said, sometimes they may simply not be known about.

Again, this is a matter for local authorities. They have to recognise that they have to treat this issue sympathetically, pragmatically and sensibly. I know that it is felt that they do not always do that. I do not think that it is a government direction to do that but—I notice the expression on the noble Baroness’s face—I do think that we can do something in terms of guidance on how they go about this. I will combine, if I may, the two points about guidance because the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, raised the question of the MoJ consultations. We know that those have been concluded, and we also know that there has not yet been a result from them because we have been pressing to see whether we could get anything for today. The MoJ is looking at the question of bailiffs very widely, and we need to look at it from the point of view of enforcement of council tax issues.

I would like to suggest to the noble Baroness that we issue guidance from the DCLG, and that she and her advisers have an opportunity to talk to us about how that guidance should be set up and what should be included. I do not guarantee that we will take it all on board but I think that there is much experience around there that would be helpful. Once the MoJ comes to a conclusion and gets its guidance sorted out, we can pull these together so that there is a comprehensive document. Given that I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns and that we will respond in this way, I hope that she will be willing to withdraw her amendment.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Wednesday 10th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his coolness under fire. I heard most of what he said and I hope that other Members in the Chamber did as well.

Perhaps I may deal, first, with the consultation—which the noble Lord asked me about—because I think that it is most relevant to what I am going to say next. We have been consulting on the threshold over the summer. That consultation has only just ended. There have been 400 responses and so before we make an announcement on the level of percentage reduction, we need to look at those. That will happen later. At the moment, we are still sitting between 7.5% and 10%.

[Lord Beecham]

I thank the Minister for that. What will be the process? Will the safety net limit be prescribed by regulations so that we would then have an opportunity to debate it? Presumably the results of the consultation will be available for us to consider at that time, if not before.

[Baroness Hanham]

The answer on regulations is yes. What comes out of the consultation will either be in the regulations or, if we can make it available, we will. Is that helpful? That probably sets the scene for us on this amendment.

We have always been clear that the levy and the safety net were as one. The reason for the levy is to provide money for the safety net. They cannot be separated. The reason for the levy relates to disproportionate growth, in that people have more than they should have in terms of equalisation and that money will go to the safety net. The safety net is to deal with a sudden collapse of a business or something mega happening that leaves the local authority without finance or as much finance as it needs.

In considering the safety net, we thought that it should not be so generous that authorities cease to care about whether their business rates grow or decline. We want the system to provide an incentive to authorities, first, to maintain and then to grow their business rates. Secondly, the safety net cannot be so lacking in generosity that vital local services are put at risk when authorities see, even temporarily, a decline in the business rates, particularly as this can be for reasons entirely outside the authority’s control—we recognise that—for example, because of losses on appeal. We have discussed what happens on appeal. That can be supported by the safety net. Thirdly, wherever the safety net is set, we need to keep an eye on the scale of the levy that would be needed to fund it. A safety net that requires a very stringent levy might work for the safety net, but if it means that authorities keep next to nothing of any growth that they generate, it will have failed the overall scheme.

I will not pretend that this is an easy judgment about what to do. It is not. It is one that, initially at least, we believe is met by setting the safety net threshold, as I have just explained, somewhere between 7.5% and 10% below baseline funding level; in other words, guaranteeing authorities somewhere between 90% and 92.5% of the funding that they could expect to see from the rates retention scheme. We will want to keep this under review and possibly adjust these percentages in the light of the actual operation of the scheme and certainly as a result of the consultation. Building fixed percentages into the Bill would effectively deny us the opportunity to respond to the concerns of local government, in future, if the percentages turn out to be either too high or too low.

I am not sure that I understand the problems that Amendment 50 seeks to address, and I am not persuaded that the concerns that underpin it are justified. It is undoubtedly true that a major redevelopment to, say, a town centre, could cause a temporary loss of income before the potential benefits of the scheme come to fruition. But if such a loss were significant, it would be covered by the safety net, which, as I explained earlier, would guarantee the authority between 90% and 92.5% of its baseline funding. To create, therefore, a special class of events—redevelopment—where an authority could be guaranteed to secure more than 90% to 92.5% of its funding, as this amendment would effectively do, seems to be wrong in principle. Why just redevelopment and why not other things? I am sure that other authorities could make a case for other one-off events which might, they would claim, be equally deserving of special treatment. Moreover, by providing indemnity for the early-years loss of income, we might end up with the law of unintended consequences and find ourselves simply indemnifying delay in bringing schemes to fruition, with all parties safe in the knowledge that no cost will fall to them. Where there is a redevelopment, obviously there is an initial loss of money, but the expectation is that as redevelopment takes place, the rating potential will come back in. I hope that explanation will satisfy the noble Lord and he will withdraw his amendment.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Tuesday 24th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hanham]

The noble Lady is not going to get better than that. I have had a huge number of detailed questions about the Social Fund. They are all the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions, by and large, until those things are formally announced and we can see how they are going to work. We will ensure that noble Lords and the noble Baroness receive any further information that there is.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, but there is an aspect of this which I do not think has been touched on and that is that there is a new burdens aspect, not in respect of the transfer of the money, but in the cost of administering delivery of the scheme. Presumably, the cost at the moment is borne by the DWP. That cost will have to be met, in one way or another, by the local authorities now actually administering the scheme. Have the DWP or the Department for Communities and Local Government costed that aspect, and will it provide the resources for local authorities under the new burdens doctrine?

[Baroness Hanham]

The answer to the noble Lord’s question is yes. The Government have said that any new burdens will be funded and the amount of the new burden will be based on what the Department for Work and Pensions currently spends to administer these parts of the Social Fund.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Thursday 19th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, we are still on the default scheme. If the council is required to adopt the default scheme, the benefits remain at 100%. If it takes on the default scheme as a local scheme, it will make its own adjustments to whatever it believes that it can do. If it sets up its own scheme, the 100% will only come about for a limited number of people on very low income, and it can then taper it up and down depending on people’s income because they will be means-tested at that stage. I am trying to make it clear that the default scheme is the legal backstop for local authorities that do not have one on 31 January. They do not have to adopt it, but they can as their own local scheme. I hope that I have contributed as much as possible on this matter.

[Lord Beecham]

I hope not, because I am afraid that I have another question. Assuming that, as the noble Baroness says, the scheme operates as a default scheme—assuming that people have not been able to consult and do not have their own schemes, so the default scheme is in position—the 100% people will remain at 100%. To what extent does the default scheme provide for other categories of people whose benefits would, presumably, therefore have to be adjusted? Is there flexibility within the default scheme—I confess that I have not ploughed through it—to see the impact on other people, or would there be a requirement to provide the current proportion of benefit to those people? If so, the financial problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred would be compounded.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, if the default scheme is taken on as the main scheme and not a legal backdrop—

[Lord Beecham]

No; as a legal backdrop scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, this should be a fairly short debate. Given the limited time for consultation, particularly the limited period between now and the end date of January by which schemes have to be approved, the risk exists that some councils—particularly those in shire county areas, to which my noble friend Lady Hollis has referred fairly frequently throughout the Committee—will have difficulty in conducting a full consultation process. The Government have indicated that the normal three-month period may be reduced. However, in any event we will have a summer month—well, a month—when people are likely to be away. August is almost upon us, and that is not a good time to engage in proper or full consultation with the range of individuals, organisations and precepting authorities that will be required, particularly in the shire county areas.

Given the proliferation of schemes we are likely to see, there is therefore a danger that when people begin to compare one with another, as they no doubt eventually will, there may be a challenge to some authorities’ schemes. That will perhaps be in good part because the local authority has not been able to consult as fully as it would have wished or would be expected to do. Since that would be a consequence of this government-imposed timetable, particularly its start and end dates, it seems only reasonable in that event—providing that a court would be satisfied that it is a question of the externally imposed timetable, rather than any culpability on the part of the local authority—for the Secretary of State to reimburse the local authority for any costs.

I hope that this is an academic point and will not materialise in practice. It may be that the Bill is not necessarily the place for it. However, I seek some assurance from the Government that if an authority is caught out in these circumstances, they would look sympathetically at its plight and seek to make good any cost to the authority incurred otherwise than by its own neglect. That is because any additional costs will ultimately fall not upon the council but upon the very council tax payers for whom these benefits—or discounts, as they will become—are intended in the first place. That would be reasonable; there should not be many cases, but there may be some. It would be hard on an authority for its council tax payers to have to bear that cost, particularly in the shire districts that have to consult with a number of precepting authorities, including their county. I hope that the Minister will look at that position sympathetically, not necessarily in the form of legislation, as this is a probing amendment, but by way of a policy stance.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of this amendment. Paragraph 3(1) of new Schedule 1A to the 1992 Act requires local authorities to consult with their major precepting authorities, publish a draft scheme and consult on that scheme with,

“such other persons as it considers are likely to have an interest”,

in its operation of that scheme before they make it. The amendment seeks to require the Government to indemnify a local authority for costs associated with any legal challenge made to it in respect of a failure fully to comply with the requirements if that failure was because of any delay in the sub-paragraph coming into force or the late issuing of guidance or regulations. The Government have taken—and will be taking—steps to ensure that no local authority is in a position where it cannot comply with the requirements in Paragraph 3(1).

Let me clearly reiterate that local authorities have been aware of this policy and its proposed implementation for some time. The policy was first announced in the spending review of 2010. In August 2011, we published a consultation on this policy, followed by a government response alongside the draft Bill in December 2011. Since then, we have provided information and funding to help local authorities design their schemes.

On Report in the other place, the Government amended the Bill to allow for consultation on a scheme to take place before the Bill receives Royal Assent and the provision comes into force. Paragraph 3(2) of new Schedule 1A means this should not be a barrier to local authorities proceeding. The Government have published detailed statements of intent for the key sets of regulations and draft regulations for the two key areas, the default scheme and the prescribed requirements, including requirements for pensioners, while the Bill is still in this House. Since then we have provided information, tools and funding to help local authorities design their schemes. The Government have already published the guidance they promised on existing local authority responsibilities in relation to vulnerable groups and promoting work incentives. The Government have issued a funding consultation setting out provisional funding allocations for all authorities. We have also provided a free online calculator to help local authorities analyse the potential impacts of their proposed schemes, and we have announced and paid out £30 million of initial funding to help meet the costs of planning and analysing draft schemes.

It does not seem to me that there are any grounds for the noble Lord’s amendment, since local authorities already have the detailed information they need to design and consult on a scheme and need not be constrained by the timescale for primary or secondary legislation coming into force to comply with the requirements on them to consult. With this explanation, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

One basic premise underlies the Minister’s assertions, which is that the Bill will pass in its present form. I think that is a somewhat premature conclusion. Changes could be made. We are not yet at Report stage, let alone at Third Reading or Royal Assent, and authorities are being asked to proceed with these schemes in advance of the completion of the legislation. If the Government had accepted, as they should have done, the proposal to delay implementation, particularly in respect of this aspect of the Bill, there would not be a problem. There would be ample time to consult properly and, indeed, to prepare schemes thoroughly.

As for the information that is supplied, I have here two of the three documents that were published last Friday—I can just about hold them—entitled Draft Council Tax Reduction Scheme (Prescribed Requirements) Regulations. If authorities had been consulting before now—there were, no doubt, in general terms—they are going to have to go back and wade through this document, which is not 150 pages, but only 87 pages, coupled with the Explanatory Notes which, at first glance, explain very little. That is before the default scheme, which we discussed earlier this afternoon. I do not have a copy of that at the moment, but I think it is the 150-page document that the Minister said is very clear and apparently does not much change the existing scheme. I do not know whether that is the case because I have not seen the document. It would be interesting to know whether the Explanatory Notes refer to any changes between the existing scheme and the current scheme because if it was just the existing scheme, it would presumably not be necessary to publish anything. People would just be referred to existing schemes, so I am assuming there must be changes, otherwise it would not require the publication of anything very much.

The Minister referred to the consultation requirement. In fact, as my noble friend Lord McKenzie implied earlier, there are two consultations because you have to consult the precepting authorities first. In county areas, there is the shire county and there may also be a police authority. Sometimes it is part of the county council, and sometimes it is not. If we take the Thames valley, for example, there would be a precepting authority for policing covering a number of counties, so the districts in those areas will have to consult it as a precepting authority and perhaps also a separate fire authority. I am not sure about other areas, but in metropolitan areas, there will also be a passenger transport authority as well as the police and fire authorities, so there will be at least three precepting authorities to consult. District councils will presumably want to consult each other, if only because of the relationship with the precepting authorities. This is not a simple process. It is to be conducted not only in advance of legislation, but in a hurry.

It may be all right on the night, but if it is not, it is not likely to be the fault of authorities, particularly small authorities with limited resources. That has not happened. As the Opposition, all we are asking for is an understanding on the part of the Government if things go wrong in terms of a judicial review and that, if it can be established that the authority is not at fault, but simply has not been able to manage this complex process, then they will meet the costs. The noble Baroness has pointed out, perfectly fairly, that £30 million has been provided to help local authorities through the process. I do not think we are looking at anything like that amount in the event of a few charges by way of judicial review. The noble Baroness is not giving any ground tonight. I hope she will look at this again before Report stage and consult with colleagues and perhaps with the Local Government Association as well, which I do not think has expressed a view about this, but which may do well to consider its position. The LGA will no doubt help its member authorities, but these are not straightforward, simple matters. As I say, the whole thing rests on an assumption that may yet prove to be unfounded, that the Bill will pass in its present form.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, before the noble Lord makes a decision about his amendment, it might be helpful to remind the Committee that when we were talking about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, earlier, we said that we would write to him and set out the very few differences that there are in these regulations. I am advised that the annex to the Explanatory Notes sets out those limited number of changes and the relationships between the two lots.

[Lord Beecham]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, while hoping that we return to the matter.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Monday 16th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Beecham]

With respect, a decent basic family income is needed. That is the starting point. I entirely agree with him about the other things. Matters for local concern include how much should be put into the school meals service, what price should be charged for school meals, and how you promote the take-up of these benefits. That is a strong function of local government, particularly as the Government, as I said in a previous debate in Committee, declined to say, in answer to a parliamentary Question of mine, that they would make efforts to increase the take-up of benefits. The £1.8 billion of unclaimed council tax benefit—much of it, by the way, due to owner-occupying pensioners—is a matter that local councils could and should be promoting.

In my authority, I helped to initiate the welfare rights service in 1974, when I was chairman of the social services committee. Under administrations of different political colours, it has been a very successful authority in promoting take-up of one kind or another. However, that is not the same thing as having a sound basic income. Of course, some authorities have been looking at options. I have here 13 pages of options about local council tax support and one of them is to remove child benefit income disregards. At the moment, that is a national provision. That is one option that they are considering and no doubt they will be consulting, along with the other 40 or 50 recommendations, in the short time that they have before they have to implement them, as we heard earlier. The effect of that on 2,025 families would potentially be an average difference per week of £3.09. That is not a lot to anyone in this room but for people who are living on the margins, that £3 a week is quite significant. That is something that, under the dispensation of the noble Lord, Deben, that particular council has on the table, although I am not saying that it will choose that. I do not think that this is at all acceptable.

We are debating this matter in the Moses Room. We have Moses and the “Judgment of Daniel”. It occurred to me that the judgment of another of my co-religionists might have been relevant in these debates, the judgment of Solomon, as that is what we are looking at. We are looking at utterly impossible decisions about how you carve up—not in this case a child—child benefit or many of these other benefits. That is not acceptable in a modern society.

To return to the remarks made earlier this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, there is certainly a balance between local and central. The Government are offloading responsibilities to localities in a way that is absolutely irrelevant to the needs of the people who most need that basic entitlement which, thank God, has been extended to them since we got rid of the Poor Law and that kind of local decision-making which was in the hands of a minority of people which so damaged the lives of generations of our citizens.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I refer to the comments just made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and by one or two other Members of the Committee about the present situation. The noble Lord has defined people in poverty and children in poverty and what is happening now under a national scheme. It is not a scheme that is operated by local authorities but one that is operated nationally. I am sure that the noble Lord will have known of many people who have looked for disability allowance and carers’ allowance, who have not been granted them. Do not start by thinking that the current scheme is brilliant because it is not. There are certainly disparities across the country where there are different needs. There may be different needs in cities or in rural areas for children in poverty and children in need. It is for local authorities to decide where those vulnerable people are. There will be more disabled people and pensioners in one local authority than there will be in another. Would it not be right for that local authority to have the right to make the decisions on what is required and make a scheme according to what it knows and who lives in the area? We have had a long dissertation today on vulnerability but it actually turned out to be yet another go at the scheme itself.

The fact of the matter is that the council benefit scheme was removed entirely from universal credit and there is therefore not the slightest point in trying to equate the two and include the scheme again. We are dealing with a situation where localism and local authorities are going to deal with council tax benefit, otherwise there would not be any such benefit—or else there would have to be some form of top slicing to enable the money to be raised. Let us get real about this. Let us be absolutely clear what we are talking about. We are talking about putting the scheme locally because we believe—I accept that the Opposition does not—that local authorities can be trusted to develop schemes that are relevant to people in their areas.

The noble Baroness and one or two others talked about the dividing line between what happens regarding those schemes in Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, Rotherham and Preston. Local authorities are already administering schemes. They make decisions daily on criteria regarding who is eligible for one scheme or another. They do that in relation to children, old people, health and public health. They are making decisions all the time. Why say that they cannot make decisions on this? Of course they can and they consider what schemes they should put together.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, produced 20 options. If I was putting together a scheme such as this, I would expect at least 50% of the options to be totally unacceptable. I would know that they were totally unacceptable and that they would never get further than the discussion stage. However, you have to look at those options and take them into account. We need to shift this discussion on to the basis of looking at what local authorities are doing and what they need to do. The council tax benefit scheme is already there with its criteria and all its ramifications. Local authorities know what the current scheme involves.

