Police: Private Prosecutions

Debate between Lord Beecham and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the concerns expressed by the Lord Chief Justice in relation to the Metropolitan Police assisting a private prosecution in return for a share of the compensation recovered.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)]

My Lords, Section 93 of the Police Act 1996 explicitly allows the local policing bodies—for example, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and PCCs elsewhere—to receive payments in a range of circumstances. However, we understand the concern that this “slice of the cake” issue has raised and we will be revising the financial management code of practice as appropriate to take account of it.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, the Met seems to have been persuaded by Virgin to embark on a novel extension of the concept of payment by results, and one that is fraught with potential conflicts of interests. Will the Home Secretary, therefore, issue guidance to the Met and other police forces on the impropriety of such arrangements? Will the Government confirm that they will meet the concerns of the Lord Chief Justice over the dangers of more private prosecutions, as funding for the police and Crown Prosecution Service is cut?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, perhaps I may reiterate what I said in my opening response. I understand the concerns raised about the police assisting in a private prosecution with a promise of a share of compensation. We expect high standards from the police; I think all noble Lords would accept that. In particular, in this case, the Met received only overtime costs, which is right and proper. As I said, we will be updating the guidance to PCCs and the Met to make it clear that such agreements should not be entered into.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

We should not make the methodology of serving the notice, which is what the noble Lord is referring to, specific. We discussed this when we talked about the requirement to do certain things. The steps that might have to be taken to achieve specified results may be up to the individual to judge. What is not in doubt is the need to indicate the specified result that is required. We discussed this issue when we were talking about the difference between paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

I follow briefly and with some trepidation in the footsteps of my noble friend Lord Harris. I draw the Minister’s attention to Clause 41(2), which states:

“Conduct on, or affecting, premises occupied for the purposes of a government department is treated for the purposes of section 40 as conduct of the Minister in charge of that department”.

Can the Minister give us some examples of conduct that would be attributed to a Minister which might invoke the community protection notice procedure—for example, the activities of Jobcentre Plus, the DWP or some other government departments? What do the Government have in mind here?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I suppose that this comes back to the accountability of Ministers. I am accountable to the Committee this evening in giving answers to somewhat difficult questions. I promise to write to the noble Lord with an explanation. He was very astute. I saw him leap with alacrity at a particular point and show it to a colleague on his Bench, so I knew that something might be up. I will write to the noble Lord.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 18th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Amendment 21B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, would require the courts to take into account whether or not to grant applications for arrest warrants in cases where an arrest warrant was not attached to prohibitions in the injunction at the time of its issue but was sought subsequently, when the breach had occurred.

We are not introducing a new and untested power under Clause 9. The courts are used to handling applications for arrest warrants: for anti-social behaviour injunctions on which the IPNA is modelled and gang injunctions, as well as other injunctions. We should therefore bear in mind that the courts are already experienced in handling applications for arrest warrants and dealing with breach proceedings and they are experienced in doing so without needless delay or copious guidance. So while I agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on the importance of swift action—indeed that is one of the reasons we are reforming the anti-social behaviour powers—I am not persuaded that statutory guidance is needed on this point.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee has also tabled an amendment to the provisions on powers of arrest. The purpose of Amendment 21C is to prevent an arrest warrant being issued against someone who breaches a requirement in their injunction. They would only be able to be brought before the court to answer the breach of a prohibition in the order. With respect to my noble friend, I do not agree with that. Whether a term in an injunction is a prohibition or a requirement, they form part of an order of the court. They must be complied with. The requirement to do something about the cause of your anti-social behaviour is as important as the prohibition to stop it. The courts must have the power to enforce them both. If a person is not forced to do something about their behaviour by complying with a positive requirement, it is likely that they will eventually breach the order and cause further problems. That has been the problem with anti-social behaviour orders.

As my noble friend points out, this is different from the approach we have taken in Clause 3. At the time an injunction is made, a power of arrest can only be attached to a prohibition and not to a positive requirement. The reason for this distinction is that the test under Clause 3 is, rightly, a high one. A power of arrest can only be attached where there is a threat of violence or harm. It is difficult to see how this test could be met by breaching a positive requirement. However, the provisions in Clause 9 for obtaining an arrest warrant do not include such a high test because here the focus is on enforcing the injunction, not on preventing an immediate risk of violence or harm.

On the basis of this explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, will be content to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has not addressed the thrust of my noble friend’s amendment, in terms of the potential for delay. This is an area where, by definition, the quicker one proceeds to a resolution of the matter, the better. There are some constraints in the way the court system currently works which make that rather more difficult. A number of proposed court closures have affected both county courts and magistrates’ courts. I assume that these breaches would be basically dealt with in the county courts, but there have been closures there as well. Do the Government have any indication of how long it will take to secure these injunctions, in the light of that development and the general pressure on the court system?

It is not necessarily the case that a matter can be easily resolved at a first hearing. There is also the question of the operation of legal aid under the rather restricted system we now have. One assumes, and perhaps the Minister can confirm this, that legal aid would be available for those who qualify, on financial grounds, to defend an application for an injunction. There seems to be a potential for an undesirable delay, which may or may not be necessary. The thrust of my noble friend’s amendment is that the Government should endeavour to begin properly and assess the likely timescales and the likelihood of delays and then to give guidance to ensure that, where necessary, the relevant resources can be made available. Could the noble Lord deal with those issues?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, the noble Lord has asked me a number of detailed questions. If he does not mind, I will look at the record and write to him, as I do not have the briefing here to be able to reply in detail to all that he wishes to know.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I will take a look at the record and if I feel that it will be productive and I can add to the position they have stated I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and the noble Baroness. I cannot commit to a particular timeframe, but if there is evidence of a problem to which the noble Baroness is able to draw my attention, I will deal with it.

[Lord Beecham]

It occurs to me to ask the noble Lord whether there have been any consultations with the judiciary about this aspect. I assume that that may have been the case. Presumably the judiciary will have a view on the imposition of a new burden on it. We talked about the new burdens doctrine earlier this evening as regards the costs of some of the proposals in the Bill on local government and whether they will be met. From a local government perspective I cannot say that I was very thrilled with the Minister’s response to that; he seemed rather to ignore it. However, this is a different sort of new burden—one placed on the courts system. That being the case, one would have imagined that this would have been discussed with the judiciary at some level. Has the noble Lord any knowledge of such discussions taking place, or were any representations made as a result of consultations on the Bill?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I was anxious to move on, as noble Lords may have guessed, but I think that the sentiment of the House is that the night is perhaps getting on—although I was just getting into my stride. I have found answering these amendments somewhat more difficult than others as they stray into a legal capacity where my skill base is probably not as substantial as that of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. None the less, I have said that I will look at the record and write to noble Lords on the basis of the points they have made when I am able to give them a fuller and more reasonable answer to the points they raised. No doubt we will have plenty of opportunity to deal with that in future. In the mean time, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

The noble Lord has just reminded me that I really ought to have declared an interest. I am still a solicitor, not so much practising but an unpaid consultant in the firm for which I used to act. I am only sorry that a particular noble Baroness is not in the Chamber because I used to appear before her father in the county court when he was sitting as a district registrar—an experience not to be recommended, I have to say, to those who followed me.

Police Act 1997 (Criminal Record Certificates: Relevant Matters) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2013

Debate between Lord Beecham and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, in moving for the Grand Committee’s consideration of this first order, I shall speak also to the subsequent order, as they operate jointly in addressing a common issue.

The Court of Appeal recently held that the Police Act 1997 and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 are incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in that they provide for the disclosure to employers of, and allow employers to ask about and take into account, all cautions and convictions on a blanket basis. The court held that this regime, in so far as it relates to historic and minor cautions and convictions, is disproportionate. While the Government is seeking leave to appeal this judgment because we believe that the Court of Appeal went too far in its judgment and did not give sufficient weight to the views of Parliament on these matters, it is vital that we ensure that the legislation reflects the judgment of the Court of Appeal while it remains in place and that the Disclosure and Barring Service can continue to disclose spent cautions and convictions, and that employers can take these into account, where it is necessary and proportionate to do so to protect vulnerable groups, including children. That is the purpose of the orders that I am presenting today.

The orders amend the exceptions order to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and the Police Act so that, while maintaining important safeguards for public protection and national security, certain spent cautions and convictions will be filtered from, and no longer be automatically included on, a criminal record certificate issued by the Disclosure and Barring Service. Employers will not be able to take such filtered matters into account.

Full disclosure of cautions and convictions will continue to be required in respect of some employment decisions, such as police recruitment or posts relating to safeguarding national security. Further, all cautions and convictions for serious violent and sexual offences and for certain other offences specified in the orders, such as those directly relevant to the safeguarding of vulnerable groups, including children, will continue to be disclosed, as will all convictions resulting in a custodial sentence.

We are also changing the position in relation to service personnel and former service personnel. Currently, service personnel or former service personnel applying for any position covered by the exceptions order to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act would have to disclose previous convictions for all service offences, including those that have no civilian equivalent, such as being absent without leave. We are changing the position so that, once spent, these non-recordable disciplinary offences will no longer need to be disclosed.

For all other offences, the orders provide for the following filtering rules to be applied: cautions, and equivalents, administered to a young offender will not be disclosed after a period of two years; adult cautions will not be disclosed after a period of six years; a conviction received as a young offender resulting in a non-custodial sentence will not be disclosed after a period of five and a half years; and an adult conviction resulting in a non-custodial sentence will not be disclosed after a period of 11 years; but all convictions will continue to be disclosed where an individual has more than one conviction recorded.

The Disclosure and Barring Service will continue to see all cautions and convictions, whether spent or not, for the purpose of making barring decisions. Individuals who have been barred from working with children or vulnerable adults must not be offered such employment.

Following the Court of Appeal’s judgment, these changes will ensure that the disclosure of criminal records information remains proportionate and that, while avoiding unnecessary intrusion into people’s lives, public protection arrangements remain robust. I commend the orders to the Grand Committee for consideration.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, in principle, I certainly welcome the changes that these orders make. It is sensible to narrow the scope of the obligation to disclose convictions, particularly where they are of a less serious nature. However, there remain some issues on which I should be glad to have clarification. In particular, paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum states, as the Minister pointed out, that,

“no conviction resulting in a custodial sentence will be filtered”.

Does that include a suspended custodial sentence? I think that there is a nod from the Box—although it is not quite a Box—so I will take it that that is the case and I am grateful for the clarification.

The Minister identified the various periods of time after which disclosure need not be made. My honourable friend Jenny Chapman, in dealing with this statutory instrument yesterday, questioned the basis of the periods of time given. They are rather curious, ranging from, for example, 11 years for an adult conviction resulting in a non-custodial sentence to five and a half years for a young offender. Obviously, in the case of a young offender it should be a shorter period, but I just wonder why this rather odd figure of 11, on which the other figure is presumably based, was chosen.

My honourable friend also asked whether harassment or stalking offences should be disclosed if a perpetrator seeks to enter a profession in which they will work closely with vulnerable people. I understand that such offences will not be exempt from disclosure but perhaps the Minister can confirm that. She also raised a question about a conviction for online sexual offences—for example, downloading indecent images of children and the like. Again, I assume, but would welcome confirmation, that that also is a conviction that would have to be disclosed. It would certainly make sense if that were the case.

On the other hand—my honourable friend referred to this matter as well—in the run-up to the police commissioner elections we had a rather ridiculous set of circumstances arising where very old convictions for very minor offences served to disqualify people from being a candidate for that position. Because they were not custodial sentences, I do not know the extent to which these provisions would now change that rather absurd outcome. I hope that they would but, if not, perhaps the Minister will undertake that a review will be made of the provisions that affect the nomination and qualifications for the position of police commissioner—if that is not already in hand as a result of several people having been disqualified in the rather absurd circumstances that arose last year.

The Minister in the other place said that the matter would be kept under review—that is, how the exceptions and so on are working out and whether the list requires change at all. Perhaps the Minister could indicate how and when such a review might take place. It might take place in two or thee years’ time. Will it be conducted within the department or be subject to wider consultation?

Having said that, as I said, we certainly support the principle and, subject to answers on these rather detailed points, are happy to support the two orders, the second being consequential on the first. My honourable friends in the Commons voted against it yesterday because at that point the Minister was unable to give assurances around certain of these matters, in particular in relation to harassment and sexual offences having to be disclosed. If I am right in thinking that that has now been confirmed, of course we would accept that position. If not, we would ask the Government to think again about those categories of offence.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his welcome for these proposals. They are a rational response to the court’s decision. We have had an interesting exchange of views. I hope that I will be able to satisfy the noble Lord on all the points that he raised. To the extent that I do not, I hope that he will allow me to drop him a line on the matter.

The point that he made and that I would like to emphasise is that notwithstanding the changes, public protection, particularly of children and adults in vulnerable circumstances, is of paramount importance to the Government. In the Chamber earlier today I had to give some horrendous figures which gave us all a chance to reflect on these things. It is also right that we should acknowledge individuals’ wishes to put their past behind them, and to allow that to happen in circumstances where we can be fairly confident that public protection will not be compromised.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act aims to aid the employment and resettlement of ex-offenders who put their criminal past behind them. It does this by declaring certain convictions to be spent after a specified time has elapsed after the conviction. A spent conviction is deemed for most purposes never to have existed, and an ex-offender will not have to reveal it in many circumstances, including when applying for most jobs. The rehabilitation periods are determined according to the sentence imposed, in order to reflect the severity of the offence. Currently, a conviction resulting in a custodial sentence of more than 30 months can never be spent.