I simply do not accept the arguments that have been put. I very much thank my noble friend Lord Deben for one of his rare but gallant performances, and for providing some sparkling entertainment between him and the noble Baroness who moved the amendment. The whole discussion turned into an interesting event.

I have screeds of notes that I can tell you all about. Let us start with the setting of guidance on vulnerability, which the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, asked to be included in the Bill. I do not know of any guidance in a Bill, but I know that guidance can be positively directed. The guidance is out today and people can look at it to see what it involves. There is no definition of vulnerability, which needs to be dealt with at a local level. Local authorities are already working within the definitions and they know what they are. Noble Lords look sceptically at me, but if local authorities do not do that, they are not very good local authorities and it is time that someone took a decision about having them changed. Local authorities are well aware of their responsibilities and the guidance will help practitioners to understand the statutory framework in relation to vulnerable people because that is already there. We discussed that earlier when my noble friend Lord Attlee was answering from the Front Bench.

The guidance will remind local authorities of the statutory framework in which they operate and their existing responsibility in relation to people who are vulnerable. Those responsibilities are also included in the statutory duty. Local authorities will have to take account of the equality duty; that is very relevant to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about disabled people. They have a statutory responsibility to look at that in making local schemes and to have due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between people who share the relevant protected characteristics. That is there and they will have to look at it.

I am sure that everybody here knows the relevant characteristics covered by the equality duty. They are age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, and sex and sexual orientation. The disabled fall very clearly within those criteria. The equality duty is not prescriptive about the approach a public authority should take in order to comply with its legal obligation. However, authorities do have to think consciously about the need to do the things set out in the aims of that duty. I am sure that local authorities will not want to be found wanting under those circumstances. Carers are already covered under the legislation—I think it is this legislation. They will have to be taken into consideration in the same way as part of this.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I envisage that “all interested parties” will include business. However, for the avoidance of doubt it would be helpful if—assuming that the Minister gives her blessing to the amendment in one form or another—she would confirm that that is the case. Clearly, since the rationale of the proposal in the first place is to incentivise local government and its business development policy, however valid that may be, it would make sense to involve business in any consultation about changes to the policy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)]

My Lords, I thank the alliance for its comments on the amendment. In particular I thank my noble friend Lord Jenkin for his explanation of the proposed new clause. I do not suppose that any noble Lord will be surprised to hear me say that I do not consider that such a provision is appropriate or necessary.

I fully understand that in the current system, where business rates are not retained locally, changes to national business rates policy do not affect the level of funding that authorities receive. However, in future such changes could impact on the level of funding available to a local authority. I am sure that Members of the Committee will understand that the Government may need at some stage to make changes to the national business rates policy for a variety of reasons. In the majority of cases it is likely that any changes will have been consulted on, but this may not always be the case. Changes to reliefs are a matter for the Chancellor, and a deferral system that gave businesses the opportunity to defer payment of 60% of the increase in their 2012 business rate bills as a result of the RPI uprating was announced in the autumn Statement. If the Government had consulted on that, businesses would have had to wait at least two or three months longer to receive the benefit, which in some cases could have meant the difference between shutting or remaining open. I use that as an example.

I assure my noble friend that where the Government implement a change to national business rates policy that will involve a net additional cost to local government—a point that was raised by my noble friend Lord Tope—this will be picked up through the new burdens policy. It will be treated as a new burden in line with our commitment to keeping the downward pressure on council tax as far as possible. Given this clear commitment that provides an assurance to local government, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Thursday 5th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, we are talking about a safety net, but it seems that both the number of holes in that net and their size are to be estimated. It is quite a difficult position. The formulation of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, seems much more rooted in objective fact and would give a degree of certainty. Should the Minister not take this matter back for another look?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I am happy to do that. The historic figures, which will be used across the country, will be used as the basis of what we have been talking about. We can try to bottom out the detailed calculations between now and Report. It is probably more helpful if I write to Members of the Committee so that they can see what they are. However, the rates system is not new; we have had a system of business rates for ages. At least some of it will not change at all. There have been rates and appeals for all that time. There is not a huge difference in the mechanism but the results may be slightly different. I will write to noble Lords about that as well; it will be a long letter.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for introducing this amendment. Within it he raises some other points which we will come to later, particularly regarding the 50% retention issue, which is the subject of later amendments. However, I do not think that this provision is necessary. On a point of principle, the lack of a specific provision for making representations to the Government does not prevent anyone, or any authority, from doing so at any time. Nor do the Government need any particular legislative provision to be able to consider a representation. If an individual authority feels that it is in difficulties, it is perfectly entitled to come to the Secretary of State and say so.

Receiving and considering representations is a fundamental part of the Government’s work and the Government consider and respond to representations from members of the public and from local government every day. Representations constantly take place on local government finance, for example. I therefore do not think that we need this provision. I am not clear that the proposed new clause would bring any additional practical benefit to what will be an already transparent process, and I will explain why.

Under the rates retention scheme, the annual local government finance report will set out the tariff payments that individual authorities in the regime will be required to make to central government and the top-up payments that individual authorities will receive. There will continue to be an annual local government finance settlement and an annual local government finance report. A draft of this report will be shared with local authorities before it is laid before the other place. The report may be implemented only if it is approved by Members of the other place.

The Government intend to fix tariffs and top-ups at the start of the scheme and then link them in future years to the retail prices index. In future, the Government intend to fully reset the scheme only to reflect any reassessment of authorities’ needs, with the exception of the first reset period, at intervals of about 10 years to create the strongest possible incentive effect. I think that the noble Lord supports that view although he is concerned about individual authorities, but I think that I have addressed that point. In years where a reset does not occur—anywhere between one and 10 years—tariffs and top-ups will change only by RPI. At the very least, therefore, it will be clear to all, from the calculation of tariffs and top-ups in the annual local government finance report, whether a reset has taken place. It will be open and clear.

In practice, of course, we would expect to let local government know well in advance when the Government intend to reset the system. We have done this already by signalling the intention to reset the system for the first time following implementation in 2020. That is in seven years’ time. However, it remains the case that in any year, during the course of the debate on the annual local government finance report, Members of the other place would be perfectly entitled to ask the Secretary of State what representations he had received during the course of the year about whether it was appropriate to reset the system and why he had chosen not to act upon them.

Specific provision is not needed here for the Government to be held to account properly about resetting the system. It is an inherent part of the system through the transparent annual local government process. I therefore believe that the amendment is unnecessary and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.

The noble Lord asked what would count as an exceptional circumstance. That is slightly difficult to see until you see it, although such a circumstance could arise if resources became significantly out of line with needs. The noble Lord asked me previously what the safety net will cover. It will cover situations such as a major company collapsing with the consequence that the business rate is wiped out. That goes back to the previous amendment, and I apologise for not picking it up.

I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

Will the Minister look again at subsection (2) of the amendment to which she implicitly referred? The amendment would require the report in any year to refer to,

“any representations ... received from local authorities on whether it would be appropriate to re-set the system”,

and to the Secretary of State’s decision and the reason for that decision. The Minister rightly says that people could ask a question or a succession of questions about that. This amendment systematises that process so that it is clear and seen as an integral part of the annual financial report. I cannot see the difficulty in the Government accepting that it should be part of the information base to be considered alongside the whole of the rest of the local government finance settlement at the appropriate time. Would it not be more convenient for Ministers to do it that way rather than to have to reply to a succession of questions, perhaps over a different period, not necessarily tied in to the process of approving the report?

Localism Act 2011 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2012

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments and their questions. With regard to the last point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, it would probably be proper that parish councils should be associated with those regulations as well. It conjures up all sorts of possible things that might happen, but it would be appropriate that they were covered.

First, on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, regarding parish councils and their neighbouring area, the power would work only provided that they both had powers to do so. So in perhaps part of a parish, if the neighbourhood did not have that power because it either was not a parish council or it was not a neighbourhood forum, that would not work; but as long as it does have that power, they are able to and, indeed, ought to co-operate, because it seems very clear to me that that should be what is required. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his support on that point.

With regard to what happens when the department of a clerk or one of the councillors gives up, it is correct that they would be eligible and able to carry on using their power until the next election. That was the case also with the well-being power; there was always an assumption that they could continue. However, they will have to continue doing it under their own mandate to ensure that they do not breach any of the other laws. The order recognises that, if there are longer-term projects in train, they can carry on. The noble Lord asked, “How long is a piece of string?”, and I take his point, but the string is as long as making sure that the project comes to a conclusion. It might be a contract; it might be that a council is deciding whether to make a playground or to ask for the listing of a piece of land; but they can properly do that and cannot be challenged for it. A council is eligible to complete a project for up to four years if that is the time between elections.

I was asked about peer review. Peer review at the moment is voluntary, being carried out by the Local Government Association. With parish councils, I suspect that it would have to be with the co-operation of the National Association of Local Councils—I cannot see anything to stop that happening. As with other local authorities, peer review is often helpful and often produces some very useful results. However, there is no legislation to say that it should happen. If a council wishes to do it, and someone in the local associations feels that it is appropriate, it can happen.

[Lord Beecham]

Would the Minister feel able, in the language that government use these days, perhaps to nudge the association into suggesting such an idea to its members?

[Baroness Hanham]

The most that I can do is to record the fact that we see the value of it at the moment and it would seem appropriate, therefore, for people to consider doing it subsequently. I think that I have covered most of the points raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

Could you comment on the scope for authorities to act jointly?

[Baroness Hanham]

Under the general well-being power, they would be able to act together, but, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that would be as long as they both had the power to co-operate.

I hope that I have covered the points made. That concludes our work on the order.

St Albans and Welwyn Hatfield (Boundary Change) Order 2012

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Tuesday 14th February 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Beecham]

Well, my Lords, I begin as I began the last debate with a reference to where we are. I am pleased to say that we have moved from the 10 commandments to 14 houses being relocated in what must pass for something like the transposition of Clochemerle to rural Hertfordshire. We have gone through an extraordinarily convoluted process to accommodate the perfectly reasonable request of a handful of residents. They were supported, I understand, by the local Member of Parliament, Mr Grant Shapps, with whom I have occasional disagreements but whom I congratulate on his efforts on this particular occasion in meeting the needs of his constituents.

I cannot quibble with these changes, but I rather contrast the work of the whole machinery of state to produce this splendid result for the residents of this patch with what is going on in respect of other boundaries. Presumably, this boundary change will also shift these voters from one parliamentary constituency to another, unless of course these are two constituencies that may be combined. At the moment, we have some extraordinary propositions that make this look even more minuscule by comparison. We have boundary changes to which all political parties seem to have profound objections.

For example, there is to be a boundary change in Merseyside creating a Mersey Bank constituency with part of it in Wirral and part of it Liverpool divided by the River Mersey—with no crossing at that point. We have a parliamentary constituency in my part of world, which is a diagonal stripe across Northumberland down to Barnard Castle in Durham from Haltwhistle. We have constituencies in Cumbria divided by the Pennines. We have Gloucester city with the centre, town hall, markets and so forth transposed to another constituency whose name currently escapes me but is certainly outside the traditional city of Gloucester, and so on and so forth.

By comparison, this is a straightforward and simple matter. It is only a pity that the Government's decision to force a change of boundaries on a radical scale with limited discretion in terms of the size of constituencies will lead to much more of a problem for many more people up and down the country. But I appreciate that that is beyond the scope of the Minister, who I am sure would be only too willing to adjust the instructions given to the Boundary Commission had she the power to do so. In the circumstances, of course, I can only endorse these proposals and give them the blessing that we will not be conferring on the regulations that we discussed previously.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their support for this order. I guess that the local authority has to ask the Boundary Commission for a review. Since it has only just got this one done from 2010, it will take a little while to do the others.

Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (England) Regulations 2012

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Monday 6th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, when we have had the referendums we will know whether or not people want to have a mayor, or whether they want changes to their local governance system. This is in 12 cities, that is all: the 12 largest cities. It is not in the rest of the country, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said, can already have those referendums if they can get enough people to sign the bits of paper under the Act passed by the previous Government.

The value of large cities effectively led by powerful mayors is demonstrated by international and domestic experience. I am not going to quote Barcelona. There is, not least, the Mayor of London: the capital has benefitted from having a strong voice and leadership. As a result it has been possible to start devolving powers from the centre to the mayor, who is then able to work in conjunction with local government and see major infrastructure projects, such as Crossrail, implemented. It is exactly because of these and similar benefits which we believe that mayors will bring to other large cities that, in our view, those large cities should all have the opportunity to be governed by elected mayors. Evidence shows that, on average, local authority mayors are known to 57 per cent of local people—over twice the percentage for a council leader. I will not tempt the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, to tell me what percentage of people recognised him on the streets of Newcastle. I am confident that it might be a smidgen under 57 per cent, but I am not going to make a bet on it.

Noble Lords on both this and a previous occasion have argued against these orders, and against what they see as being compulsion, citing the current provisions under the Local Government Act 2000, which include the petition trigger and the ability for a council to resolve to change its governance arrangements, as being sufficient. This is consistent with the approach taken by the previous Government, who legislated to hold a referendum in 1998 on an elected mayor for London, which has also already been referred to by my noble friend Lord Tope.

However, I would like remind noble Lords that, under the Local Government Act 2000, which was enacted by the previous Government, there were two further triggers for a referendum. Section 35 of the 2000 Act provides that the Secretary of State may make provision enabling him or her, in circumstances set out in the regulations, to direct a local authority to hold a governance referendum. Section 36 of that Act provides that:

“The Secretary of State may by order make provision requiring every local authority, or every local authority falling within any description of authority specified in the order, to hold a referendum”,

on whether those authorities should operate a specific form of governance, which could include the mayoral form of governance. We are not on a unique path here. In fact, the previous Government used the power under Section 35 of the Act to compel the London Borough of Southwark, which I think the noble Lord mentioned, to hold a referendum on its governance model in January 2002. Indeed, this compulsion was in the form of a direction and was not even subject to parliamentary scrutiny, as this legislation is. The provisions in the Localism Act 2011 are therefore not new or confined to this Government, who are concentrating, as I have said, on just 12 cities—but that is now 11, following Leicester’s decision to adopt the mayoral form of government.

It has also been argued that there is no appetite for a mayor or, indeed, for a referendum but I would like to be clear that a case for a referendum under these circumstances is not about whether there is a clamour for one. It is about the governance of our big cities and their contribution to the country as a whole, and about how a mayor can help their city to perform even more strongly economically, socially and environmentally. That is why we believe, at the very least, that the people of the city should have the opportunity to address—and seriously address—the question of whether to have a mayor. The choice is theirs.

In the next few months, discussions and arguments will take place about the strengths and weaknesses of a mayoral model—I am saying “mayoral” because I am not sure that it is “mayoreal”, as I do not think there is an “e” in it. It is exactly this type of debate and discussion that points to the validity of an exercise in giving local people the opportunity to address the question of whether to move to that. Let us be clear; we see mayors as being better able to deliver growth and prosperity to our larger cities, something which I know that we all want.

During Grand Committee, and indeed today, noble Lords asked about the cost of a mayor against other governance structures, and about internal administrative costs and savings or allowances. As we made clear in the impact assessment, which I am sure noble Lords have all studied, and as I said in Committee, any costs or savings will depend on how much reorganisation a city council decides to undertake to accommodate the mayor. In order to do so, it may of course reallocate resources internally in a variety of ways. However, based on the 11 authorities which have adopted an elected mayor since 2000, there does not appear to be any substantial difference in the corporate and democratic core costs of having a mayor compared with a leader. Perhaps that underlines my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, last time. In the light of the current financial position, I am sure that any elected mayor would want to keep their costs and allowances down to ensure that they remain within budget.

I think it is correct that the version of the question which the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was kind enough to tell the department that he would ask is not entirely the question that he asked in the Chamber. I am going to reply as on the first, if I may. He had asked what the costs were in the administration of the Greater London Council in its last year, if that is correct, and what the costs are now that we have a mayor and Assembly. The noble Lord is nodding his head, so I assume that is right. I can tell him that the GLC and GLA are not directly comparable in terms of function, particularly since information on the GLC is now historic. The combined component budget for the GLA—that is, the mayor and Assembly—for 2011-12 is £155.1 million. That is net of any specific grants of council tax and is the closest publicly available figure to an administrative budget that we can find. The noble Lord may wish to note that the current Mayor of London has in fact frozen council tax during his last four years in office, helped in part by this Government’s two-year council tax freeze. By contrast, under the previous Mayor of London the Greater London Authority's council tax levy almost trebled.

Finally, my honourable friend the Minister for Cities in the other place, Greg Clark, recently announced the Government's intention that the first election of a mayor will take place on 15 November of this year, fulfilling the Government's commitment that mayoral elections would take place shortly after any referendum which resulted in a yes vote. I am sure that there will be vigorous debate between 3 May and then if there are to be any elections.

We are clear as to why we believe that elected mayors would enhance the leadership of the 11 major cities, delivering greater growth and prosperity. We cannot compel an outcome but we can give local people the option of a change of governance. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Shipley for his comments, and, indeed, to my noble friend Lord Tope. I hear what he says. It will be interesting to see the outcome.