There must be a balance to ensure that members of the public, especially those groups at greatest risk of harm, such as children and adults in vulnerable circumstances, are adequately protected. The exceptions order of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act seeks to achieve this balance by excluding certain employment positions, bodies and proceedings from the general application of the Act. This means that where an individual applies for a specified job or role, such as working with vulnerable groups, including children, their spent convictions must be made available to the employer and may be taken into account.

Linked to this, the Police Act requires that all cautions and convictions, whether spent or not and regardless of how old or minor they may be, are disclosed on criminal record certificates issued by the Disclosure and Barring Service. It is this regime that the Court of Appeal has found to be incompatible, and which the orders we have debated seek to address.

I will go through some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. Perhaps I may begin by explaining that the orders introduce a mechanism to ensure that certain old and minor spent cautions and convictions no longer need to be disclosed and are no longer automatically included on criminal record certificates issued by the DBS. The introduction of such a filtering mechanism is a significant modification of the current public protection arrangements, and it is important that we approach the proposed changes with care. With that in mind, I am grateful for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, to the debate today.

The noble Lord asked about what was a conviction and what was a custodial sentence. A conviction, which is any determination of guilt by a court, regardless of the sentence imposed, and a conditional and absolute discharge are both sentences following a conviction. A custodial sentence includes any sentence of imprisonment, including a suspended sentence. I hope that that helps the noble Lord in that respect and confirms the nod that he may have seen from my officials behind me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

I am grateful. There is one matter that I ought to have raised before: the provision is in relation to the dispensation from disclosure only if there is no other conviction on the individual’s record. Does that mean a conviction of any kind, or would the conviction have to be of a category that would otherwise create the obligation to disclose? If it is the former, then for a long time a very minor offence could require the disclosure, which would otherwise not necessarily be the case.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I agree with the noble Lord but, in fact, any conviction subsequent to a previous conviction will bring that particular element into play. I suspect that we will consider this area when we see how the new regime works. Is there not an enormous incentive for people who have a conviction not to get another? This is one of the real drivers of why these changes, which have been forced upon us by the Court of Appeal, may be welcomed for giving people an opportunity to rebuild their lives in such a positive way.

Therefore, I hope that the measures being proposed strike a balance between enabling offenders to put their past behind them while ensuring that public protection is not compromised. With that, I commend them to the Committee.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Beecham and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Bill team for its support. This has been a long, complex Bill, and two departments of government have had to contend with two different Ministers. If I might say so, my noble friend Lord McNally and I have enjoyed working together on this Bill. My noble friend has, of course, had a change of partner since Committee stage, and I know that my noble friend Lord Henley would like to be associated with these remarks. I thank, too, those who have supported us through this Bill.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I echo the thanks to the Bill team for its support and to the Ministers. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on his new civil partnership. I also commend and thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for his contribution. I feel as though I and my colleagues—I speak now for two opposition teams as well—are emerging from a six-month sentence, which is perhaps an appropriate way to regard these past few months dealing with this Bill. It has been a challenging but instructive and, at times, entertaining experience, and I am grateful that for the most part it has been conducted in the usual spirit of your Lordships’ House. We look forward to future pieces of legislation—preferably deferred for a while; some of us need some time to recover.

I am grateful to the ministerial team and, indeed, to noble Lords—especially noble and learned Lords—who have contributed so much to a very considered deliberation of an important measure.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Beecham and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I endorse my noble friend’s remarks. I touched on a similar point during Second Reading and I think other Members of your Lordships’ House have also expressed an interest in this matter. We obviously do not expect the Minister to confirm that the principle will be adopted forthwith, but it would be helpful if an indication could be given as to when the Government might respond to the interest in this that has been evident in various of our debates as this Bill has made progress through the House.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am grateful to noble Lords for extending the scope of our debate somewhat, outside the frame of the particular Bill that we are dealing with. It raises some very interesting issues and both the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee got to the nub of the issue. I take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, to perhaps not make a commitment on this issue. However, I can describe the parameters, because Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to a fair trial, differs between civil and criminal proceedings. In particular, the exacting standards imposed by the criminal limb of Article 6, which is at the heart of the legal difficulties for a workable IAE regime, do not apply in the context of civil proceedings.

Furthermore, the nature of CMPs—which may well be involved of course, because of the nature of the intelligence—means that legitimate national security interests, such as the need to protect sensitive techniques or capabilities, can be more certainly protected than in criminal proceedings. I think all noble Lords would understand that. The proposals in the Bill demonstrate our commitment to making progress wherever it is possible. We continue to engage with the cross-party advisory group of privy counsellors in this work.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Wednesday 14th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

Indeed, and I join the noble Lord in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, on what he said on that occasion as well as this. A number of issues have been raised today. I particularly note the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I am probably alone in this Chamber in being prepared to shed a tear or two for the standards board. It perhaps started off in a rather cumbersome and bureaucratic way, but it did improve its performance over time. Nevertheless we accept that its day is done, and we have to find a suitable replacement for it.

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, made perfectly legitimate reference to the problem of trivial complaints designed to gag or in some ways punish or inhibit members. That is a perfectly legitimate concern, which can be met within the framework of the local committees that are proposed in the amendments, particularly when they include the involvement of independent members. That is a crucial issue and one which will need to be discussed with Ministers. Those committees offer an assurance of impartiality which might not otherwise arise in the sometimes highly charged atmosphere—not necessarily party-political atmosphere—that can exist within individual councils.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred in particular to the position of parishes. There is clearly a need to consider the substantial workload generated by complaints within the very large number of parishes that we have. It is sometimes difficult for principal authorities to cope with the volume of issues that arise. I endorse his view that, where the principal authority is to remain responsible, some representation from parishes within that authority would be helpful. That is certainly the practice in Newcastle, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, will confirm. We do have parish members on the standards committee. I ought to say that, whatever happens in terms of the legislation, both political parties in Newcastle wish to continue with that committee, which is of course independently chaired. Incidentally, the independent members have written to say that they would very much wish to see an obligation on authorities to maintain those committees. However, I wonder whether it would be possible, in conjunction with the National Association of Local Councils, to which most, but not necessarily all, parish and town councils belong, to look at ways in which that burden might be moderated. For example, if the association in a county area were able to put together a panel drawn from across an area, rather than necessarily drawn from an individual council, which might find it difficult to man and support such a project, that might be an alternative to principal authorities having to undertake that work.

There is also the fundamental issue of what the purpose of this whole procedure is. The Bill puts the situation as effectively criminality or nothing. If there is a criminal offence, as defined by the Bill, then something happens; nothing else comes within the purview of the legislation. The criminality is based, as we have already heard, on a fairly narrow definition of financial interests. That in one sense is too narrow. But in any event there are other issues which are perfectly legitimate issues for public concern—for example, members’ relations with members of the public or staff, or the misuse of council property.