In response to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, I simply add that these orders will give the people of the cities involved an opportunity through a referendum to consider and decide on their future governance without the cost falling on the cities themselves. I commend the orders to the House.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for what has been a lively debate. I am particularly grateful to my noble friends. To reassure my noble friend Lord Grocott, I think that three local authorities are seeking to undo the mischief of the mayoral system, as he and I and perhaps some of those would see it, although it remains to be seen what will happen in the referendums which will no doubt take place in those authorities.

I entirely share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, about the original referendum in London. I opposed the proposition at the time, as, indeed, did Ken Livingstone, who was not at all keen on the idea until he was a candidate and was elected. However, such things happen in politics.

The Minister referred to the cost of the referendums and made the point again that that is being paid for by the Government. However, the cost of any subsequent elections will not be borne by the Government. They will be roughly the same figure and will fall on the relevant local authorities in November if the referendums lead to an affirmative vote. She also referred to Southwark, where a referendum was apparently imposed in 2002. That achieved the amazing turnout of 11 per cent and rejected the concept of having a mayor, which my noble friend Lord Grocott mentioned. That is surely evidence that there is no appetite for these elections, about which I spoke in moving the regret Motion.

However, the Minister did not respond to my question about what is to happen after this round of referendums. There are some 300 other councils. Is it the Government’s intention to roll this out across the country? What about the flagship Tory councils, such as Westminster and Wandsworth, which she apparently believes are less good performers than those with mayors? Those are Tory councils with substantial populations and responsibilities. Apparently, there is no proposal at the moment for referendums in those places. We have to learn eventually—

[Baroness Hanham]

With respect, I have answered that question. I drew noble Lords’ attention to the fact that the Localism Act allows for referendums to be held only in the 12 cities. There was no question of there being referendums elsewhere. However, as the noble Lord knows, they can be held, if that is what is required, under the Local Government Act 2000.

[Lord Beecham]

I am not sure that that is right. However, in any event, irrespective of whether or not the Government have the power to require referendums—I think that they do, but I may be wrong—what the noble Baroness has said constitutes a pretty substantial disparagement of the record of her political colleagues in significant authorities not unadjacent to where we are debating these matters, among others. I find it rather strange that apparently only mayoral authorities are capable of delivering regeneration and economic prosperity. The case that has been advanced is that you need a mayor to make that progress. Frankly, I do not accept that. However, in general there is a continuing lack of evidence in support of the mayoral system. I say with all due respect to the noble Baroness that affirmation is not evidence.

I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. He gives as a reason for supporting elected mayors that there are to be police commissioners. In November people will have the opportunity of buying one and getting one free because there will be two votes on the same day. But, of course, it will not be free; it will presumably be double the cost. If there is a mayoral referendum, that will cost roughly £250,000 and there will be separate costs for the police commissioner elections, which would also clock up to the same figure in individual authorities. If they are buying two, they will have to pay for two. They do not get one free.

Why the existence of a police commissioner should make it all the more desirable to have an elected mayor, I do not understand. But then few people understand why we should have police commissioners in the first place, including quite a lot of Members on the government Benches in this House and in the other place. Certainly it is not understood by the Prime Minister’s favourite police officer, Mr Bratton, whom he wanted to appoint as Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who could not understand why the American system should be imported into this country.

The noble Lord also welcomed the powers to be given to elected mayors but without explaining why only elected mayors should get them. In fact, it is not only elected mayors who are likely to get them because discussions are going on with other authorities. There is an interesting development around Greater Manchester with the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, which is not predicated on the existence of a mayor either from Manchester or the area as a whole.

I must tease the noble Lord somewhat. It is only a few months since he and I were jointly discussing how we might campaign together against the idea of an elected mayor. This gives rise to the Paul Daniels question. Your Lordships will remember the magician and television personality Paul Daniels and his attractive young wife. She was asked: “What is it about balding millionaire Paul Daniels that persuaded you to marry him?”. I gently put to the noble Lord, “What is it Lord Shipley, recently appointed government adviser on cities, that has led you to change your mind about elected mayors?”.

City of Wakefield (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, the last time when I spoke for the Opposition in this Room, the noble Lord, Lord Smith, also participated in the debate. A couple of days after that, he was taken very seriously ill. I am delighted that he is back with us and in such excellent form. I am sure that we wish him continued good health.

It is perhaps appropriate that we are discussing these orders in the Moses Room, not because I may be distantly related to the gentleman in question but because he is portrayed as coming down bearing 10 commandments. The Minister of course brings 11 commandments to 11 authorities, and they may receive a similar reception to that which the originals received. I know not—we shall see.

Since the Prime Minister’s arguably somewhat clumsy intervention the other day, referendums have become almost the issue of the day, at least in the minds of the political class. I suspect that the majority of people are rather more concerned with issues such as the faltering economy, unemployment and the fate of the NHS—and, to judge by today’s e-mails, the Welfare Reform Bill and perhaps the legal aid Bill. Many of us have been deluged with e-mails about that; I am bound to say that I have never received a single e-mail suggesting that we need referendums for elected mayors. But 11 authorities will now face compulsory referendums, not because as in Scotland there is a public demand for it but because the Government are determined to pursue this agenda.

It is interesting that the Explanatory Notes affirm that the Government believe that local authorities and the communities that they represent are best placed to reach decisions on how their local authority should operate and be governed. They say that the 2000 Act provides for local people to have a say on the governance model adopted by their local authority via a referendum. But it is one thing for people to have a say and another to require them to vote or at least hold a referendum, as the Government are now doing. Yet 5 per cent of the electorate in any of those 11 cities, or any other local authority, could at any time over the past 10 years have requisitioned a referendum—and, of course, the vast majority have not done so. A number of referendums have been held, 38 in all; 13 of them agreed that they should go ahead with the mayoral system and 25 rejected it. Some of those authorities called a referendum, as they were allowed to do; there was nothing wrong with that. That included Tower Hamlets and Leicester. In other cases there was a petition.

My noble friend Lord Grocott questioned the turnout in referendums; in only one case apart from three referendums held on the same day as the general election did the turnout exceed 40 per cent. Incidentally, one of the authorities with a referendum subsequently decided to abandon the mayoral system. The turnout in the five authorities that voted for an elected mayor ranged as follows: 16 per cent, 18 per cent, 21 per cent, 25 per cent and 27 per cent. That is hardly a ringing endorsement of the concept. Yet the mayoral system was supposed to lead to a great upsurge in local democracy.

I was present when this concept was floated. It was at a meeting—I do not think that it is wrong for me now to reveal it 15 years on—of the joint policy committee of the Labour Party, a somewhat cumbersome, bureaucratic piece of machinery, which consisted of members of the then shadow Cabinet and of the national executive of the Labour Party. I was representing local government and some other unfortunate was representing the Labour MEPs. Tony Blair announced to the apparent consternation of Frank Dobson, who was the environment spokesman of the day, that we were going to have an elected Mayor of London. The only person who asked a question about that, in a somewhat sceptical vein, was me.

The discussion lasted five minutes and that then became Labour Party policy, which you may think is an interesting way to formulate policy, but there it was. The constant theme of those advocating this was that it would strengthen local democracy and lead to greater involvement. That has not been the case, as my noble friend, Lord Grocott, has rightly pointed out, either in terms of the turnout at the referendum or in terms of the turnout in mayoral elections. In London, the first two elections showed a turnout lower than the average local authority election. At the last mayoral contest, gladiatorial as it was and as it no doubt will be again, with all the coverage proffered by the Evening Standard—noble Lords will remember coming out of tube stations and seeing the placards about the latest Ken or Boris pronouncement—the turnout was around 45 per cent, marginally higher than a council election in a major authority: it did not necessarily command huge interest.

Over and above the propriety of requiring the holding of the referendum—and I think that there is a serious flaw in the Government’s approach—there is a question of what is at stake here. We are talking about the conferring on a single individual of very wide-ranging powers combined with very little accountability. It is not as if a majority of the council can overturn a decision of the mayor. On hugely important matters, from the budget, the children’s panel, and the strategic panel of the authority and over a whole range of issues, the mayor will prevail unless two-thirds of the elected members of the council overturn him. This is a little better than the Mussolini formulation for general elections in Italy in 1923, when 25 per cent of the votes were sufficient to give 75 per cent representation in the chamber; we are not quite in that league. Nevertheless, it is a formidable degree of power concentrated in a single pair of hands. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, adduced Barcelona as an example of a mayoral authority, which indeed it is, but as she put it—perhaps without quite realising the implications of what she was saying—Maragall, who was the outstanding mayor of Barcelona, was elected as head of his party’s list. In the same way, a Prime Minister—although not as it turns out the present Prime Minister—is elected as the leader of his party: his party obtains a majority, not a single individual running for office. That is quite a distinction, yet by any standards Maragall was an outstandingly successful mayor.

The Labour Party in its wisdom once sent a delegation over to Holland. They have mayors in Holland and it was thought it would be instructive for innocent and naive Labour councillors to see what was done in Holland. They had overlooked that mayors in Holland were not elected at all by anybody. They were Crown appointments at that stage. At least the Government have not gone that far yet, but there is that huge issue of power. Equally, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, pointed out, there have been distinguished local government leaders, not least in the great city of Birmingham, to which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, alluded. They have had not merely Joseph Chamberlain but his brother; he was described by Lloyd George, it will be recalled, as a “good mayor of Birmingham in a bad year”, but he was a distinguished local government figure. Successive leaders of Birmingham of, certainly, two political persuasions have been well respected. We have seen similar figures leading other councils. So while the power exists for either a council or a small percentage of an electorate to call for the holding of a referendum, it seems entirely unnecessary to prescribe that such elections should take place.

Of course, the Bill will give the Government the power to impose this system of referendum on any authority. It would be interesting if the Minister would indicate the Government's thinking on these matters. Is it likely, if a number of these referendums are successful, that they will then seek to roll out the holding of referendums elsewhere?

In relation to cost, it is reassuring that Mr Pickles has been able to find yet more money secreted in the coffers of the Department for Communities and Local Government—in addition to maintaining the weekly waste collections—to fund these referendums, although most of us would prefer to have the money for more productive purposes. In addition, there will be the cost of mayoral elections, which will be at least as much and presumably a little more than the cost of holding a referendum in the first place. I apprehend that those costs will be met by the local council if the electorate choose to go down the mayoral route.

It will be gathered that the Opposition are not entirely sympathetic to the orders that are laid today and we will be moving a Regret Motion when the matter comes before the House. I understand that there will be similar proceedings in the Commons. I am confused by the timetable. I understand that we have the statutory instruments before House of Commons, but so be it. We are looking for these matters to come before the House in February.

No doubt the Government will stick to their guns. I can only hope that people in these 11 authorities, should these referendums go ahead, have the good sense to stick with the tried and tested system of local democracy and not vote to confer huge powers into too few hands.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I cannot wait to discuss this issue all over again. I thank the noble Lord for giving us due warning that that is precisely what will happen, so we wait with bated breath. I am sure that we will cover at least some of these issues again and noble Lords will have to try to say the same thing twice if possible. But this gives me an opportunity to say that if I cannot answer all the questions now, I will probably have an opportunity to do so at a later stage.

We could stand here and debate the rationale and the virtues of this form of election all night. There is a pretty clear division, although not entirely politically, on what noble Lords think about this. The coalition's view is that these 12 cities should be given the opportunity to decide whether they think this form of government, which is a different way of doing things, is the right way to go. I readily accept that this is not a policy that the electorate will want in these cities, but they must be given an opportunity to decide and to consider the options. Indeed, people will have to put out some publicity to explain the situation and make sure that the electorate understand the issues at stake.

I do not agree with the concept that has been put that the Mayor of London has not made an impact. I suspect that if you asked people in London who the mayor was they would have a pretty good idea and they would have a pretty good idea of what he did. A mayor is constantly in the news and doing things. People either like or do not like them but they certainly know who they are.

[Lord Beecham]

Will the noble Baroness agree that they also knew who Ken Livingstone was in his first incarnation, and who Herbert Morrison was, for example?

[Baroness Hanham]

I will have to take the noble Lord's word for it. People may have known who he was but he has certainly been heard of since. The question is whether he was better known at the time or subsequently.

A lot of questions have been asked. It is not helpful to go over the debate again. We have a debate on the previous orders and we have had a very interesting Second Reading speech from my noble friend Lord Cormack, who was not entirely supportive. We have just a few issues to deal with. As regards turnout on the referendums, as I think I have said before, probably some had about the same turnout as local elections. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, did not think that was quite right. I do not think anybody would accept that they have been in the general election ballpark figure but there has been a good turnout.

The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, referred to the interminable business of savings and costs. We have gone through the election costs. We anticipate that the costs of reorganisation will absolutely depend on what amount of reorganisation a local authority needs to do. It may not need to do very much at all. The mayor comes in and it might need to provide him with a room. He will probably need a couple of members of staff. His expenses will fall within the general administration of the council. Therefore, I do not anticipate there being a huge extra cost to the council as a result of this. I am sure it will make the decisions which ensure that there is no huge extra cost. I do not think the Government want—

Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (England) Regulations 2012

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I resist the temptation to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, with whose views on the principle of elected mayors I could hardly disagree more strongly. I shall reserve comment on that issue until we reach the next group of orders. However, I strongly agree with the two noble Baronesses—that sounds like the name of a rather superior public house. The two noble Baronesses and I welcome the regulations which facilitate a choice being made. We will come on to how that choice arises in the next round, as it were. However, I am particularly glad that there is an opportunity for councils which wish to do so to revert to the committee system—not that I am personally in favour of that system as opposed to the leader and cabinet model. My own experience consists of having served for 17 years as leader of my authority and five years either side of that as a committee chair. When I went voluntarily to my Siberian power station in 1997, leaving the front bench of my council and going to the back benches, I chose the arts and recreation committee as a place of sojourn. The reality of life as a back-bench member of a committee became apparent when, having missed a meeting, I came to the next meeting and noticed that the minutes solemnly noted that a member had raised a question about birds eating grass seed at the Leazes Park allotments—this in a council with goodness knows how many problems and a budget of £800 million. It did not seem to me that the committee system was necessarily designed, or was working, in a way that addressed significant issues and facilitated members making a significant contribution. However, if members choose that system, it is a matter for them and we now have a scrutiny system which, if properly resourced, can make the system much more effective.

I revert to the Motion moved by the Minister, which will be approved. However, I have a reservation about the regulations in relation to the questions to be asked in the referendum. It is perfectly true that this is not something which has been dictated by the Government. The Electoral Commission has drafted it and has consulted on it although I do not know how many responses it received to the consultation. I doubt whether it was deluged with responses from the public but that is a matter for the commission. The question to be asked is in my view rather curiously and, arguably, tendentiously worded. It is: how would you like your authority to be run, by a leader who is an elected councillor chosen by a vote of the other elected councillors—this is how the council is run now—or by a mayor who is elected by voters—this would be a change from how the council is run now? It seems to me that “run” is a fairly loaded word. It does not really describe how I felt I was running the council when I was the leader of a council. The council is run by a leader and councillors, not by the leader elected by councillors. I think that rather colours the view that people might well take. They might think that if an individual is running the city, he or she might as well be accountable—if accountability is what they are interested in and if it is realisable—to all of us. In fact, a leader and cabinet model means a leader working with councillors to lead and run a council, not doing it personally. Although there is nothing we can do about it, I rather regret therefore that the question is posed in that way. However, we are where we are and doubtless if there are to be referendums in future, that is the question which will be put. It will be for those of us who take a different view of these matters to explain that it perhaps gives a somewhat misleading impression.

Either at this stage or a little later, perhaps the Minister could respond to the implicit question which I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, raised about when a mayoral election would take place, pursuant to the orders which we are to debate later, if they are approved. It is suggested that it is intended that these elections will take place in November of this year, on the same day as the police commissioner elections. I do not know whether that is right and I would have some views about it, but the Minister may be able to enlighten us with a little of that information before we debate those orders.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I thank those who have taken part in this quite short debate. I was not sure whether this one would be long. I recall that when we were debating the Bill, this aspect had not aroused a huge amount of controversy. I am very grateful to have such sterling support from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and I agree very much with what he says. If the referendum is agreed, one hopes very much that the turnout for the subsequent election will be sufficient to cement that decision, and to make people feel that the result is wholeheartedly what they want.

On the candidates for election, somebody will presumably put their names forward and they will have to be nominated. I am not sure whether celebs will come running along to spend at least four years managing a city. We have had some strange candidates in one or two of the elections but, on the whole, those who have been good have survived and those who have not have found their way elsewhere. I am grateful, too, for the fact that there is support for the models of governance. I always felt that the committee system's abandonment was a great shame and I am delighted that there is now a way of getting it back in. Although councils have moved on in many respects in governance, there is always room for a system where councillors have a real opportunity to debate what is going on and the policies that are coming.

The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, asked about the money being spent on the referendum. This will be not local money but general taxation money, and there will be a grant from my department to the referendum authorities so that they have the money to spend on this. I know that that money comes from the people, but it is not quite as direct as being from the local people.

The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, asked about having the elections at the same time as those for the police commissioners. There is no definite date for the referendums yet, but it would be fair to say that we would hope that the elections would take place in a reasonable time following a referendum because otherwise there will be a hiatus of governance. They could potentially be held near the date when those for the police commissioners are held but there is no question of that having been decided yet.

The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, asked about the turnouts. Apparently, they have been pretty near turnouts at local government elections. He will know, as I do, that those can vary between about 20 per cent and 40 per cent. There has not been an overwhelming general election-type turnout, but they have been within that sort of ballpark figure. There was another question about police commissioners and how often they are going to be elected. The answer is every four years. The mayors will be elected on four-year terms as well. They will be elected on the normal council election day.

There is an agreement, perhaps not unanimous, that local people have a right to decide whether they want this issue to go ahead—that is what the referendums are about. It is not about saying that you must do this or you must do that. There is nothing dictatorial about this. The question to local people in cities is whether mayors provide a good form of governance. Do you ask the local people whether they want to consider that? It is up to them. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, I hope that in the referendums there will be a good turnout. In both areas—the referendums and, if one follows, an election—we would want to see a good, settled result, because that would stop any disagreements afterwards.

The noble Lord, Lord Smith, was talking about the fact that there would not be any decent powers. Part of this process is that mayors would have negotiations as to what official powers they thought that they needed. That would be individual and powers would be devolved appropriately to what they wish to have. There is a devolutionary aspect here too of the bigger policy areas.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, objected to the word “run”; I do not know what I did with the council. Perhaps I had better not think about it. “Run” is the word that the Electoral Commission seems to think that people recognise as the way that a council is managed. That is what it has decided. We have got to leave that; we have taken its independent view. If what is said is a political decision, somebody will say that we are trying to tip the question over. So I think that “run” it will have to be.

I hope that I have answered the points that everybody has raised. If I have and everybody is satisfied about that, I commend the regulations to the House.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Monday 31st October 2011 Lords Chamber

[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 ---

[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.

--- 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.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hanham]

The Bill currently provides for the revocation of the eight existing regional strategies outside London and any remaining county structure plan policies saved as part of the transitional arrangements following the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Government Amendments 203M, 203N, 203P and 203Q provide the Secretary of State with the power to revoke the existing regional strategies and saved county structure plan policies by a free-standing order-making power. Amendments 203S, 203T, 248ZD, 248ZF, 248ZG, 248ZH, 248ZJ, 248ZK and 249F are consequential amendments. These are largely technical amendments that will provide the Secretary of State and Parliament with an opportunity to consider the environmental assessments of the revocations that we are undertaking before decisions are made on whether to revoke the existing regional strategies and remaining saved structure plan policies.

The Government intend to lay orders in Parliament revoking the existing regional strategies and saved structure plan policies as soon as possible after Royal Assent of the Bill, subject to the outcome of the environmental assessment process. In the mean time, councils should press ahead in preparing up-to-date local plans. These plans will be important in defining strategic priorities and setting the context for neighbourhood plans. Up-to-date local plans also provide councils with the opportunity to control how development and growth are planned in their area and they provide the basis for planning decisions. Until they are revoked by order, local plans must be in general conformity with regional strategies which remain part of the development plan.

Amendment 204E is a technical amendment that closes a loophole to ensure that the local plan meets the statutory requirements and is sound. This is an important amendment, otherwise councils could adopt a local plan without complying with the duty to co-operate. I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I was taken with the Minister’s venture into the area of astrology earlier. However, I think she called herself a “Librarian”. I think a librarian is someone who works in a library. I think she meant “Libran”, which is rather different. I hope she will forgive me if I assume the role of a scorpion when we look at this amendment, as Scorpio is my astrological sign.

I am slightly puzzled by the explanatory letter that the noble Baroness circulated a couple of days ago. Perhaps, in her reply, she will be kind enough to elucidate it further because the letter refers to,

“an environmental assessment of the regional strategy”.

I am not sure what that means. Are only the environmental aspects of regional strategies being assessed? Could she explain how the process of assessment is taking place? The letter also says that this is on a “voluntary basis”, which I take to mean that it is a non-statutory exercise and that the Government will be consulting on these documents shortly. I do not know whether those documents are yet available or, if so, where they might be obtained, but I would also be grateful if she could indicate the nature of the consultative process. For example, we now have local enterprise partnerships, so will those partnerships be consulted? I assume local authorities will be, but one could also assume that those partnerships would be involved in all that.

Like other Members of your Lordships' House, I regret the demise of all the regional development agencies, although I accept that in some areas they were not particularly effective or popular. However, I suspect that we may see, just as in health, the quiet restoration of something rather similar—perhaps more at the sub-regional level, but no doubt under another name. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that that approach of looking at sub-regions will be part of this assessment and will also take note of some of the other developments in policy over the past few months; for example, the creation of enterprise zones and the operation, such as it has been, of the regional growth fund. These matters are clearly relevant to the planning regime, but it is not clear whether and to what extent they will be part of this assessment.

This group also refers to the position of transitional arrangements. The noble Lord, Lord Best, will no doubt be speaking about that, and I do not want to anticipate what he will say, but I strongly support the terms of his amendment because there is a considerable danger of a gap which would create difficulties in the light of the arrangements that the Bill contains. I hope the Minister will consider sympathetically the amendment that the noble Lord will, no doubt, move shortly. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify, if not today, then subsequently, the questions I have raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hanham]

In reply to the noble Baroness’s question, the noble Lord, Lord Best, has an amendment on transitional arrangements that we will get to later, so perhaps we can deal with that when we get to it.

I will answer as many questions as I can and then, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I will write on those I have not answered. The public consultation is 12 weeks. Local enterprise partnerships will be able to respond if they wish. They are not required to, but they will be consulted as one of the organisations that will be expected to have an interest. It is an environmental assessment from the regional strategies, exactly as it says it is. Initially, if there is a major objection with one strategy that has to be looked at under the environmental assessment, it will not be able to go forward in a bulk order. At the moment, the expectation is that that order will come forward separately or they might all come forward on the same day. It is the negative process at the moment.

The intention is to revoke the regional strategies and all eight strategies as soon as possible after Royal Assent to stop muddle of any sort occurring. We can do it separately or together. The face of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, always delights me because it is so revealing. I know when I am saying something he does not agree with. The provisions are simply to make sure that those orders can be revoked. The local development frameworks still have to conform to the regional spatial strategies until they are revoked. Anything in them that is required, even if they are developing them at the moment, will have to be taken into account.

I did not pick up all the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I will make sure that he gets an answer. He has the puzzled look of one who is going to ask me again.

[Lord Beecham]

I congratulate the Minister on her anticipation. Am I right in thinking therefore that although an environmental assessment is being undertaken, upon which there will be a consultation, the revocations will go ahead anyway?

[Baroness Hanham]

I did not say that. I said that they will be put forward as soon as possible after Royal Assent. The consultation on the environmental assessment is taking place. You cannot do anything without having taken account of the consultation, so the revocations will be only after the consultation has been considered.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Monday 10th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)]

My Lords, the three government amendments in this group give the Local Government Ombudsman the power to operate shared services with other public sector ombudsmen and clarifies the organisation’s ability to delegate functions to its staff.

Making provision for our public sector ombudsmen to share back-office functions makes sound, practical sense, providing as it does scope for better, efficient working. Moreover, making provision for public sector ombudsmen to share services, like a single point of contact for complaints from the public about public sector service failures such as social housing, has clear advantages for the public.

The amendment provides assurance that the Commission for Local Administration in England, as a corporate body, has the power to delegate functions to its officers—for instance, the ability for a member of staff to negotiate and let a contract for cleaning the office. This in no way relates to the delegation powers of the commissioners themselves, who have clear powers of delegation that allow officers of the commission to investigate cases.

The other two amendments in this group, first, make provision for the commencement of the provision that I have just described and, secondly, amend the title of the Bill to give the Commission for Local Administration in England its proper title.

[Lord Beecham]

All of us on the opposition Benches are happy to concur with the amendment moved by the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I do not know that there is an awful lot more to say. It is interesting that at this stage of the proceedings we have a rather limited number of people here to debate what, in Committee and at Second Reading, was a significant and major issue, with barely a friendly voice in place for these provisions. I therefore say to a rather muted House that we have listened to the concerns and anxieties that were raised over all those aspects put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Tope, and others, about the expense. We have decided with regard to towns that the local referendums do not need to have a place within this Bill.

If I may just briefly address my noble friend Lord Lucas, who—if he will forgive me saying so—has strayed a little bit away from what these amendments would do. This is no attack on the cities. It is nothing to do with the cities. It is a general point of view and a general provision that would have allowed anybody—urban, rural, whatever—to have referendums. It has nothing to do with planning, either, as the planning referendums are not affected by this Bill, and we will be returning—probably on Wednesday—to the whole area of provisions for neighbourhood planning and neighbourhood referendums.

As other noble Lords have said—as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, pointed out in his introduction and as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has said as well—there are going to be other opportunities for referendums. Not only are there the council tax referendums, there are the right-to-build referendums and the neighbourhood planning referendums. Those complement the provisions for referendums which are already open to councils to carry out on governance. Any council may carry out parish polls and informal polls which are to do with its services and functions. We believe that there is pretty good coverage of this, and that there is the chance for people to have their voice heard without these provisions.

We have accepted what has turned out to be the will of the House at a much earlier stage, namely that these provisions should be reconsidered. We have reconsidered them, and therefore I tell the House that we will accept the amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Tope.

[Lord Beecham]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, first of all I hope that she will forgive me for not thanking her, as I should have done, for responding, as she has just said, to the will of the House. It has been another very constructive contribution, and I am sure the whole House is grateful to her. Could I ask in respect of the issue raised by the Electoral Commission, which I appreciate is a slightly wider issue, whether the Government will be looking at that before we get to Third Reading, as there will be areas in which it might be relevant?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I have seen the Electoral Commission’s submissions in relation not only to the costs, but to questions and to how it should be involved. I cannot give the noble Lord a direct answer but it does seem to me to be inconceivable that we should not take quite serious note of the Electoral Commission’s representations on this. I am sure we will come back to that issue.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Monday 12th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I gave a similar commitment in Committee to consider the amendments which aimed at removing overly prescriptive and complicated arrangements on necessary regulation-making powers in order to simplify and strengthen local government’s scrutiny arrangements. Having considered the issues carefully, including with the Centre for Public Scrutiny, I am pleased to bring forward amendments which achieve a number of these aims.

On the removal of unnecessary restrictions on referral of matters by non-committee members, Amendments 134 to 139 remove prescription about matters which may be referred to a scrutiny committee by councillors who are not members of the scrutiny committee. In future, these councillors will not be restricted to the referral of local government matters only. Instead, they may refer a wider range of matters to scrutiny committees for consideration, thus enhancing their role as advocates of their local communities.

In terms of referral of matters to the scrutiny committee, the amendments broaden the range of issues that can be brought before that committee by non-committee members. It will, of course, remain for the scrutiny committee to decide what course of action is appropriate following any referral, as is the case now.

With regard to local improvement targets and local area agreements, Amendments 140, 142 and 147 remove the link between local government scrutiny and local improvement targets in local area agreements. Partner authorities will be required to have regard to the reports and recommendations of scrutiny committees that relate to any of their functions exercised in relation to the committee’s area or residents of that area. This empowers local authorities to hold partner authorities to account for wider activities they undertake, thus ensuring that local people have a say on matters that affect them.

On the simplification of local government scrutiny arrangements, our remaining Amendments 132, 133, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 148, 149, 150 and 164 place the scrutiny committees of non-unitary district councils into an equivalent position to those of other authorities. They enable scrutiny committees in non-unitary district councils to hold partner authorities to account, and at the same time the amendments greatly simplify the scrutiny provisions and remove delegated powers of the Secretary of State.

I hope that noble Lords will agree that these amendments represent an improvement to the provisions, and will therefore be happy to accept them.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I confess that I find it difficult to keep up with the speed of the amendments, but I will try. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I have misunderstood something. I say again that I welcome the thrust of the amendments in this group. However, I am not clear about Amendment 133, which refers to page 215 of the Bill. It appears to delete a reference to scrutiny of crime and disorder matters. I may be wrong, but as I read it, the amendment takes out the obligation or possibility of an overview and scrutiny committee scrutinising the police. I may have that wrong: it does not sound right as I say it. However, looking at the drafting, I wonder whether the amendment has that effect. New Section 9F states:

“An overview and scrutiny committee of a local authority may not discharge any functions other than … its functions under this section and sections 9FA to 9FJ, … its functions under section 19 of the Police and Justice Act”.

I would like confirmation that it will still be possible to scrutinise such matters.

I presume that the passenger transport authorities that we have just referred to, with their extended powers, would potentially be subject to scrutiny as a local authority partner. If that could be confirmed, I would be delighted and would congratulate the Minister on this group of amendments.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I am sure that there is a fantastic explanation for this, but I am bound to say that at the moment I do not have it to hand. I am sure that the intention is to ensure that scrutiny continues, because that is our whole purpose. If I get a note in the coming seconds, I will share it with the noble Lord. If I do not, I will write with the answer and apologise for not being able to respond in person.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for raising these matters. I have an immediate answer to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, about whether the orders would come to Parliament: where there is a proposal for a referendum, that is an affirmative order in Parliament. I think I explained that in Committee. It is Parliament’s decision brought forward at the time of the secondary legislation. Mayors will not be forced on any cities, as I have said on many occasions, but cities will be obliged to take it into consideration in a referendum and those will all come to Parliament.

Amendment 151A seeks to take away the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations setting the date of elections for, and the terms of office of, elected mayors. As the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham have said, Amendment 151C seeks to provide that any first mayoral elections shall take place no later than the first date of elections in the area. As the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, explained, that would be any election that was likely to take place after a referendum on 15 November 2012.

As I have explained previously, the regulating power would allow for an earlier first election than May 2013. Such an approach would be in line with previous practice, where first elections for mayors have on occasion taken place in October, before reverting to the usual May cycle. I know the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, have had discussions with the Secretary of State about this. The most encouraging I can be is to say that the issue is well understood; no decisions have yet been taken on it but we are due to produce secondary legislation before the end of the year and decisions will be taken before then. I am sure the noble Lords will be involved in some of the discussions on that. I cannot give a firm commitment at the moment that that will happen but, as I say, there is a very clear understanding of the proposals made and the reasons and rationale behind them.

Those were not very long answers but they were not very long amendments. I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments in the light of my response.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her assurance that parliamentary approval will be required before designating any authority to have a referendum. However, I am surprised and disappointed that it should be thought necessary for the Secretary of State to prescribe a referendum when it is evident from the absence of any requisition by a mere 5 per cent of the electorate that there is any such interest from the local community to start with.

Moving on to the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate and supported by my noble friend, I find it surprising that it should be thought that paralysis would ensue if there was a delay of a year between the referendum and a subsequent mayoral election. It could even have been argued that it would have been better to have followed the precedent of the 1973 local government reorganisation, when a shadow authority was elected and did not actually take office for a year. That actually gave the incoming authority time, on new boundaries and all the rest of it, to assimilate the problems of the area and develop an appropriate response, changing structures and the like. To suggest that it is essential to move straight into the position where the nature of the authority changes during the year strikes me as illogical, potentially disruptive and damaging, and in fact onerous for the newly elected incumbent, should there be any newly elected incumbents to that position. He or she would be entering into office half way through the year, unable to do very much at all about the existing budget, and contending with structures that would be difficult to rearrange in a short time.

Moreover, in terms of cost, surely it would be less expensive to have an election coinciding with the normal municipal election in the following year. I quite take the point made by the noble Baroness that there have been some instances of mid-year referendums, but if one is looking at the issue of cost it is, I should have thought, clearer that there would be a cost saving to have them at the same time as the local election. Indeed, that point has been made for us, conveniently, in connection with the debate over the timing of the elections for police commissioners, if indeed we are to have those.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, we have already removed restrictions which applied to local authorities when they are deciding to change their governance arrangements. We have debated those this evening. Amendment 165 seeks to remove further prescription and restrictions imposed by the previous Government on local authorities in relation to changing their scheme of elections. Amendment 165 inserts a new clause into the Bill that removes in their entirety the current rules that stipulate that district councils may only resolve to change their scheme of elections during permitted periods. Permitted periods would last just over six months and occur only every four years.

We believe that local authorities should be free to make such decisions at a time that is right for them and their local communities, not during a time period dictated to them by central government. Accordingly, this amendment provides that in the future district councils in England that wish to change their scheme of elections will be able to resolve to do so at any time and will be able to specify the date on which they will hold their first whole council elections. In order to prevent local authorities from repeatedly changing their electoral schemes, and the uncertainty and disruption this may bring, Amendment 165 provides that, once a local authority has resolved to change its scheme of elections, it may not make another such resolution for a period of five years.

The current position, where district councils in two-tier areas are prevented from holding elections in the same year as the county council—that is in the fallow year—is also maintained. This is to ensure that there is clarity among local people about the role and functions of different tiers of local government in their area and to avoid voter confusion. In an area where there is no county council, no such restrictions on the date of the first whole-council election will apply. The decision will be entirely for the council concerned. Amendment 244 makes consequential amendments to the 2007 Act.

[Lord Beecham]

I am happy to endorse these amendments.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Monday 12th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)]

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is not seeking to get me out of my job just yet. I thank him for that. There is a little overexcitement about Clause 5(1)—not that the noble Lord ever raises his voice excitedly. However, there are concerns that are not necessary. Amendment 109A would prevent the Secretary of State making any orders under Clause 5(1) and (2). That would mean that he could not even amend the long list of legislation set out in Amendment 119E. However, it would give him order-making powers to add to the legislative list; he would be able to add but not to take away.

The power in Clause 5(1) is a power to remove restrictions and limitations to the legal capacity of local authorities that prevent them exercising the general power of competence. I think that we all want to see them have this general power. The clause must be read in the context of that power, which is a power to do things that an ordinary individual can do. It is not a power to remove any duty or obligation placed on local authorities, such as many of those listed in Amendment 119E, where such duties or obligations do not restrict or limit the capacity of the local authority to do things that the individual can do.