All these, I fear, occur and there needs to be a mechanism whereby complaints and issues of that kind can be dealt with and appropriate sanctions imposed. I concur that that would be better at a local than a national level. I hope, therefore, that we can carry forward those discussions. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, is absolutely right: if you do not have sanctions, you do not have a mechanism that the public can have any confidence in. The Minister has indicated—I think to all and sundry—that the Government are prepared to move on these issues. That is extremely welcome, and I hope that we can have productive discussions that will lead to a more flexible and perhaps a more locally based system; but one in which the public in particular—whom it is there ultimately to serve—can have confidence. I very much welcome that change of mind and the positive attitude, which characterises Ministers in this House, at least in this department. I look forward very much to hearing the Minister’s reply and his anticipated undertaking to take this away and consider it, so that we might have an opportunity to see the position satisfactorily resolved at Third Reading.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, it is certainly clear that these amendments cover an important aspect of local government governance, and I acknowledge the strength of feeling around the House. It has been a very informative and well informed debate, and I think it has added a very useful stimulus to the discussions which have been well trailed but which I hope will follow as a result of this debate. I have to say that there is considerable common ground between us: we all want a vibrant and the strongest possible local democracy and we all want the highest standards of conduct in local government. The issue—and this is what we are trying to grapple with—is how we achieve that. The abolition of the Standards Board regime is a coalition agreement commitment. Whatever the original intentions behind the establishment of the regime, it has become a heavy-handed and costly vehicle for dealing with complaints, which can, in some cases, be petty, malicious, vexatious or politically motivated. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, in his very able presentation of his amendments, agrees with this judgment. My noble friend Lord Tyler did so most powerfully.

At the same time, it is evident that many noble Lords have significant concerns that what the measures in the Bill put in its place are too localist and do not deliver the outcome we all want. It is apparent that consideration of these issues will repay any time that we give between us to get it right. There are some difficult issues here, and there is clearly a discussion to be had on where to strike the balance between the local framework we have proposed and the framework proposed in these amendments. I am not going to claim that I have all the answers at this stage. I will not—as I would normally do—respond to many of the detailed points that have been raised, because I think it is perhaps best to deal with those in these discussions, and we should not try to pre-empt what we will say. I can perhaps give a steer as to how the Government are approaching the situation.

I think there is merit in some of the amendments that have been put forward. In particular, I am sympathetic to the proposal in Amendment 175 that there should be an obligation on local authorities to have a code of conduct, and that any such code should have some core mandatory elements to it. If the House is willing to give us space to consider this matter further, I am willing to take it away with a view to discussing it with noble Lords and seeing if we can come up with something suitable ahead of Third Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, this group of government amendments is designed to formalise the arrangements for London. Amendments 171 and 172 take on board the representations that have been made to us by the mayor and the Assembly of the Greater London Authority, asking that the standards function be a joint function of the Assembly and mayor. I said in Committee that we would be open to considering that request as we could see the benefit of ensuring that the mayor and the Assembly were given equal roles and responsibility for promoting and maintaining high standards, rather than leaving that function to be discharged by the Assembly alone.

Amendments 176 and 189 allow the Assembly and mayor to delegate functions to a committee or a member of staff. This mirrors the powers that local authorities have to delegate the function to a committee or a member of staff. Amendment 173 defines Joint Committees and Amendment 170 is a technical amendment related to the definition. Amendments 245 to 247 are also technical amendments. I hope that these amendments meet with the approval of the House and I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I do not have an interest to declare in these matters and neither do the Opposition. We are happy to agree with them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I am fascinated by the notion of a literally hung council. I am not sure that I would wish to be a member of such a body—presumably it would be a very short life. That apart, I endorse the views of the noble Lords, Lord Filkin and Lord Newton, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. There is something to be discussed here. It requires a little more care and, perhaps, a little more legal input into definitions and processes. That said, the noble Lord has assured us that those discussions will take place and that we may be able to revisit, if necessary, at Third Reading. On that basis I am happy to accept that position.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, it has been useful to have this discussion. One of the ways forward for the discussions that we may well have between now and Third Reading is the provision of government position papers describing the factual information that noble Lords are seeking. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, kindly let me off responsibility for replying in detail on the hoof this evening. Indeed, it would be far better to be able to put these matters to noble Lords at a point where we could commence our decisions. I hope that noble Lords will agree with that procedure. I thank them for their co-operation on this part of the Bill. It is important and I think the House is agreed on that.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 12th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing all these points to bear on what is actually quite a difficult balancing act, and I think noble Lords will agree. I am not a London person, but I come from a two-tier authority. I live in a county council area and in a district council area, and the responsibilities between those two councils are usually clearly defined by statute. I think the governance of London is more involved. The Government’s policy intention is to try to keep an even balance between the democratic mandate which is vested in the mayor and the London Assembly and the democratic mandate which is vested in the London boroughs. I am sure all noble Lords will agree that keeping that balance right is not easy.

Much of the talk has been about how the consultation might go and the consequences of a consultation where perhaps the proposals do not meet with consensus. These are reasonable challenges. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked whether the joint council body for London would be consulted. It is a matter of fact that it would be consulted; I do not know it is a statutory body as such, but it is clearly a body that would be validly consulted. This would not, however, avoid proper consultation with the individual boroughs. It is very important to place on record that these government amendments seek to enshrine the role of the boroughs themselves. Indeed, they are coloured by the amendment of my noble friend Lord True, which seeks to go further in protecting the interests of the boroughs. I understand that.

I was asked how Parliament would be able to challenge any decisions that might be made in this area. In reality, Ministers are accountable to Parliament and I cannot imagine a decision considered by any noble Lord to be totally unfair or irrational to go unchallenged, either by question or even debate in this House, let alone down the other end where quite a large number of Members represent London constituencies.

[Lord Beecham]

Does the process envisage delegation being made by order or is it outside that process? If it is by order, would it be by affirmative resolution or by a negative procedure?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

While I await the answer to that part of the process, perhaps I may continue with the process of consultation. It is important to get this on the record too. The consultation exercise will have to be appropriate to the matter in question. The problem with being too prescriptive about the nature of the consultation is that it does not have room for more flexible responses. Consultation should not be a tick-box exercise. It is a proper dialogue. It should not really be about whether it has majority support or not but about what is right, and consensus should be sought across the boroughs and London in the interests of the people of London. In the end, the governance of London is not for the benefit of the mayor, the Assembly or the London boroughs; it is for the people who live there.

In response to my noble friend’s challenging question, the process is outside the statutory instrument process. It is purely an administrative function. However, the decision is still capable of being challenged in Parliament, as I have said, if it is seen to be perverse. There are no immediate plans to use this power, but it is envisaged that it could be used to delegate the administration of some of the national programmes that may be produced on the horizon. That is why it is important to have this capacity and a process whereby there can be discussions across London as to where a national programme might be best delivered.