Noble Lords must hang on to the word “individual”; that is the important aspect. We do not consider that Clause 5(1) could be interpreted—the noble Lord addressed this and understands it—as allowing the Secretary of State to amend the requirements of, for example, the Equality Act or the Human Rights Act as they apply to local authorities. These Acts place broad duties on public authorities, including individuals, so they cannot be part and parcel of this power of competence. These Acts are not a restriction or limitation on the legal capacity of the local authority, so the power could not be used in the way suggested for these or any other similar legislation, just as it could not be used to exempt local authorities from prohibitions contained in criminal law.

We have listened to concerns, and amendments were brought forward in the other place, which are now in Clause 6, to place restrictions and limitations on the power in Clause 5(1). We believe these provide additional safeguards so that there can now be no doubt about the scope of the power. It does not permit the removal of essential duties, protections or rights from the Secretary of State. I also confirm that, as part of the consultation required by Clause 5(7), it will be appropriate to consult every person or group of persons, or their representatives, who will be substantially affected by the proposal. The results of any such consultation would have to be presented to Parliament, and then Parliament could veto the order.

The noble Lord asked me whether Parliament would be involved in this. As I said, Clause 5(7) is also modelled on what is in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act. The procedure to be followed would be negative, affirmative or superaffirmative, and that would be ultimately determined by Parliament. This matter has been put to the Delegated Powers Committee, which has no difficulty with that and has expressed itself on side with the procedure.

We believe that these amendments are unnecessary. We are trying to give local authorities as much power as we can, but we realise that some of that is going to come eventually from Parliament. There are restrictions on the powers of the Secretary of State in these procedures. Local authorities are not going to have completely unfettered power with the general power of competence, but it will be much wider than it is at the moment.

I hope that I have answered the noble Lord satisfactorily about the involvement of Parliament if the Secretary of State were to use these powers, so I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I accept that there now appears to be at least a parliamentary procedure here. I still think it is difficult to accept the notion that primary legislation imposing duties that were imposed for a purpose on local authorities and others should be varied or revoked in the way set out in the Bill. Having noted the point about the affirmative procedure, however, I accept her assurances and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

Amendments 109B and 109C relate to the same provision under the Secretary of State’s powers, but in this case they seek the deletion of the power of the Secretary of State in effect to nullify the power of competence which the Bill purports to represent. This is really quite an exceptional provision and is not at all acceptable. The Secretary of State takes upon himself, having conferred or purported to confer this very broad power, the right to,

“by order make provision preventing local authorities from doing, in exercise of the general power, anything which is specified, or is of a description specified, in the order”,

or, under Clause 5(4), to make that subject to conditions. That is a very far-reaching incursion on the principle that the Bill seeks to advance, and it is simply not acceptable.

Amendment 109C in this group deals with the rather strange phrase, “any necessary protection”, which is contained in the clause and is in no sense defined. It is presumably left to the Secretary of State to determine what a necessary protection is. These are the limits under the power contained in Clause 6. In the absence of any sensible definition, I do not think this is an acceptable power to confer on the Secretary of State. I invite your Lordships to agree that these provisions should be left out of the Bill, and I move Amendment 109B accordingly.

[Baroness Hanham]

Amendment 109B, as the noble Lord said, would remove subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 5. These subsections provide reserve powers to allow the Secretary of State to prevent authorities from exercising the general power or to set conditions around the use of this power. We believe that these powers provide a necessary and proper safeguard, given the breadth of the new power—to ensure, for example, that risks to both local government finances and the Exchequer are properly managed. The Government have no plans—I think I said this earlier on—to use the powers in subsections (3) and (4). At present, there is nothing in mind; the Secretary of State is not sitting there with great excitement, his pen poised, waiting to take away what he has already given. The Government actually expect them to be used very rarely, if at all. They are, however, an insurance policy. They might, for instance, have to be used to deal with any risks that might arise from authorities’ use of the new general power—I think I said this in Committee—to engage in novel financial transactions using public money. That might require the Secretary of State to step in. The use of the power is subject to consultation and to the affirmative procedure, which would ensure suitable parliamentary scrutiny. I just want to stress that, occasionally in legislation, we need to provide for the very end of the road when something might go wrong, and that is all the clause is for.

Amendment 109C would remove one of the conditions that place restrictions and limitations on the use of Clause 5(1). The provision in question must not remove, as the noble Lord said very clearly in his opening remarks, “any necessary protection”. This condition ensures that protections—which might relate, for example, to the economy, health and safety, civil liberties, the environment or national heritage—are not removed. A similar condition is used in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, so this is not new to legislation. It is quite deliberately wide. Any Secretary of State seeking to make an order under Clause 5(1) must be satisfied that the condition is met and must explain why to Parliament. We believe, therefore, that this and the other conditions in Clause 6 are a useful additional safeguard and should be retained.

Before the noble Lord or others intervene, I will speak to government Amendments 234, 235 and 236, because it might help the debate coming afterwards. Amendment 234 gives effect to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in relation to Clause 5(2). Clause 5(2) is entirely benign; it can be used only to remove wholly overlapped, and therefore unnecessary, powers. It cannot be used to remove duties. The amendment ensures that orders made under Clause 5(2), if not made in conjunction with orders under Clause 5(1) and subject to special procedures set out in Clause 7, will have to be subject to an affirmative procedure. We believe that those safeguards, coupled with the intense level of parliamentary scrutiny provided, give sufficient protection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord McKenzie on moving the amendment, working very hard to ensure that it is in an acceptable form and persuading the Minister that it represents the right policy. I must congratulate the Minister and the Government on making the most significant concession, if you will, that we have had so far in terms of the Bill. This is the most localist part of the entire Bill, and the Minister and her colleagues deserve to be congratulated on that. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, also should be congratulated. We have had an almost biblical experience tonight. The voice was the voice of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, but the words were the words of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley—however, they were none the less persuasive for that.

Incidentally, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has done well to be in Manchester today. Were he travelling down by the east coast main line this afternoon he would not get here. I understand that winds have blown down trees on the east coast line and things are massively disrupted. Perhaps one day somebody will do something about the rail network and make sure that these incidents are less apt to cause damage.

However, I must say in reference to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that it was my pleasure to work with him, up to a point, when he chaired the Inner City Partnership committee as Secretary of State in Newcastle and Gateshead in the 1980s. I was then the leader of the council, a position that I relinquished—not before time, many people thought—some 17 years ago. It would have been helpful to have had the kind of powers conferred by this amendment—assuming it is passed, as I take it it will be—on local government.

As some of your Lordships will be aware, I am not an enthusiast for elected mayors by any means. I am therefore glad that the original restriction has been abandoned because it seems to me important that councils with the more conventional model of leader and executive should have this opportunity. Indeed, they have earned this opportunity. I refer particularly to the leader of Manchester City Council and his authority, which has blazed a trail in terms of urban regeneration and activities, not just for its authority but as one of the leading authorities in the Greater Manchester area of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, which now has parliamentary authority for a unique structure so far in terms of English local government.

Certainly the conferment of these wider powers is very welcome, particularly as I fear that some of the other changes in government policy will have an adverse effect on what everybody intends to happen, which is that the economic prosperity of these areas should be reinforced and, we hope, expanded.

I think that the Government erred in dismantling the regional structures, acknowledging that much of the work has to be at the sub-regional level, and therefore led by local authorities, in particular by the core cities. The disappearance, certainly in the north-east region of the Regional Development Agency has not been helpful. LEPs may be working in some places, but I do not think that they necessarily fill the gap. While I cannot speak for other parts of the country, certainly in the north-east I am bound to say with regret that an outbreak of parochialism, if not tribalism, is actually diminishing the capacity of what is a fairly compact region to deal with these issues. One hopes that the conferment of powers under this Bill will to a degree remedy that deficiency, but it is not axiomatic that authorities which are not so far being regarded as core cities will either seek these powers or use them in a collaborative way.

Later in the Bill we will talk about the duty to co-operate. It is a political duty rather than a legal one at the moment, so it remains to be seen how, in terms of planning, that duty can be strengthened. If the good intentions of this amendment are to be implemented, that will require a more constructive attitude on the part of some authorities than has been evident in the recent past. However, more than that is needed; it also requires a buy-in from a range of government departments and agencies. The Department for Communities and Local Government has set out its stall, but it remains to be seen whether other departments will, as it were, shop at that stall. There are some reasons to be concerned about that. One stems from the decision of the Government to abolish the regional offices and take back into Whitehall those civil servants up and down the country who became part of the dialogue between local areas and the Government in Whitehall. In my and others’ view, that local intelligence cannot simply be replaced by people sitting, in the case of Newcastle, in an office nearly 300 miles away, although the distances will differ. These people will not have a day-to-day acquaintance with the needs of an area or with local leaders, whether they be political or business leaders. In the north-east and no doubt elsewhere we found over many years that those who served in the Government offices became powerful and useful advocates for the regions and cities with the main departments in Whitehall. That, I think, is currently missing.

Beyond that, there is the question of what is happening to the community budgets. These are the replacement for the Total Place programme initiated at the suggestion of the Local Government Association, but adopted by the previous Government. The intention has been to pool resources across government departments and work to a common agenda which would differ according to each locality. That is the principle which has been piloted with some success. However, I have been making inquiries through Parliamentary Questions about the degree to which there has in fact been any buy-in by government departments to this agenda. It is totally unclear how much of the expenditure being authorised by departments at the local level has been applied to the concept of the community budgets. Apparently no one is even collating this information, let alone trying to ensure that departments are working with each other and their local partners on this programme. If that is the case for the policy that has been deployed until now, one has to wonder whether other departments will, in practice, fulfil the Government’s intentions—I repeat, I applaud them on adopting the policy set out in the amendment—in terms of the actual devolution of functions. If they are not prepared to co-operate and pool budgets in a joint way, will they seek to devolve functions to and through local government?

One can imagine a range of such functions, not least in the area in which my noble friend will have the good fortune to lead for the Opposition tomorrow and for some time hence, that of welfare reform. There are clear possibilities for much of the work being carried out in terms of employment, benefits and getting people from welfare into work to be done through local government and for responsibilities to be devolved in that respect. I hope that the Government will not simply wait for departments to come forward with proposals, but will positively promote the idea of piloting different approaches and services in authorities with a track record and whose capacity will in any event have to be recognised under the terms of the amendment.

It seems that this amendment has great potential for changing the way we respond to local needs and circumstances in a manner that reflects the strengths and opportunities as well as the weaknesses of a local and regional economy, and indeed those who make the decisions within it. But it needs to be driven across Whitehall. I do not know whether that would be a function of the Minister for Cities. Potentially it might be one, and I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is an unpaid adviser in that department. After spending many years in opposition and a few years in power in Newcastle, he is well qualified to assist the Minister, if that is the position. But again, this really does need to be driven from the top of Government, let alone by the Department for Communities and Local Government, however worthy it is in this respect. It is early days of course, and I do not know whether the Minister will be able to indicate whether there have been any discussions across the departments about how these matters might be progressed. Of course, we have only just had the amendment put before us so these are early days, but it would be reassuring if the Minister could say whether, at the very least, the Secretary of State would seek to work with Cabinet colleagues, the Local Government Association and perhaps a selection of the local authorities to explore in a coherent way how, while allowing for variation and experimentation, the intentions of this very worthy amendment could be implemented. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I am delighted to have been able to put my name to these amendments. There is no doubt that the core cities have worked extraordinarily hard to make sure that what they are hoping to achieve is well understood. The amendments were originally moved by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, at the previous stage, and we have worked on them ever since. It is very appropriate that something like this is done on a cross-party basis. As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said, these are big powers that are very localist in nature and will do precisely what local government has wanted for a long time. It is therefore appropriate that they are now being presented in a way that enables us all to join in.

I am grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Tope, and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for all the questions he has asked me. I hope that I shall be able to answer some of them. However, we have learnt from him that the railway line to Newcastle is not operating because of fallen trees. That is useful to know at this stage in case we all suddenly want to run off and go there. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkin for expressing his support. We recognise that things have moved on a long way from the days when he was a very distinguished Secretary of State who was extremely supportive of local government. But I do not think that even he at that stage could have envisaged that we would have been able to do this.

As has been said, the new clauses proposed in the amendments allow for the transfer of public functions and the delegation of ministerial functions to local authorities and other permitted authorities. They combine the amendments that allowed for the transfer and delegation of functions to local authorities as originally tabled by the opposition Front Bench in Committee with a power a transfer functions to elected mayors as set out in new Section 9HA which, as a consequence, we are now withdrawing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, we debated both these amendments in Committee. We accept that most proposals for additional governance models will come from local authorities. That will be how the impact will go given their expertise as practitioners. However, Amendment 119F still fails to recognise that ideas and proposals about new governance models may also come from other sources. The amendment says that the Secretary of State cannot do anything without having a proposal put to him. We need to make it clear that those proposals could come not only from local government but from local government representatives, think tanks or research units. Therefore, they might not be sufficiently well formed for the Government to take them on board. Saying that the Secretary of State may implement something only after a suggestion has been put forward may be restrictive, although the noble Lord is also saying that the Secretary of State should not be able to dream up a form of governance and then try to implement it. That is not the sense of this legislation. I hear what the noble Lord says, but that is not the intention.

In any case, if the Secretary of State decided to do that, he would be forcing local authorities to do something that they may not want to do and that is not the intention behind these provisions. We are not going to force local authorities. They would not have to adopt arrangements set out in any regulations made under this provision. This is an empowering clause not a diktat clause.

In Amendment 119G, the conditions that the noble Lord suggests are, if I may put it politely, less useful for local authorities than the existing ones. It does not seem unreasonable that there should be an explicit requirement that any proposed new arrangements should be an improvement on what is already there. There are three areas of governance listed in the Bill and anything else would have to be an improvement on what is there. I believe that the existing conditions give clarity for local authorities that may be considering submitting a proposal and we would not want to change that.

Finally, I remind noble Lords that any regulations made under this provision would simply extend the range of choice of governance models available to local authorities. They would not have to adopt those arrangements. They would be one more in addition to that list of three if somebody can think of something remarkable to do.

I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

I am grateful to the Minister although it is entirely unclear who would judge and on what basis whether the change was an improvement or not. However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Monday 5th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Whitty and will make a couple of observations—one in relation to something that was touched on in the amendment and another that is implicit. In the first case I refer to subsection (2) in the amendment, where my noble friend suggests:

“All local housing authorities must draw up an analysis of housing supply and demand in their areas and neighbouring areas as far as is relevant”.

In many cases that is a fundamental point which was made more difficult by the abolition of the regional spatial strategies. We know of authorities that are currently having considerable difficulties. In earlier debates I cited the case of Stevenage, which was looking to increase its housing stock. It cannot do so within the narrow confines of the borough, and it is not finding a warm welcome from the adjoining borough of North Hertfordshire. There are other cases of that kind.

In looking at housing needs, as has previously been indicated, it is sometimes necessary to look beyond the confines of an individual housing authority and to make proper provision for at least a sub-regional area. That is an important part of the amendment. I would be grateful for some assurance from the Minister that, even if she is not prepared to accept the amendment as it stands—and I hazard a guess that she might not be—the Government will look at how these cross-boundary issues of determining housing need can be adequately addressed.

The other issue could be wrapped up within subsection (2)(f) of the amendment:

“broad demographic and employment trends in their areas”.

One change in the housing situation in many towns and cities with universities and colleges is the high demand for student accommodation. Some of that is met by purpose building—by the university or private institutions—but a lot of it is met by the occupation by students of what in normal circumstances would be family housing.

As with immigrants, there is certainly a strong case to be made for the contribution made by students, and higher and further education, within the local economy. However, they absorb a considerable amount of housing accommodation that was originally designed for families and put additional pressure on the local housing stock and the local housing market. In the light of changes to be made to housing benefit and welfare benefits generally, that pressure is likely to increase because private landlords may well find students a readier purchaser of rented accommodation, as it were, and more able to afford it, than ordinary families and ordinary individuals seeking housing. I think my noble friend Lord Whitty would agree that this should be included in the demographic trends and analysis that he suggests authorities should make. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister were able to comment on this issue.

Finally, the issue of the number of vacant properties has already been touched on this afternoon. This was referred to this morning in a meeting convened by the Minister, with her right honourable friend the Minister for Housing. Mr Shapps rightly pointed out that waiting lists have grown to something like 1.2 million. He also said that there were a million empty properties in the country—correcting me, appropriately; I thought it was somewhat less than that—which would virtually take care of the waiting list.

Of course there are good reasons why some properties will remain vacant for some time—while they change hands, for example—but there is a real issue over bringing into use the empty properties that could help deal with the housing problem. I regret that the Government’s policies on empty dwelling management orders, for example, make it more difficult, not less, for local authorities to address the issue of properties that have been left vacant for some time. They now have to be vacant for two years or more and include an element of environmental degradation before a council can take action. Again, dealing with empty properties is referred to in the housing strategy, but it would be welcome if the Minister would indicate whether there are proposals currently in the Government’s mind to facilitate the use of empty accommodation and to speed up the process of dealing with empty properties.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I got us off to a really good start, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has taken that on as well. This is a general amendment on a very serious and specific subject, and I recognise all that has been said across the House and the analysis of the housing situation. In all fairness, I should point out that this is not just a short-term problem. This has been a long-term problem over the years, and both the previous Government and this Government have been trying very hard to address at least some of the issues that have been raised.

There are all sorts of reasons behind a lack of housing and none of us would disagree that the present situation is pretty difficult. It is pretty difficult in the private market. It is very difficult, as has already been said, for young people to get on to the housing ladder; it is very difficult for them to afford mortgages. There is a big problem for that age group and for people starting off on their housing lives.

As has already been said, and was admitted by the Minister this morning, there are empty properties that need to be brought back into use. There is a lot of pressure on housing requirements all round. As the Minister also said, in reality we cannot build ourselves out of these difficulties in the short term. One hundred and seventy thousand homes are being built through the affordable homes programme for social housing, and they will make some contribution towards it. The waiting lists have gone up and, as has been said already, a million homes are required, which is a big problem. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is about drawing attention to that and identifying what is required. He said that in Committee I said that this amendment would not be needed. It will not surprise him when I say now that it is not needed. Already, there are statutory provisions requiring local authorities, which the noble Lord mentioned, to collect evidence on housing need and demand in their areas for market and affordable housing. That is in planning policy statement 3 and is included in the guidance.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Monday 5th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[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]

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

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

What of the case that I put of a business area with discrete residential areas on either side? What is the situation there?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, if they were included in the area, they would be part of that business forum. If it was decided that, percentage-wise, the area was more business than neighbourhood, they would still have to be involved in that. If they were outside that forum, they could make their own forums, but if they were in the business forum area they would have to be included rather than be the totally driving force. Does that answer the question?

[Lord Beecham]

It might when we come to Amendment 148AE later.

[Baroness Hanham]

My noble friend Lord True asked about the extent to which the regulations would lead to a one-size-fits-all approach. We think it is important that local communities put these forums together in a way that suits them, although the forums will have to be put together in conjunction with the local planning authorities. Those planning authorities will be able to see their plans at the neighbourhood level through the development plan documents, but those documents will influence the neighbourhood plans.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked about the designation of the neighbourhood forums. I think I responded to this. The local planning authority will be responsible for designating a neighbourhood area and deciding whether it is a business neighbourhood. It will be left to the local authority to decide whether there is a majority of business people or a majority of local people. The Bill does not allow for overlapping neighbourhood areas, which provides certainty as to which area you are in and which policies apply. As I said, if you are in a business area you are in a business area. Neighbourhood areas outside it will need their own forums.

I think I have responded to most of the questions that I have been asked, and I hope that with those responses noble Lords will not press their amendments to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

I am sorry to add to the Minister’s burdens, but I would like a little clarification. In her recent intervention, the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, has continued to use the term “business vote”, but as the Minister has rightly pointed out it is a non-domestic vote, which presumably includes the local authority’s own buildings, and indeed government offices, so she might be casting votes up and down the country. However, I have a difficulty—it might just be me, I must confess—with Amendment 148ZB. The latter provision in Amendment 148AE requires an authority in effect to consider whether a business area should be designated as a neighbourhood area, but Amendment 148ZB talks about a situation in which there are,

“two applicable referendums under that Schedule (because the order relates to a neighbourhood area designated as a business area under section 61GA)”.

Am I correct in thinking that there are two applicable referendums because they relate both to a business area and to a residential neighbourhood area? I do not quite understand the reference to “two applicable referendums”. If there are to be two applicable referendums, I come back to the question that I posed earlier about a business area that might adjoin two separate residential neighbourhood areas. I do not understand how this will work for referendums and how proposed new subsection (5)(b) in Amendment 148ZB will operate, because there might conceivably be three referendums: one for the business area and one for each of the two adjoining residential areas. If I am correct that that might occur, the outcome will be somewhat complicated.

Frankly, I do not expect the Minister to be able to give an answer off the cuff, although she may do, in which case I will nominate her for a Nobel prize for understanding daft legislation. I would be very grateful if she could indicate that she will write to me and perhaps place a copy of the letter in the Library afterwards.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I have two responses to give. The first response is to my noble friend Lord Greaves, who asked about residential accommodation above business premises. Both would have votes, so there would be two votes. The second response is to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. If he will forgive me, I will write in response to his points about the referendums.

Local Government Finance

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Monday 18th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Tope for his kindly and warm welcome for this consultation document. I agree with him that local government will be content with this proposal; whether it is content with all the details will come out in the consultation. As long as I have been involved in local government, and since the rate began to be set centrally, local government has looked to having the business rate repatriated—in that it does not go out and come back in again but is contained within local authorities. The repatriation of the business rate is a good thing. The setting of the rate for the grant will continue to be set centrally, for the time being at least. As far as I know at the moment, that will continue to be the situation.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, to follow the pointed last question of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, does it not make rather a nonsense of the fine phrase about “freedom over finance” when all that is being restored is the right to retain business rates at a level decreed by the Government, with no capacity to vary it one way or the other at the local level? Is it not also the case that the vaunted reduction in ring-fencing, which in principle is to be welcomed, really amounts at present simply to more freedom to spend less and to incur the odium of taking the decisions over cuts in services that the Government are imposing on authorities through the significant, massive and unprecedented reduction in the government grant?

There is a sentence in the Statement that says:

“Beyond this spending review period, we will look to align more closely local authority functions and total business rate income”.

What does that mean? What are the implications of that sentence?

As for the fairness between authorities, is it not striking that the City of London stands to gain £545 million a year in increased business rate income and the entire authorities in the north-east of England stand to lose £544 million a year? For how long and to what extent will losses in authorities such as those in the north-east be compensated? There are many others; Birmingham, for example, will lose £300 million. Will the losses be fully met and, if so, for how long? Is the Minister aware that in a debate in Westminster Hall, Andrew Stunell, who is a Minister in the department, seemed to indicate that it would be for a year? Is that the position?

Finally, how will this compensation adjustment be made? Is there any detail in the consultation paper about how these huge imbalances are to be addressed, or is it another case of politics in the style of the late lamented Tommy Cooper, whereby things will happen “just like that”?

[Baroness Hanham]

The noble Lord said it so nicely, he will almost be able to go on the stage and do Tommy Cooper, but I am sure he does not really want to do that.

At the outset I remind the noble Lord that local government finance is at the level that it is because of the disastrous deficit that had to be met. Local government has had to take its share of that. The noble Lord knows that if a Labour Government had come into power, they too would have had to make very substantial reductions. Local government would have been left facing very similar problems and decisions to reflect those reductions.

The compensation system will be the tariffs and the top-ups. The expectation is that the control totals that are in place at the moment for the four-year spending review will stay in place. However, with the retention of the business rate, as the noble Lord has rightly said, some areas will have a far higher business rate than others and will be able to generate more. At the start, the tariff will be set at the level of those that have higher rates; the expectation is that, above that, money will be taken off and passed to those in the poorest areas. There will be a sort of balancing between them.

The noble Lord asked how there would be growth. The rate will encourage local government to talk to businesses and encourage the development of businesses, because they will be able to retain some of the extra rate that comes from that. I hope that that answers the noble Lord’s questions.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Thursday 7th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

That is presumably why there are refugees in your Lordships' House.

My amendments are designed slightly to strengthen and clarify the position in respect of those who should be included in the list. The first relates to Clause 76(2)(b)(iii), which speaks of “a person specified”. I simply suggest that we make that “person or persons”, because it is clear that an individual is not the only, or indeed the likeliest, source of a nomination. Amendment 136BZB would then add a qualification to make that person or persons,

“resident and eligible to vote in local elections of the relevant authority”.

Again, it is necessary to tie in the individual making a nomination to the local community.

Amendment 136BZC would give “the local authority” the right to make a nomination as well. That seems sensible and should be no problem to the Government.

However, an issue arises in that respect, and in other respects in this part of the Bill, about the definition of a local authority. There is a clause in the Bill which sets out the hierarchy of local authorities, counties and so on. There is also, I believe—I cannot for the moment identify it—a provision in the Bill which requires local authorities to co-operate on issues across the Bill. That leaves the question, with which the Minister might help us, of which authority in a two-tier area has the duty to compile the lists or whether it is both. Both levels of authority might have an interest, or one might have an interest and another not, in the particular function for which a nomination is made. For example, there might be some functions—recreation and so on—where a district councillor would have an interest; there might be others, in the realm, let us say, of social services, where a county authority would be more likely to have an interest. There seems to be nothing in the Bill to dictate, or even indicate, which of the two authorities should make the list, whether there should be a combined list or how it might operate in practice. It would be unfortunate, to pick up the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord True, about the cost, if both authorities were obliged to maintain lists and staff up accordingly.

I do not expect the Minister to be able to deal with these matters immediately, but could they be looked at, clarified and worked through, perhaps in consultation with the Local Government Association? The vague “duty to co-operate”, a phrase to which we will return when we come on to the planning section of the Bill, does not really take us very far.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hanham]

I apologise for getting up too early. I had not realised the Front Bench was boxing and coxing and acting as supports as well as leads. We can sort out who is doing what when.

These are interesting amendments. I was very taken by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, on Amendment 136A. That amendment would make eligible a community organisation operating in the local authority area to make a community nomination. We shall put down in regulations who nominations can be made by; that is, any voluntary or community body with a local connection. I shall see that that includes what the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, spoke about, because, if not, we limit what can be done. We shall consider bringing forward an amendment at a later stage if it is necessary.

The duty to co-operate is in the development and planning area. My expectation is that the duty to co-operate would continue to exist between one authority and another if something straddled the two authorities. I am making all this up as I go along, so I may have to come back to it. The communities bidding to put a facility on the list must come from the authority area in which it sits. I cannot see that stretching out unless there were two facilities in different authorities, in which case they might have to put on both.

[Lord Beecham]

The problem is that you have a district council within a county area, so the resident and land may be in one place geographically but there are two authorities within whose boundaries it is situated. That is the problem that I foresee.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, the district would in that case maintain the list; the lower authority maintains the list. In London, it would be a borough.

[Lord Beecham]

Again, taking up the point of the noble Lord, Lord True, that might be quite burdensome for some districts. It is worth looking at again. Perhaps it can be discussed between now and Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

I understand that and am grateful to the noble Baroness. That of course means that there is a way out for an owner. My first question was whether, assuming that the property was vacant, a legal charge would constitute a disposal. The Minister may need some legal advice about that, as indeed I may do too.

[Baroness Hanham]

If noble Lords know the answer to that, I shall be extremely grateful. I shall have to write to the noble Lord on that as I do not have a response.

Any orders will be affirmative, and that is also my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Under the Bill, the need to change will stay unamended. It is fair to say that at some stage there might be a requirement to change the definition. If that is the case, again it will be done through an affirmative order.

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has produced the sort of conundrum that we had over private land where a small piece is taken out or is open to community use. I suspect that mining land is not part of the Bill, although I shall have to write to the noble Lord. However, if it is, I accept that what he said is very similar to what was said about the problems of small bits of land being used, through benevolence, for cricket pitches. I shall come back to that with an answer before the next stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I apologise, the noble Lord did correct himself. However, we still believe that we have a better route than the noble Lord. We do not think that the district valuer would have a role in this. As I say, we think that that provision would be unnecessary in view of the legislation that we will be introducing.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, we will have to see what happens as regards the draft regulations. I cannot say that I am persuaded by the argument that the district valuer is not the appropriate person to deal with these matters. However, we shall see precisely what the Government have in place when somebody else provides the noble Baroness with the ammunition. I hope that by Report we can have a clearer picture and possibly reach an agreement. If not, it may be a matter on which we shall have to take the opinion of the House. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

That is what I suggested under a previous amendment, but I think the whole area needs looking at.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, that was an amusing exchange. I look forward to seeing the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, taking over as Secretary of State, although I do not think that the Secretary of State would appreciate that. This exchange is about matters which I have answered briefly, although, I appreciate, not in detail.

We believe that it is important that we clearly set out who should run the community right to buy. Clause 91 defines what we mean by local authority and who will be responsible for administering the provisions. It makes sense that a decision on listing is made directly by the local democratic authority, rather than any other. For that reason, we have chosen to give powers to specified local authorities to run the scheme.

Where there is more than one local authority in an area, we have decided that, in most cases, implementation of the scheme should be by the local authority with the relevant planning powers. That would mean that, in two-tier areas, the running of the scheme would fall to the district council. However, in the case of the national parks and the Broads Authority, which have planning powers for the area but are not elected authorities, we have left administration of the scheme with the local authority as having democratic accountability. We would expect the local authority to liaise with the local national park or the Broads Authority where appropriate. We also consider it important to retain the Secretary of State's power by order, if necessary, to amend the definition of local authority in the light of experience. Amendment 147A would remove that power, so we resist it.

Amendments 147FA and 147FB would give powers to a national park authority and the Broads Authority to make decisions on what is listed and to run the scheme. National parks and the Broads Authority have members appointed by the local authorities, but they are not themselves democratically accountable local authorities, so they would fall outside the scope of the definition of local authority.

Amendment 147FZA would replace the current list in Clause 91 of what counts as a local authority for the new list. Some items are the same, but the proposed new list would allow a county council in a two-tier area to take responsibility for administering the scheme by agreement with the district council or councils. That would remove the important link between these provisions and the planning authority. The new list also omits the Common Council—the City of London—and the Council of the Islands of Scilly and deletes the Secretary of State’s power to amend the list later for England, although not the power of Welsh Ministers to do the same in Wales. For the reasons I have given, I cannot accept the amendments, and I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press them.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Thursday 7th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, it is not for me to consider. As the noble Lord knows, government business and the timing of that business are dealt with by the usual channels. That does not fall within my remit at all. We have three weeks left with virtually two days a week to be spent on the Bill. Somewhere within that time people will, I hope, come together and we will be able to discuss the issue. I just make the point that I have had several meetings and I am very happy to extend the invitation to those meetings to the Opposition.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, on a different point, the Minister referred just now to compensation, as she did on Tuesday. I have two linked amendments on that issue in today’s Marshalled List that we shall come to later. Have I missed an amendment on this that the Government have already tabled? I do not see a provision in the Bill about compensation, other than that an authority may make compensation available. Has an amendment been tabled? If not, is it the intention to table an amendment about it?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right. I suspect that the intention is to put something in regulations but I shall check that and let the noble Lord know.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, we believe that the leader and cabinet model is a good one. We also believe that the leader should be able to select those whom he wishes to have with him. It is a very close relationship, and it is very important that it works well. We think it right for a leader to be able to appoint his own executive team.

Amendment 38 would prevent the maximum size of an executive being set at a figure lower than 10 members. I accept that current experience with 10 members is about right, but I would not accept that future circumstances will be such that, while it might be right to increase the maximum limit of the size of an executive, it might not be right to have a lower limit. I think that that is what the noble Lord’s amendment suggests. Experience demonstrates that 10 is about the right number, and that a lower number may be too little and a higher number too much. Most of these cabinet systems are working quite well as they are. One might also point out that the more cabinet members you have, the more you have to pay. I hope that that resolves some of the questions.

[Lord Beecham]

I thank the Minister for her reply and thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for the support that he gave to some of the amendments. In relation to Amendment 37A, in practice there would be little advantage in going along that route. It would be a foolish leader who endeavoured to appoint an executive without the support of his colleagues. He would not last long in leadership, I suspect. In reality, I do not think that this particular provision is required.

On Amendment 38, however, the Minister rather skates over the implications of the Bill as it presently stands. I cannot see any reason why the determination of the size of the executive should not be entirely at the discretion of the local authority. At the very least, it would be wrong to leave the Secretary of State with power arbitrarily to reduce the size of the executive to, potentially, one or two members. Generally speaking, 10 is about the right figure; in the case of my own authority and that of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, the new administration has actually reduced the number of cabinet members, to use the phrase adopted, from 10 to six. That is legitimate and a matter of decision for the authority. In my submission, it would not be legitimate for the Secretary of State to prescribe that. Given the increasing spread of responsibilities, the partnership arrangements that now exist and the structures that now surround local government, it may well be creating an onerous burden on members of executives if their numbers were to be confined. I hope that the Government look again at this really rather purposeless provision.

The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, raised the question of principle, which it may be as well that we dispose of today. He asks very legitimately where the power of general competence is in all this. I had the pleasure of working with, or perhaps beneath, the noble Lord when he was Secretary of State for the Environment and chaired the Inner City Partnership committee in Newcastle. He was always clearly committed to local government. The problem is not so much around the concept of general competence as that the Bill, or much of it, rests on an assumption—certainly on the part of civil servants, and perhaps of Ministers of all Administrations—of general incompetence in local government and those who serve in it. I fear that that suspicion lies behind many of the manifold provisions in the Bill which purport to increase the degree of regulation that the Secretary of State can impose, if he sees fit. I hope that on reflection, as we go through the Bill, the Minister and her noble friends will think again about the degree to which they are taking upon themselves a burden that is effectively unnecessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, we are back again to the same arguments that we had on the previous amendment on area committees. It relies on the regulations. I thank my noble friend Lord True for suggesting a way in which amendments might come. I think we need to look carefully at what has been said. Perhaps I need to review this before the next stage to see whether anything needs to be done about these provisions.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that very helpful response. We are now into the realm of guidance. It seems to me that guidance is a more acceptable face of regulation—or its better looking twin, as it were—but there is a little bit too much of that as well in the Bill. Matters like this can perfectly sensibly be left to individual local authorities and the guidance that other bodies, such as the Local Government Association, would be prepared to offer. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. As we go through the Bill, I think there will be many examples where all sides of the House would wish to see precisely that accommodating attitude reflected so that we do not end up on Report with many detailed amendments which should not be dividing us at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I shall start by saying that I recognise a lot of what I have heard from noble Lords regarding how councils operate. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, would make it compulsory for scrutiny committees to be chaired by the leader of the opposition party on a council. This amendment is unnecessary. I know of many councils that do precisely that, whereby a leader or senior member of the opposition party chairs review and scrutiny meetings. That is absolutely proper, but such a provision does not need to be couched in either guidance or legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, pointed out, there may be some areas where there are no opposition members, but the amendment would make such a provision mandatory. There are some areas where all members are Conservatives and the issue is the same. I hope that from the tenor of the debate noble Lords will agree that such a provision is neither appropriate nor necessary, and that we should not return to it. The annual scrutiny survey, which, I must say, I did not know existed, shows an upward trend, with 42 per cent of authorities allocating scrutiny chairs to members outside the majority group. This idea is clearly taking off well enough, without any interference from Parliament.