My noble friend Lord True castigated us, in the nicest possible way, as he would, for not recognising that the Localism Bill is the place where, by empowering local boroughs, we would enhance localism within London. The role of the boroughs is clearly laid down by statute, and they are a very important part of London’s governance. However, London is an exceptional place—it is the capital city of the country—and a number of services are effectively organised across London. The power to delegate arises only when the Secretary of State considers that the functions can be exercised appropriately by the mayor. We say that this provides the sort of comfort which my noble friend seeks. In effect, only a Minister exercising his powers under this clause can do this.

I hope that my noble friend will feel free to withdraw his amendment. I believe that the Government have got the balance on this issue just about right.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 12th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord McKenzie—especially the second amendment in the group. We are entering difficult territory, as outlined clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. At the very least, given the potential difficulties that might arise from a change, there ought to be a proper, evidence-based review, and three years should be sufficient for that. There are clear dangers in the way that the clause is drafted, and we cannot overlook the political background to its production. Its provenance lies in political debate, with those on one side claiming that it is improper to prevent councillors campaigning on issues and then voting on them. Of course, that is perfectly legitimate in the context of any council policy such as education, social care or whatever: but not in a situation that is quasi-judicial, which is how planning and licensing decisions should be taken.

I am afraid that the rather loose terminology deployed on political platforms colours one’s view of the potential impact of the proposal in Clause 14. It also raises the possibility of undue pressure being applied to elected members who will no longer have the defence that, “I must not indicate how I am going to vote because I am obliged to look at all sides of the case”. That might be regarded as being swept away. I am not saying that it is the intention of the clause to sweep it away, but that inference might be drawn by those seeking to solicit the support of members. One must not assume that that solicitation will always be on the part of electors. It may be on the part of those on the other side of the proposal: namely, the developers. It is invidious to place members in that position. They need the protection of the kind of approach that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has enunciated.

I hope that the Minister will look again at this, particularly at Amendment 165A, and whether that can be deployed to mitigate the impact of Clause 14. In any event, however, I hope he would accept, or just consider accepting, Amendment 165B, which would allow the situation to be reviewed in this rather delicate area on the basis of evidence rather than surmise. We are looking, at this late hour, for some commitment to think again and talk again about this in order to avoid potential future difficulties for elected members and officers of the council as well. It would also provide clarity for public applicants and objectors alike.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Nobody will deny that this is a complex area. Previous position and predetermination can meld into a situation where drafting legislation can be difficult. I want to reassure noble Lords on what Clause 14 is about and what it is not about. The provision in the Bill does not have any effect on the legal effects of a local authority member being predetermined. The legal position is, and will remain, that a local authority member making a decision should have an open mind. Whatever he or she may have said about the way they were going to vote or whatever campaigns there were, we are in practical politics and we know that people will campaign on issues. The clear point of focus of any legislation and the law, currently and as a result of Clause 14, is that the decision should be made with an open mind.

I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is one of the most eminent lawyers in the House, and I say that knowing there are many eminent lawyers in this House. However, I hope he will agree—I think he does, along with the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie—that the courts have been very sensible in recognising that politicians hold views and there is nothing wrong with them holding views. The way we drafted these positions in Clause 14 is to make it clear to those less well versed in the law—and that is certainly true of the majority of us—that politicians are free to talk to the public about issues and free to campaign on important issues. It will ensure that, at the end of the day, prior indications of an opinion will not be treated as evidence of predetermination.

Perhaps I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that the only evidence that can be presented to show that a person does not have an open mind is that which exists at the point of the decision-making process. Therefore, prior comments, commitments and pledges do not matter as long as the local authority member clearly listens to the evidence and makes his decision. It may accord with his prejudice or his predisposition, but any evidence that he has a closed mind can only be made at the point when he makes that decision and not at any point prior to that.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

The Minister has artfully described what an LEP is. Can he tell us what an LEP does? That is the thrust of the question.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

What an LEP does is a subject for another debate altogether. However, it is well worth saying that it brings these local authorities, working together under a duty to co-operate in general terms, together with the local business community for the benefit of that community’s development in all the ways that we wish to see—economic, social and environmental. That, really, is what an LEP does.

[Lord Beecham]

May I press the Minister a little further? Does an LEP have powers and resources to do these things, or is it a forum for discussion? That has value but it is not quite the same as having functions of the kind I have just mentioned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

To take the Stevenage situation again as an example—there will be others—one authority may say, “We are not going to have housing in our borough to accommodate you”. There are two distinct points of view, and there is no real sanction. If a plan does not get approved, that suits the authority that wants to keep the status quo. Therefore, there is no recourse for the Stevenages of this world in that situation. Is that not the problem? There will be no co-operation and no plan, and there will be no solution to the problems that one of the authorities might have.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The process of co-operative working actually requires co-operation and a sense of shared purpose in serving the communities that the local authorities represent. There may well be tensions. There may well be situations where there is difficulty in seeking agreement. The law will place on local authorities a duty to seek to resolve these differences. If they show that they have not considered the outcomes of a co-operative process in formulating their local plans, those plans will be rejected. There is, therefore, gentle coercion. However, as with all circumstances where power is being devolved down to local authorities, the public interest is being vested in those democratically elected bodies—namely, the local authorities concerned. That is the purpose of this legislation. I do not need to lecture the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, on the virtues of democracy and the accountability that comes with it. What is missing is the sense that Whitehall is looming large over the whole process and is seeking to put pressure to achieve a particular outcome through this process. It is important to emphasise that.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I warmly endorse the thrust of the three amendments. It is clearly desirable to have a proper planning framework to encourage retail diversity. However, although that is necessary, it is not a sufficient condition of ensuring that we get retail diversity. There are other significant considerations, particularly financial considerations and other policies which may militate against the achievement of the aspirations of the amendments—with which I entirely concur.

I can cite examples from my experience. When I was chairman of the development committee in Newcastle, I tried to persuade our partners in the city centre shopping centre—we were partners because we owned a substantial stake in it—to diversify the offer to try to get away from chainstores, which were pretty much all we had there, and provide for some niche retailing. Despite the fact that we were significant shareholders, I was totally unable to persuade them to do that.

In another example of the Tesco influence, in the west end of Newcastle adjoining a street in an ethnically mixed area with a lot of little local shops and one or two other retailers, Tesco has secured planning permission to build a largish store on the site of a former hospital. The hospital is very keen to get the money from it, for obvious reasons. I am afraid that council officials supported the recommendation, and indeed an inspector upheld the recommendation. So we have a Tesco store not far from the town centre that is likely to do serious damage to local shopping.

I fear there are policies that might encourage that kind of trade-off, where you are effectively getting a financial benefit—in that case for the hospital but in other cases for the local authority itself. Most of us welcome the proposal for tax increment financing but that puts a premium on promoting development that will generate significant rateable value on which you are then going to borrow. There will be a temptation, frankly, to push that kind of development at the expense of the kind of development that these amendments are interested in promoting, which is less likely to contribute hugely in terms of rates and certainly is more difficult to put together. So you potentially have a policy that might militate against the thrust of these amendments.

We are also now going to get a range of enterprise zones. I do not know if the Minister can tell us whether there will be any restrictions this time round on retail developments in the enterprise zones. As I understand it, it is pretty much carte blanche for whoever develops these zones. Again, I speak from experience—and there are other Members of your Lordships’ House who will know the kind of damage that was done to city centre shopping in places such as Newcastle, Manchester, Sheffield and Birmingham by some very substantial out-of-town shopping developments in enterprise zones. Enterprise zones were originally designed to promote investment in manufacturing industry and so on. It would be unfortunate if again they were to be captured by the interests of large retail developers, thereby threatening diversity in existing centres.

These amendments are entirely on the right lines and I hope that the Government will consider them very seriously. However, I also ask them to recognise that there is a need to look at the other policies that impinge on this area and try to ensure that there is a sensible look across the piece at the implications of a range of policies on the objectives that these amendments seek to promote. Perhaps that is a debate for another occasion but I do not think that we can look at these things in isolation. We need to bring them together, and I hope that these amendments may help us start to do that.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for participating in this useful debate on this group of amendments, which has been informed by my noble friend Lord Cotter’s Retail Development Bill and his experience in this area. I am very grateful to him for moving his amendment. As noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Greaves, have said, the amendments in this group raise similar issues around town centre policy and retail diversity. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is absolutely right: a healthy retail economy is the most important thing in maintaining healthy town centres.

We understand and share the concern to ensure that developments should be sustainable. Planning has a key role in achieving this. The coalition’s commitment to this should not be in doubt. We also acknowledge the value to communities of prosperous and diverse high streets. Town centres are key to sustainable growth and local prosperity. They are at the heart of neighbourhoods, giving communities easier access to shops and services. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is right that the Government have already made a clear commitment in debates on this Bill in another place—and, as noble Lords will know, as part of the Budget—that we will maintain strong policies that put town centres first for new retail development.

Perhaps I can address the interest expressed by my noble friend Lord Greaves in Mill Road, which is no doubt an important local area in Cambridge. Local councils have many tools to support local shops—not just planning but business improvements districts and, under this Bill, neighbourhood plans—and to bring complementary developments to the area. There are levers available to assist within the armoury that local authorities have at their disposal.

However, I just caution noble Lords that there is a risk that these amendments are a backdoor attempt to get at supermarkets. We must be clear that town centre planning policy is not pro or anti-supermarkets. Planning cannot seek to restrict lawful competition between retailers; in fact, planning policy is, and has always been—under all Governments and under different controlling administrations of local councils—blind to whether the operator of a retail proposal is a supermarket or an independent. We want the right scale and type of development in the right location to meet people’s shopping needs. That is the issue that we need to be addressing. That is what planning policy can support local councils to achieve in a more practical manner than legislation.

Perhaps I may deal with the point that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, made earlier, when he asked about the duty to co-operate in situations where the impact or influence that a development might have crosses local council boundaries. This is analogous to the housing issue. The duty to co-operate is not actually the main safeguard in this respect. Retail developments in one council area must be assessed for their impact on town centres in the catchment area. If catchment areas cross local council boundaries, it makes no difference—the impacts must still be assessed on the basis of the catchment area. This particular safeguard therefore already exists in planning practice.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I just wonder about the definition of town centres. In an area such as Newcastle, the town centre is obvious, but in an area like Doncaster or Kirklees, where a number of towns are brought together under one unitary authority, what would be the definition of a town centre? I am sure that the Minister understands my point.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think that I can help the noble Lord. Large centres of population have clearly identifiable city or town centres, but the outer suburbs usually have shopping malls and streets that are very important as neighbourhood shopping areas. We really want to be able to strengthen all these traditional shopping areas that people have been able to access. The whole purpose of this is of course to make sure that we do not lose the heart that lies at the centre of all our great communities. The issue applies just as much to a market town—or coastal town, as we were discussing earlier today—as it does to a large city. That is the focus. I will go on to say that the long-expected, shortly-to-arrive national planning policy framework will indeed make clear what our position is on that.

It is really up to the local council to decide what constitutes its view of a town centre and what it wants for the local population. After all, local councils are best placed to set locally relevant policies for the scale and type of retailer they want to see in their area and to integrate them with other policies on housing and economic growth. The best place to do that, then as now, is in the local plan rather than in a separate retail diversity scheme. Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, mentioned the word “holistic”. I quite like that word because I think planning should be done on an holistic basis. More widely, local authorities can work with local businesses to help them offer a distinctive and attractive product to consumers using tools such as business improvement districts.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked a specific question about enterprise zones. Any retail development in an enterprise zone will still be subject to the strong town centre first policy as in national planning policy. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord that the Government are ensuring that this matter is addressed properly. Further, I hope that my responses encourage the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Thursday 30th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

I beg the noble Lord’s pardon: that is right. I withdraw my last remarks and accept the noble Lord’s amendments to my comments. However, whatever we have in the regulatory framework, the key thing is that the minimum should be prescribed and that whatever is prescribed should be done in conjunction with the Local Government Association and subject to affirmative resolution.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, perhaps I may start by saying that the Government are inclined, as I indicated, to accept the concept of affirmative resolution for the regulations. I can also say that the inclination of the Government is for a light touch in this area. We have already seen that there are tensions between a rigorous procedure for the collection of names and the necessary legal restrictions placed on the conduct of elections. The difference between the two is that a referendum is not mandatory, it merely advises a local authority and it is therefore not unreasonable to say that it may be covered by a lighter touch than an election whose outcome is definitive, where the problems to which noble Lords have referred apply. I have spent a lifetime in active party politics, and I know how important it is to try to create a proper framework. I was grateful to both my noble friend Lord True and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for pointing out the problems that could arise if we tried to set up regulations that criminalised activities in collecting petition names, and the like.

Amendment 129E creates a criminal offence, and Amendment 129C broadens the Secretary of State’s regulating powers to allow the regulations to provide for referendum results to be questioned in court. The creation of criminal offences is simply unnecessary for a regime that is, effectively, non-binding.

One problem that the coalition is trying to deal with is the profusion of unnecessary criminal offences on the statute book. I suggest that the incurring of expenditure to pay someone to campaign to collect signatures falls well below the hurdle that needs to be cleared before persons should be at risk of receiving a criminal record.