Amendments 46 and 47 would change the arrangements on designated scrutiny officers, particularly to make it clear that a designated officer could lead other officers in the discharge of scrutiny functions, as well as requiring district councils in two-tier areas to designate a scrutiny officer. Again, the amendments proposed are not necessary. Of course, we envisage that scrutiny will involve a number of officers to support a scrutiny committee. That already happens, it is part and parcel of the way scrutiny committees are run, and indeed in some councils they are completely separate from the rest of the administration so that they are completely independent. It is unimaginable that one scrutiny officer could not appoint somebody to help him. It is certainly not necessary to make that mandatory because I am quite certain that in most local authorities that is precisely what happens. There is nothing to prevent a district council in a two-tier area designating a scrutiny officer but statute does not require this. Noble Lords have made the point that district councils perhaps do not have quite such onerous responsibilities as county councils and therefore it is not mandatory for them to have a designated officer, although of course if they choose to have one they can. That is perfectly in order.

Amendments 48 and 49 remove the requirement on members to have regard to the guidance and the regulation-making powers of the Secretary of State in relation to referral of matters to a scrutiny committee. These powers enable the Secretary of State to ensure that certain important safeguards are in place. Regulations made under the power that noble Lords are seeking to remove protect against vexatious or discriminatory matters from being placed on the scrutiny committee meeting agenda. They also exclude matters for which there are already statutory processes and rights of appeal, such as planning and licence decisions or matters relating to an individual. It is not unreasonable that those matters should be placed before scrutiny committees in the course of their business.

We believe that the existing framework is working pretty well without removing the requirement for scrutiny committees to make reports and recommendations relating to partner authorities and local area agreements. Having said that, I have some sympathy with Amendment 49C, which is seeking to remove the link between local improvement targets and local area agreements—that might indeed become otiose. We are absolutely clear that where authorities operate executive governance arrangements, scrutiny arrangements must be in place. We recognise that scrutiny plays an important role in holding the executive to account and contributing to policy development in authorities. I certainly support what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, says—that overview and scrutiny committees, like planning committees, should not be whipped. They are clearly committees where scrutiny and challenge should take place and that should not be done against a background of being told what to do.

Amendment 69 would make it mandatory for councils with committee systems to have an overview and scrutiny committee. That is not necessary. The committee system in itself should have a scrutiny role and always did in the past—that was one of the benefits of the committee system. Therefore, that amendment is not necessary.

With the various explanations and assurances I have given, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord Beecham]

I am grateful to the Minister for her response. In relation to Amendment 69, which I did not address before, scrutiny ought not to be just a matter of looking at the internal workings and policies of the council itself. It should be used, and in many cases is being used, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, mentioned, to look beyond what other organisations are doing—or not doing, more to the point—in the locality beyond the statutory requirements, for example, that would apply to the health service for authorities with adult service responsibilities. The amendment does not quite address the issue in the terms that perhaps it should have done but I would welcome some encouragement from the Minister for authorities which do not necessarily have a scrutiny committee to use their own committee system for that purpose, and to encourage those to whom application is made for some explanation of what they are doing in a locality to respond as if this were a request from a scrutiny committee. It would be helpful if Ministers said something to support such activity on the part of councils, particularly district councils, which perhaps do not have a full-blown scrutiny process but which may seek to follow the example of other authorities which do have that process to explore the workings of organisations, be they public sector or private sector, and the impact they have on their community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their amendments, and I start by saying that I shall be helpful in relation to some but not to others. As noble Lords have said, the various amendments in the group seek to remove the guidance or regulation-making powers of the Secretary of State—a common theme this afternoon. In each case, the powers enable certain safeguards to be in place. Although noble Lords are critical of regulation, sometimes it is necessary at the same time to protect other aspects with which they are concerned.

Amendment 45A would remove the ability to issue guidance on important matters such as scrutiny chairs, as we discussed on the previous group. Amendments 48A, 48B and 48C would remove the requirement for members to have regard to guidance and the Secretary of State’s regulation-making power in relation to the referral of matters to a scrutiny committee. However, as I said, these powers enable the Secretary of State to ensure that certain important safeguards are in place. We have discussed some of them, such as vexatious or discriminatory matters being placed before a scrutiny committee, which we talked about on the previous amendment. I do not think that it is unreasonable that that sort of aspect should be ruled out of the scrutiny committee’s responsibilities. Some might take that view and some might not but I think it is sensible that they are left with no option about that. As well as rights of appeal, the amendments would also exclude matters that are already statutory processes, such as planning and licensing decisions or matters relating, for example, to an individual. Therefore, I shall not be able to accept those amendments.

Amendments 49U and 49V would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to make regulations to guard against the duplication of requests by scrutiny committees to other partner bodies. They are regulations that seek to minimise the burden on such authorities and make best use of the available information.

Amendments 47A, 49A, 49B and 49D to 49T also look to reform existing scrutiny provisions by simplifying and expanding the definition of “partner bodies”. They would expand the matters in relation to which scrutiny committees may rely on their powers, removing the link to local area agreements—which we have already agreed I should look at—and extending the powers of district council scrutiny committees, among other things, as we have already discussed.

As I said in the debate on the previous group, we do not believe that the existing framework hampers innovative practices by scrutiny committees. However, I have some sympathy with the aims of some of the amendments, and, again, I shall draw them into the discussions that we need to have. They seek to bring up to date the scrutiny regime that sits across various Acts of Parliament in light of recent changes, so it is right that we should look at them.

I am happy to consider Amendments 47A, 49A, 49B, and 49D to 49T. In debating previous amendments, we also discussed committee system authorities and the operation of scrutiny. Our view is that such authorities should be able to choose to have overview and scrutiny committees. Proposed new Section 9JA makes this clear. Removing the section entirely would create confusion. It would be unclear whether committee system authorities could operate scrutiny committees, and what the role and powers of such committees would be if they did. Therefore, the amendment is proposing that is unnecessary.

The provisions that Amendments 87ZB to 87ZD seek to change replicate existing provisions in the Local Government Act 2000, which reflect the important interests that the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church have in the provision of education, given the significant number of voluntary-aided schools in most if not all local authorities. It is correct that these significant partners in education should by right have representation on the relevant scrutiny committees. Therefore, we do not support the amendments.

With those explanations, the realisation that we discussed some issues when debating the previous group of amendments, and my acceptance of further discussions on some of the amendments, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, again I found that a very helpful answer, and I agreed with most of the comments and responses that the noble Baroness gave. I offer a suggestion about where an assurance at some stage would be helpful. In exercising his powers to proffer guidance, the Secretary of State might wish to consult either or both—preferably both—the Local Government Association and the Centre for Public Scrutiny. One would not want to write the Centre for Public Scrutiny into statute, but an indication that there would be those discussions, particularly with the Centre for Public Scrutiny, which is quite independent, would be helpful in ensuring that the guidance was broadly acceptable to the local government world and beyond. I take the point that it is necessary, in order to ensure public confidence and that minorities within local government are protected—given that the politics can be a little difficult at times—that there should be some guidance on this range of issues. If the guidance were informed by the Centre for Public Scrutiny and consulted on with the LGA, that would be a way forward. The provision does not need to be statutory, but an indication would be very helpful. I do not ask the Minister to respond immediately.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, the current presumption of meetings being held in public comes under the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000, with which I am sure the noble Lord is entirely familiar. The general principle of that is that there is a presumption in favour of openness, where key decisions of executives are made.

We are—I hardly dare to say the word—aiming to make new regulations which will remove some of the current prescription that make it clear that there is a presumption in favour of public meetings. As the noble Lord has already said, it is essential that there is some ability for a committee to close its proceedings for private or confidential reasons, but those must not be outwith what would normally be discussed in public. We are going to retain the parts in the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000—I will not go through that again—to ensure that written records of certain decisions must be available to the public. We are also going to regulate how they must be made available so, as a result of what we are proposing, there will not be any deterioration in the right of access to meetings. We will just tidy up to make it clear that, as the noble Lord and other noble Lords have said, the presumption in favour of open meetings is absolutely understood.

[Lord Beecham]

I accept the Minister’s helpful suggestions, as ever, and I shall refer to the 2000 local government regulations. I shall look them up tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

I thank the noble Lord. I have seen his Amendment 81B, and obviously that implies the direction he is coming from, but I certainly do not want to be unhelpful to the Committee in any way. My objective, which the Government have now said is theirs as well, is to erase the principle of shadow mayors. However, I agree that the point of principle he has raised does merit discussion at some point in our proceedings. I will be as co-operative as I can, under advice.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, unfortunately these amendments were grouped and degrouped rather speedily overnight, so we were slightly surprised to see this morning where the degroupings were. However, I accept the fact that the noble Lord will want to deal with the referendum issue at the next stage. Is there an amendment to which he wants to return? Otherwise I will accept all the amendments I have already said that I would accept, and I will go through them quietly again. The noble Lord indicates that he does not have an amendment to which he wants to return. That being the case, within the groupings of the noble Lord, Lord True, I shall list which amendments I am willing to accept, and if there are any differences about that, we shall look at the issue again. The amendments are Amendments 62A, 66A, 69A, 69B, 69C, 73A, 74A, 75A, 77A, 77B, 79A, 81A, 84A, 84B, 84C, 84D, 87A, 87B, 87C, 87D, 108A and 187. In listing them, I repeat the undertaking that I gave at the outset of Committee to remove the provisions for mayoral management arrangements.

I shall deal finally with Amendment 56, to which I suspect the noble Lord will want to return at some stage. The amendment would remove the provisions about whether an elected mayor is to be treated as a member or councillor of a local authority. I am told that these provisions replicate those in the Local Government Act 2000, which put in place the default position that a mayor is not to be treated as a member or councillor unless regulations provide that they should be. I do not know which side of the bed we are now on, or whether we are getting into it or out of it, as the noble Lord has said, but the default position is already in regulations.

[Lord Beecham]

I am just anxious that we should not have senior officers of the authority clambering into the bed. It might be easier to deal with it in the way that I have described, but perhaps that can be looked at. If regulations already exist and the intention is to replicate them, that might serve. On the other hand, it may be simpler just to revert to the principle of treating the mayor for all purposes as a councillor. But we can look at that before Report.

[Baroness Hanham]

I thank the noble Lord for that. Unless I have not done something that I ought to have done, I ask that the amendments that I have listed be accepted and that the noble Lord withdraw Amendment 56 for the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for this little exchange. I will see what I can do. Amendment 64, as the noble Lord said, seeks to remove the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations changing the term of office of elected mayors. This is an important power that allows for transitional arrangements to be made following the first election of mayors. In October 2001, when a number of mayoral elections were held, the Secretary of State was able to vary the mayors’ terms of office so that the second elections were held in May, and in some local authority areas the mayor’s term was varied to enable the mayoral elections to be held at the same time as local government elections. We believe that it is important that this power, which has been available to the Government since 2000, is retained.

Amendment 65 is unnecessary as regulations made under new Section 9HN can relate only to the conduct of mayoral elections, and changes to electoral law or regulations cannot be made for any other purpose under this power.

The noble Lord has queried the provision at new Section 9HN(5). The Secretary of State is able to make regulations placing limitations on election expenses. However, in most cases he must do so only following a recommendation from the Electoral Commission. The only exception when a commission recommendation is not necessary is where the Secretary of State makes changes to any limits in line with inflation. That would mean an upgrading of the mayor’s election expenses owing to the fact that there had been inflation, which of course we do not have at the moment so it would not be necessary. The noble Lord asked what “money” relates to here. It means election expenses, which can be uprated by the Secretary of State. Again, this replicates provisions in the Local Government Act 2000.

Amendment 67 seeks to require regulations made by the Secretary of State under new Section 9ID on the election, terms of office and filling of vacancies of executive leaders to be subject to the affirmative procedure. We envisage that any regulations made under this section would be used for transitional purposes when a change in governance arrangements takes place. Furthermore, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, having completed its review of the Bill, is satisfied with the level of parliamentary scrutiny of regulations made under new Section 9ID. We are therefore not convinced that the existing arrangements in the 2000 Act, whereby such provisions have been subject to the negative procedure, should be changed. That remains the situation.

On the question of deputy mayors, Amendments 86 and 87, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seek to require the mayor to gain the agreement of his or her cabinet when appointing their deputy mayor. The Government’s view is that the decision about who to appoint as their deputy mayor should be a decision for the mayor alone. It seems unnecessary for a directly elected mayor, accountable to the electorate of an entire local authority area, to have to seek the agreement of a cabinet, the members of which they themselves have appointed, to determine who the deputy mayor should be.

Amendment 87ZA seeks to remove an elected mayor’s ability, if he or she wishes, to appoint an assistant. Such assistants can currently fulfil a similar role to those carried out by political assistants to the main political groups on the council. Given the significant role that elected mayors play in their local communities—taking key strategic decisions, acting as ambassador for the area and facilitating effective partnerships are just part of what they do—then, in the same way as leaders are supported by political assistants, elected mayors will need an assistant to effectively carry out these roles. There are currently four independent and local authority mayors in England. As such, independent mayors are ineligible to have a political assistant who works only to the main political groups on the council. Amendment 87ZA may have the effect of leaving such mayors without any access to any political support or assistance.

However, we are not saying that an elected mayor must appoint an assistant. The appointment of a mayoral assistant is entirely optional and we would expect mayors to have regard to existing support structures within the council, both political and administrative, and its financial resources when reaching a decision on whether it is necessary to appoint an assistant. The Secretary of State has, of course, no involvement in a mayor’s appointment of an assistant.

I hope that these responses are helpful and will convince the House that these amendments are unnecessary and need not be pressed.

[Lord Beecham]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, the amendment has excited a deal of interest. I wish to make it absolutely clear that we are not talking about imposing mayors on cities; we are talking about imposing a referendum. It is crucial that we do not get too exercised about the imposition of a certain form of government. We are saying that it is the coalition Government’s view that cities would benefit enormously from having a mayor; they would benefit democratically and from all the interests that a mayor brings and all the influence that a mayor can exert. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, who is obviously not totally behind us on this, has pointed to the success of the London Mayor. When we first saw that starting, I do not think any of us thought that it would be very effective. In fact, it has been under two separate Governments; it has raised the profile of London.

We are trying to give a similar profile to other cities or to give local people the opportunity to say whether they think that would be an appropriate form of government for their city. The only imposition will come from the requirement to hold a referendum, and that requirement will be introduced under this legislation.

We believe that the economic growth and prosperity of our larger cities is absolutely essential to the economic recovery of the country as a whole. If we do not have good economic situations in the cities, things will look very dismal. We believe that a mayor would promote extra economic growth.

The Institute of Governance and the Centre for Cities have highlighted in their recent joint report that cities are the heartbeat of the United Kingdom’s economy. I think we would all support that. Although they occupy less than 10 per cent of the United Kingdom’s land, they contribute 60 per cent to its economic output.

The Government believe that it is clear that mayors are right for every major city. We remain true to our localist credentials, and it is absolutely up to the citizens to decide whether their city will have an elected mayor or not. We think they should, and we will be doing our utmost to ensure that everyone has all the facts about how a mayor can benefit the city and do a good sales job for its businesses and the people who live and work there. But finally and ultimately, the decision will be theirs.

We are committed to this in the coalition agreement. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was going to go seriously off-message and he may indeed seriously be still off-message. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, is not off-message, or all the other people who have signed up to this amendment. This is part and parcel of the coalition agreement that we should give local people in the larger cities in England a direct say on whether they want their city to have an elected mayor.

I know that local people can already petition for such a referendum. They can do it under previous legislation, and their elected representatives can decide, as they did in Leicester, where they have gone ahead of the game. There the council decided that the city should have a mayor, with the first mayor being elected there in May. We are convinced that the issue is now of pressing importance for the cities and for the country as a whole, and that people in the major cities should have a simpler, more immediate means for addressing the question. In short, as soon as practicable, people in each of the largest cities should have an opportunity of deciding whether they want an elected mayor. Some see this as central government imposition and “anti-localist”. We disagree completely with that. It will be for the local people to decide.

We have listed the cities, but the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, tabled Amendment 81B, where he wants specifically to have the cities named in the Bill. We will not agree to this, as it would have the effect of making the Bill hybrid, which would be a terrible mistake. Apart from that, even if that was not the situation, it would provide uncertainty, and I think that the House feels that that should be avoided. Given that the House will be asked to approve any order under Section 9, which is the order-making power, and we will have an opportunity to debate the merits of each city holding a referendum, I do not believe that it is necessary to set that out in primary legislation. I will certainly resist Amendment 81B.

I will be resisting the other amendments, including that on raising the threshold from 5 per cent to 10 per cent. In the cities, 5 per cent would be a very substantial proportion, and we should not make the hurdle any higher than that. As it is cities that we are talking about, we would not want to change that percentage.