I have not examined the situation fully, but my first impression was that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, might well be right, because the reason why it is possible to pay people to work in elections is that their fees are part of the election expenses. It could create problems if they were also involved in a referendum.

Amendment 129B expands the scope of the Secretary of State's power to make regulations on the conduct of referendums to include regulations about the limitation of expenditure in connection with a referendum. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is right about what the Bill states on that. We will be discussing the wider issues about publicity arrangements for referendums in a later group.

Clause 46(6)(b) distinguishes between the procedural regulations that may be made in respect of local referendums which are not binding and those which may be made in respect of binding referendums, such as whether to have an elected mayor. We intend that local referendums should be more light touch, given their non-binding nature. The intention behind the amendments may be to limit restrictions on authorities in connection with the question. In fact, the equivalent provision in regulations for binding referendums is used to impose spending limits on petition organisers and those opposing petitions, and they are invariably accompanied by criminal offences for breaching spending limits. We are not convinced that such requirements are necessary for this scheme of non-binding referendums.

We will discuss publication arrangements in a later group and our intentions on that issue. In the mean time, Amendment 129E, which, in hindsight may have been better grouped with Amendment 129D, seems to have little practical effect. It would remove the words “of the referendum” from Clause 55(8). These words may be considered unnecessary but they do not cause any harm and to a small degree remove any doubt that may exist. I cannot say that I am convinced that it is worth making the amendment.

The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, would insert a statutory requirement to consult the Local Government Association in making regulations about voting in, and the conduct of, local referendums. The Electoral Commission is expressly included in the Bill as it is standard practice in all such electoral matters. I neglected to say in reply to the previous debate that we are consulting the Electoral Commission. However, I can assure noble Lords that we intend to consult widely before making regulations, which will include local government associations. I hope that noble Lords will see these non-binding referenda becoming a very different category from ordinary electoral law and I hope that with these assurances, my noble friend will withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

The noble Lord will become very familiar with that sort of drafting in the course of discussions on this Bill and others.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

First, I heard what my noble friend said about the word “misleading” in the Bill and will reflect on whether that might be improved in some way. I hope that he welcomes the general principle that the authority should be able to make sure that the question being put is relevant and accurately reflects the situation, in relationship with the petition organiser. The last thing that one wants is a matter of semantics, where the petition organiser has to go back and get all the names and addresses again. This gives a necessary flexibility. I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw that amendment.

My noble friend indicated that he will withdraw Amendments 128T and 128V. Amendment 128U would require the local authority to hold a referendum on the same day as an election or other referendum within the next 12 months. Our provision currently requires that the referendum will be held on the same day as a referendum or election in the next six months. As I have already said, we believe that the provision in Clause 52(3) as drafted is sensible and practical. Councils may not know 12 months in advance whether a poll will be triggered. Generally, local people will want a referendum to be held as soon as practicable. The amendment proposed by my noble friend would tend towards delaying it. We are sympathetic to my noble friend Lord True’s general approach of leaving this to the local authorities to manage at their discretion. We do not consider this amendment necessary. If there are good reasons to delay a referendum for more than six months then the council can do so.

I hope that with the assurances I have given, and in particular the agreement to look again at the word “misleading”, that my noble friend will feel free to withdraw his amendment.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Thursday 30th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I, too, remember the noble Lord in his days as Secretary of State for the Environment. He was also chairman of the inner-city partnership team that met in Newcastle and I remember amusing him once by referring to the city action teams he was intent on imposing in our city, and I think in others, as feral cats. He liked that phrase and I liked what the noble Lord said today, particularly in relation to the Delegated Powers Committee report. It is interesting that it was compiled in such a hurry that the title of the printed document is the “Localsim” Bill report. I do not think that it has any connection with telephony. It is certainly very late and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Soley on managing to master as much of it as he apparently has. I have only just seen it this morning.

I agree with the thrust of the noble Lord’s argument about centralism and too much central prescription. I do not entirely agree that it would be wise and safe to leave some of the structure entirely in the hands of local councils. Most local councils would perform perfectly adequately and properly, but we need to consider that there may be some councils which would choose not to develop a proper procedure and we need to protect the interests of those in those authorities. That, in my view, should not be done by the Government, but the Local Government Association itself should perhaps produce a model against which councils’ performance could be judged. That is the local government family, as it were, assuming responsibility, as opposed to the Secretary of State, and it strikes me that, in this and perhaps other areas, that might be a better way forward.

The noble Lord, Lord True, referred to areas with regional governments. Of course, thanks to the present Government’s “settled determination”, in the phrase of the noble Lord, to abolish all regional structures except that in London—it is only London that is privileged to have a regional body, although it is a privilege that the noble Lord may not be too comfortable with—it is probably right to encourage and facilitate petitions for the kind of issues that the noble Lord referred to, rather than referendums, in the same way that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, answered the question put to him earlier.

Having said all that, I thank and congratulate the Government for responding so constructively to so many of the points that have been raised around these issues. It is very welcome. I particularly celebrate the removal of Clause 47(5), which stipulated that the third ground for determination was,

“that the referendum question related to a matter specified by order by the Secretary of State”.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I think, tabled an amendment to that effect and the Minister has adopted it, if not him. That is also very welcome.

My last point relates to the strange provision about the cost of a referendum. The noble Lord, Lord True, referred to the figure of around £1 million as representing about 5 per cent of the council tax requirement of his authority. I believe that it is roughly the same—the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, may recall and confirm, or otherwise—in Newcastle. There will be many authorities where 5 per cent is an enormous amount of money. If an authority presented and circulated petitions inscribed in gold leaf on vellum, it would still not reach 5 per cent of most councils’ expenditure. It seems a ridiculous figure. I wonder whether a decimal point has been missed somewhere—the printers have clearly had difficulties with the Bill, as I have already indicated. Five per cent seems extraordinary and I wonder whether any proper estimate has been made—or any estimate at all—by the Government, or those advising them, about what the cost of a referendum, perhaps on a city-wide basis, or district council basis, to take a lower level, would be. It may be that, if we are going to have guidance of this kind, differential provision ought to be made according to the size of the authority; perhaps something on a per capita basis, rather than on a percentage of revenue.

If we are to have a cap, as it were, of a percentage kind, should that relate to an individual referendum, or cumulatively? If there were a large number of referendums in the authority of the noble Lord, Lord True, or in mine, or in any other, one could reach even the high figure. I do not ask the Minister to respond to that thought, which has only just occurred to me—I cannot expect him to answer that—but it might be considered when he looks again, as I hope he will agree to do, at this provision. I welcome the provision; it is right that there should be some consideration of a financial limit by an officer—rather than a member in this case—but the one suggested seems to have little justification and little relationship to reality on the ground.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate and I take it as a general welcome for the Government’s amendments. A number of interesting points have been raised which probe again at the boundaries of the referendum principle. Noble Lords are right to point to the balance between the Secretary of State and local authorities, but on examination they will discover that the powers of the Secretary of State are residual powers, usually to modify arrangements as a result of experience, rather than to impose a pattern of governance on local authorities throughout the Bill. However, some forms, some articulation of the form of referendums and suchlike are in legislation, because Parliament exists to ensure that, in the context of a citizen’s relationship with a local authority, there are certain rights. If a referendum is considered to be something which citizens can combine collectively to seek, those rights need to be established in law and it is Parliament’s job to establish them in law. I ask noble Lords to differentiate between the two things.