I am not going to address each amendment. I have given an indication of why we believe that the mayoral referendum proposal should first of all come to this House and, if agreed, should go on to the cities to be carried out as soon as possible so we can have a decision and get on with having elections in the next year or the next 18 months. I thank noble Lords for their contributions but regret to say that I will not be accepting any of the amendments. I ask the noble Lord who moved the amendment to withdraw it.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, which was almost precisely in the terms that I expected. I shall refer briefly to the interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, who talked about the success of the mayoral system in London. Arguably, that is the case, but there were successful leaders of London before the mayoral system—Herbert Morrison has been cited but one could also cite Horace Cutler as a Conservative leader or indeed Ken Livingstone in his original incarnation.

I am not sure whether it was the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, or the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, that Ken Livingstone was referring to on one occasion when, on emerging from Marsham Street, as it then was, having had one of a series of meetings in the dark days of the 1980s when the GLC was at loggerheads with the Government, he was asked, “Why are you going to see him again?” and he replied, “I think he likes me for my body”. Whether it was the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, or the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, who said that, I am not entirely sure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

The noble Lord certainly deserved it.

The Minister talked about Amendment 81B as being out of place because it would provide uncertainty. On the contrary: the point of that amendment is to limit the operation of the imposed referendum—I accept entirely that an imposed referendum is what we are discussing, not an imposed mayoral system—to these 11 cases. If there is a technical problem with what is in effect a sunset clause dealing with that group of authorities, perhaps on Report we will have to recast it. I think that it is fair to say that it will be our intention to test the opinion of the House at that stage about whether it is right to press on with imposing referendums in the way that the Bill provides. We do not think that it is right to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has raised a legitimate question about the cost, which will no doubt feature in any campaigns which have to take place.

One further point is something of a puzzle. The expression regarding the definition of these authorities was that they were the “11 largest cities”. Well, that is not the case. Assuming, for the moment, that some of them are in fact cities, there are others: the city of Sunderland has a larger population than Newcastle; Kirklees, a collection of Yorkshire towns, is also substantially larger than Newcastle; and there is Hull. I do not quite know the basis on which the 11 have been chosen. However, these are the lucky 11 that remain in the frame. We on this side of the House will do our best to see that the overall principle is rejected by the House and then, if not, that the mandatory exercise is confined to these 11 authorities.

[Baroness Hanham]

I will address two issues. I said that we were rejecting Amendment 74A. Of course, we are not; we have already accepted it. We were asked for the estimated cost of the mayoral referendums. It is about £2.6 million, and the department will bear the cost.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has a rather more pleasant duty to attend to in a few minutes when she goes to, presumably, the town hall in Kensington and Chelsea. We wish her well, and an enjoyable evening. We look forward to resuming the debate next week with the new freeman of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

I just want to confirm that the effect of the amendment is to remove the possibility of an authority being required to hold a referendum again within 10 years once a first referendum has rejected the idea of a mayor. I understand that to be the position, but having worked quite long and late on these matters, I was not entirely sure that my mind was sufficiently clear to appreciate that point. The Minister seems to be confirming that situation, which is eminently satisfactory.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, we had a long discussion on the previous amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, says, and I think that that covered what has been raised here. I can confirm that Amendments 76 and 77 would prevent another referendum within 10 years. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord not to press Amendments 76, 77, 78 and 79. Government amendments have already been agreed to. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his very kind remarks. I am off now to become a free woman.

Localism Bill: Shadow Mayors

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hanham]

All sorts of governance arrangements are now available to local authorities. They can decide whether they have a mayor and a cabinet, a leader and cabinet, or a leader. Now, once the Localism Bill becomes an Act, they will be able to go back to the committee system that was so abruptly removed from their power by the previous Government. Yes, it is right that local government should be able to decide how it best runs its affairs, but the local electorate should have a hand in helping it decide that.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, when the noble Baroness receives the richly deserved accolade of the freedom of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea this Thursday, will her speech include an encouragement for the royal borough to hold a referendum for the creation of an elected mayor?

[Baroness Hanham]

I believe that freemen in the City are allowed to drive their sheep across the bridge. I am not sure that I would expect the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to drive a referendum on a mayor. It considers that it looks after itself and the borough very well.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Monday 20th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I would have to get an answer to that for the noble Lord. I am not sure. This specifically refers to the general power. I think that it might be different for neighbourhood planning where there is a parish council, but I would like to be sure. Perhaps I can wave my hands and find out. No one seems to know. If my runner, my noble friend Lord Attlee, can achieve something, we can deal with this. I think that the noble Lord has asked a question that we will need to give a written reply to.

[Lord Beecham]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Monday 20th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

I sincerely apologise to the noble Lord. I sometimes felt closer to him than to the former noble Lord who does have an “s” at the end of his name. He and other noble Lords referred to the implications of incorporating this amendment into legislation. There are difficulties in that respect. To refer for one moment to my previous argument about the integration of government, that will not be made any easier by the abolition of government offices, which were a very useful mechanism for two-way information flow between central and local government.

I return to the form of the amendment in a constructive spirit and ever willing to help cement relations on the government Benches between the two partners to this coalition. Bearing in mind, of course, that one of the great localists was Joseph Chamberlain—who started life as a municipal socialist and Liberal and became a Liberal Unionist and very much part of a significant coalition which did great damage to the Liberal Party—it is surely possible to bring the two views together. Without necessarily incorporating the terms of this amendment into the Bill, it would be possible to follow the alternative method implied by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins—Lord Jenkin—which was for the Minister to make a statement.

If the Minister were to make a statement saying that these are acceptable propositions about localism and, taken together, broadly constitute a reasonable definition of localism, surely that would suffice to meet the test of legality referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord Elystan-Morgan. It would reinforce the import of these propositions as criteria against which, if necessary, the legislation and Acts under it might be interpreted—if necessary, in the last resort—by the courts.

I hope and anticipate that the noble Lord will not press his amendment to the vote, but it would be helpful if the Minister at least indicated support for the principles about which there has been very little difference in today’s debate.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)]

My Lords, I thank everybody—it practically is everybody—in this Committee for starting this Bill off so thoughtfully, as the speeches have been today. Mind you, they have been mostly Second Reading speeches rather than a straightforward debate on an amendment. None the less, it has been an interesting and informative time.

It will perhaps not surprise the Committee that I am not going to accept the amendment, nor do I think that it is appropriate from this position to assert that I am happy with the principles underlying this amendment. If I am not careful, if I say that I support it, we could be landed with a series of judicial reviews, the Minister having said that the principles were all absolutely fine—I am not going to do that. I accept that somewhere and in some of them there is the spirit of localism and that is really what we are looking at. There really is no way that one can start a Bill with a purpose such as this because it will never measure out exactly what the purpose of the legislation is, and it rather puts one into a straitjacket for the rest of the debate.

Having said that, perhaps I may move on to the debate. It was suggested that localism is ideological, but it is not—it is extremely practical. For a long time we—certainly those who are in local government, and I declare an interest as I have been in local government—have inveighed against the centre and said that we should have much more powers in local government and be given much more responsibility. That is what the Bill does. Its purpose is to pass down as much as possible to local areas, not only to local government but also to neighbourhoods and communities.

That does not bypass local government. By getting neighbourhoods and communities involved, there is a better and more democratic discussion. Views are better understood and put forward. As for the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, on neighbourhoods making decisions, the decisions she mentioned would have been made in conjunction with the local development plan or the strategic plan and could not have been made by a neighbourhood on its own. That is tantamount to understanding that local councils will not be bypassed by what is going on.

Local democracy, by definition, is the involvement of as many people as possible. Too often there is complete disinterest in local areas about what local government is doing because no one believes that the functions belong to local government rather than central government. I do not believe that that will be the case by the time we have finished considering the Bill.

There has been support across the House for the measures in the amendment. My noble friend Lord Lucas said that the Bill represents small steps to localism, and I agree that we are on the way to achieving that. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred to the grave danger of confirming localism by atomisation, although the point may have been raised originally by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, who described it as involving “little platoons”. But do we really believe that neighbourhoods and communities are little platoons? Do we not believe that they are what make up local areas and communities, and should we be ignoring what they say? The Bill gives the electorate ample opportunity to take part in democracy and make sure that its voice is heard.

I turn to the specific questions. I was asked whether a council tax referendum could be used to increase rather than reduce this tax. The purpose of the council tax referendum is to replace the very unwelcome capping regime which I think we all agree was to the detriment of local decision-making. The council tax referendum would ensure that if the council wishes to put up council tax more than is recommended, it will have to be at the behest of the local community. The noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, mentioned reinforcing local democracy, which again I think I have covered. As we go through, we will see how this reinforces local democracy.

I think that my noble friend Lady Hamwee—although I am not too sure where my noble friends are at the moment and where they are not—also covered the point about representative democracy. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith came back to the fundamental debate, which is that by producing such principles there is a risk of destroying what the Bill is trying to do, and I agree with him. The Bill does not discuss local government finance. Indeed, noble Lords know that a review is going on at the moment, so it is not appropriate in this Bill.

I have covered most aspects of what has been raised in the debate. I would only say that I think that the principle of localism is well established. The issue was debated at length during the Bill’s passage through the other place. I do not know that anyone has picked up too much of what that debate was about. It pushes out as far as possible into communities and neighbourhoods, and into the hands of individuals and community groups, but in doing so it does not undermine local democratic principles. Localism means handing power down directly to councils, freeing local government from central and regional control. At other times, it means creating new rights for local communities to become more involved in local affairs, which is what I have been describing as what neighbourhoods and communities can do. In rolling back central direction, it will also be necessary to ensure that local authorities are accountable for all the decisions they take. We considered the Bill’s principles in our Second Reading debate two weeks ago, and I hope that we can now make progress on our scrutiny of the substantive provisions.

Finally, perhaps I may address the question of the amendment raising a couple of risks. I touched on the risk of judicial review proceedings, and I want to underline that by saying that it is our view that judicial proceedings could be brought on the grounds that a decision made under the Bill had been made without regard to the principles. I think that that would be a very retrograde and unfortunate step. An example of that might be if a Secretary of State exercised a power to make secondary legislation in a non-localist way. There is a risk that it could also be used as a guide to the legal meaning of a provision in the Bill, so if in the future there was doubt as to what a provision meant, a court would be able to take account of the purpose of the Bill as set out in this proposed clause. The risks are therefore quite high. I thank my noble friend for introducing the proposed new clause but I regret to tell him that I will not be accepting it.

I wonder if I could raise another point at this stage. At Second Reading I indicated that we would listen to noble Lords’ concerns about shadow mayors and mayors as chief executives. We are keen to build on the common ground and consensus that the Bill has enjoyed. I should therefore like to say at this stage that when we reach the debate on mayoral provisions, the Government will be pleased to support amendments that have the effect of deleting from the Bill mayoral management arrangements; that is, mayors as chief executives and the concept of shadow mayors. In more detail, this means that we will delete mayoral management arrangements and we will be supporting Amendment 57 in the names of my noble friends Lord Jenkin of Roding, Lord Tope, Lady Scott of Needham Market and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. We will also be supporting Amendments 62A, 66A, 84E, 87A to 87D, 108A and 187 in the names of my noble friends Lord True and Lord Howard of Rising, which complete the changes needed to delete mayoral management arrangements. I should add that deleting these provisions from the Bill will not prevent councils deciding to do away with the non-statutory post of chief executive should they choose to do so. Indeed, the newly elected mayor of Leicester has announced that he is proposing to do just that.

In order to delete shadow mayors from the Bill, we will also support Amendments 69A to 69C, 73A, 74A, 75A, 77A, 77B, 79A, 81A and 84A to 84D, again in the names of my noble friends Lord True and Lord Howard of Rising. It is the Government’s view that these amendments best achieve the removal of these provisions while retaining provisions needed for an effective process for creating city mayors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I do not think that it is necessary for me to answer that. We are talking about a general power of competence; the less fettered it is, the better. It may be that individual actions have not been challenged, although at times of international disasters, when suggestions have been made that local authorities should contribute financially towards appeals that have gone out, that has been felt to be outside their powers. I am not suggesting that that would be a common practice but, if it is seen as a priority by a particular local authority, it should be open to that authority to do so.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I am tempted to thank the noble Lord on the opposition Benches for answering the question for me. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has put his finger absolutely on the button: there are many areas where local government can help overseas. In fact, going back to my own days in local government, I remember well that we gave enormous help to the setting up of local government in a place called Mbale in Uganda. We had exchanges between officers on my council and officers from Mbale. We taught them how to start and set up a rates system and a community charge system. So there is that, as well as the help abroad for people in emergencies. There are all sorts of areas where this power is necessary.

My friend opposite has done well to point out that there are times when this would be valuable, but also that what we are talking about is a general power of competence and, whether or not it was available under the well-being power, it is reiterated under this power to ensure that there is no mistake about it.

Amendment 2 attempts to limit unnecessarily the extent of the general power of competence by restricting the exercise of power to the United Kingdom only. Amendment 3 also attempts to limit unnecessarily the extent of the general power, by requiring that the authority be able to demonstrate that activity has directly benefited the authority, its area or persons resident. If you are benefiting someone or a country abroad with your help, I hope you would also be affecting your residents, who would be glad that you were doing so.

The effect of the amendments is to attempt to turn this into a well-being power. We need to give local authorities confidence in the powers available to them. Rather than grant a power to do specified things, the new power is drafted on the basis that local authorities will be able to do anything that an individual with full capacity can do. That is the general power of competence, and that is the way that it is drafted. We believe that this will give local authorities freedom to act in the interest of their local communities and to generate efficiencies and savings, the benefits of which will be passed on to those communities. I would not be willing to accept the amendment and I hope that the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I hope I will be able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I am so sorry—

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, a few years ago I had the pleasure and privilege of chairing a review into local public services in Wales. I visited Caernarfon and, after a meeting with the leader of the council and officers of that borough, I sauntered through the streets of Caernarfon. It was an unnerving experience because everyone was, perfectly naturally in that part of Wales, speaking Welsh and I could not understand a word of it. I am bound to say that I have rather the same sensation having heard the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Wigley, this afternoon. I do not pretend to understand all that they have asked.

I confine myself to one question to the Minister, but perhaps also to your Lordships who have moved and spoken to these amendments: has the Welsh Local Government Association been asked to give a view on these matters? That would have been sensible. I confess to not having done so myself, so I am not in a position to criticise others who may not have. However, it would seem important, at least by the time we get to Report, to have inquired whether the Bill is acceptable to the Welsh Local Government Association or whether it would prefer the amendments moved.

Local Authorities: Redundancies

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of the redundancy costs to be met by local authorities in the current and next financial years; and what they forecast to be the impact on local authority budgets of the proposed restriction to £200 million of permission to capitalise those costs.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)]

My Lords, the Government do not make any estimates of redundancies in local government. Decisions about managing workforce reductions in local government are now rightfully for individual councils to make as employers. Following representations, £300 million of capitalisation will now be available, which will provide important support in 2011-12. That cannot meet all restructuring costs: it will be for authorities themselves to assess how they best manage costs from their own resources, including from reserves.

[Lord Beecham]

I thank the Minister for her reply. However, in the light of the guidance note on capitalisation published by the ODPM in 2004 that capitalisation,

“does not in itself increase public expenditure”,

and the DCLG’s press release of 3 March stating that,

“The Government is not providing authorities with extra funding for this purpose, but simply allowing a managed and affordable extension of existing flexibilities”,

will the Minister invite her honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Mr Stunell to correct his letter to council leaders in January stating that,

“Whether it is through borrowing or the use of capital receipts … capitalisation scores as public spending, and has national implications for the wider economy and deficit reduction programme”?

Will she also confirm that the Government will reconsider the position if, as anticipated, the cost of job losses in local government exceeds the £300 million thus far announced?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, capitalisation impacts directly on deficit reduction plans. Capitalisation is capital being used for revenue so there is no doubt, I think, that what my noble friend said in his letter was correct. The permission for capitalisation—which has now been increased from £200 million to £300 million, largely because of representations being made—is not intended to be the full way of meeting redundancy costs. Councils are meant to look to their own resources to make up most of what they need when there is a reduction of staff through either voluntary or compulsory redundancies.

Local Government: Big Society

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Hanham

Monday 28th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, we are not really on the subject of local government spending at the moment. We have had several discussions on the finance settlement. All I can say is that that finance settlement was demonstrated against a formula, the relative-needs weighting was increased so that money followed socioeconomic indicators. Banded floors were put in place so that the most dependent authorities got the smallest cuts and social service authorities and shire district councils were grouped together in four bands reflecting their relative reliance on central government grant. The right reverend Prelate’s view would suggest that the Government have not taken the greatest possible care with the local government finance settlement in these very difficult circumstances, and that is not the situation.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that her right honourable friend the Minister for Decentralisation, in an article in the Local Government Chronicle last week, rightly called on local authorities considering cuts on the voluntary sector to discuss those matters? Which voluntary organisations did the Government consult when they abolished the working neighbourhoods fund, reduced the area-based grant and made massive cuts in local government funding that are inevitably going to impact on those very organisations?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, the working neighbourhoods fund was not going to continue. Under the noble Lord’s Government, it was due to finish at the end of three years. The three years would have been up in this financial year, so I do not think that the accusation of getting rid of the working neighbourhoods fund can be levelled against this Government. Decisions have had to be made against the serious financial situation. There have been consultations with the voluntary sector during the course of these decisions. It has made its representations and has been listened to.