It was said—in jest, I hope—that the Secretary of State was empowered to decide what was local. If noble Lords had looked at our amendments, they would know that our amendment removes that power from the Secretary of State. My noble friend Lord Jenkin asked whether we can leave it to local authorities to decide when and how to conduct referendums. I have made the point about the protection of the citizen within local government. We could, of course, leave it to local authorities, but localism is about more than empowering local authorities, it is also about empowering people. This part of the Bill enables local people to require a referendum, but contains some sensible safeguards to combat abuse. I hope that my noble friend will be able to see the Government’s position in that context.

I, too, received the Local Government Association briefing asking me to table some amendments and to speak in its support—it is very wide in its mailings. However, that was drawn up before the Government’s amendments were known, so some of its criticisms—it generally welcomed many of the provisions of the Bill in this area—were made without the advantage that we now have of knowing what the Government’s proposals are.

My noble friend Lord Greaves asked whether the Government have a list of things that would be caught. My noble friend Lord True also wondered about this, but said that he hoped local authorities would be empowered to decide what was covered under those statutory applications. Under the approach that we have taken, it would be for councils to decide. We have no list. Amendments in a later group illustrate just how difficult such a list would be to apply. It is up to local authorities to decide what is excluded under the special case provisions.

My noble friend Lord Greaves asked whether a petition would qualify as a special case if it covered a large area. Yes, it would. The council would be able to refuse such a petition under the provisions as drafted. He also asked what “substantially” meant. I can give him only a quasi-legalistic answer: it means more than incidentally. I hope that that helps him in his appreciation of that.

[Lord Beecham]

Less than completely, presumably.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That may be so. I am not a lawyer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

I am grateful to the Minister for that information. Would he consider the issue of a per capita amount rather than this very large limit—not a large percentage, but in cash terms—that would have to be breached in order for there to be reason not to hold a special referendum?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That is a suggestion that we would like to consider. It is the spirit of this Committee that we appreciate approaches that are different from the text of the Bill and might define things better. I am happy to consider that matter and I thank the noble Lord for the idea.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I understand the noble Lord’s point, but I have to say that it would be a huge infraction on the responsibilities and rights of elected members of councils to indicate what might go on a council agenda and what might not. That is going much too far. Although I expect members to behave responsibly, if they are irresponsible, it would be the task of those answering such a resolution to make the case. We ought to have the self-confidence to do that, so I do not think, with all respect to the noble Lord, that his amendment should progress.

I seek some assurances from the Minister, to see whether I have understood him correctly, apart from anything else. Later—many, many hours later—we will come to the question of the community infrastructure levy and whether or not it should be a material consideration in determining planning matters. There will, I think, be quite strong views about that. I wonder, having heard the Minister, whether it will be permissible for councils to take into account the factors referred to in my noble friend’s amendment as a material consideration in the awarding of contracts. If I understood him correctly, the noble Lord indicated that that would be permissible, although it should not be prescribed, and I can understand that position. Perhaps he will confirm or disabuse me of that notion.

I also ask the noble Lord whether he has a view on the living wage, which has been espoused—I think before an election but certainly after an election, to revert to the point of the noble Lord, Lord True—by no less a person than the Mayor of London, who has adopted the concept initiated by his predecessor of promoting the living wage. Does he accept that it is right for councils, if they choose, to adopt such a policy in respect of their own authorities and to seek to reflect that in the conditions upon which they let contracts?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, this has been a short but very useful debate on a very important aspect of local government policy. I assure noble Lords that the guidance which will be issued will take note of issues raised in this debate. While we may not agree on all aspects, there appears to be a good deal of consensus that the Government’s approach on senior pay is to be welcomed as, indeed, are the requirements of our amendments for a pay policy statement. I am grateful to the noble Lord for lending his support to that concept.

Our amendments build on that approach and will increase accountability for local decisions about the lowest paid in the local government workforce. I say local decisions deliberately. The Government are quite clear that these decisions on pay and reward must remain ones for local determination. I hope that noble Lords opposite will acknowledge that the Government have fulfilled our commitment to reflect on discussions around low pay in the other place and brought forward appropriate amendments, as, indeed, we do today.

The Government did not undertake at that time to consider measures to increase duties on local authorities with regard to their relationship with bodies with whom they can contract. We believe such proposals would be burdensome. Charities, the voluntary sector and business have called for regulation around contracting to be reduced. There is general consensus that in order to achieve greater participation of the voluntary sector and small businesses in local government contracting, we need to make the process of contracting as simple as possible.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

I recall at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, speaking very passionately about how one needs to respond to constituents. The assumption is that a councillor will always be on the side of his constituents, but that may not be the case. A councillor may decide that a particular project—let us say, an application for a bail hostel or something of that kind—is one that he, having heard the evidence, would want to support. It might be an incinerator or an abattoir, which may not play terribly well with his constituents. How would those constituents feel, as opposed to the commercial developer who might be the applicant—which is assumed normally to be the case—if they believed that their councillor had made up his mind in favour of something that they did not want without being open to persuasion and hearing their arguments and representations at the decision-making meeting? If one takes that point of view into account, one has the grave concerns which both my noble friends have advanced and which require detailed consideration by the time we get to Report. This is not a one-way street. We have to be very careful about how we might seek to change the balance within what is, as I implied in my earlier intervention, a quasi-judicial function. It is about only those that I think we are concerned.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The noble Lord has degrouped amendments which address that issue; perhaps we will come on to that matter later. The failure of an elected politician to fulfil the wishes of their constituents or to fail to respond properly to their wishes cannot be legislated for; the solution lies in the electoral process, at a subsequent general election. The illustration that the noble Lord used could not be covered by legislation in any way that he would have wished.

I believe that we have satisfactorily demonstrated that the purpose of this clause is to clarify the position of elected councillors to make it possible for them to campaign and engage fully with their local communities on issues which concern them without inadvertently—as has been the case in the past—excluding themselves from the decision-making process by doing so. That is why this is a great step forward and why it is in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: We are back on track on an issue which we covered in some of the previous debate. I hope that I have made the position of the Government clear on the Standards Board and the unwillingness of the Government to take the position of imposing a code of conduct on councillors from the centre. The philosophy of the coalition is that the Localism Bill means what it says. It is up to local authorities to present the conduct of their public duties in a way that is to the satisfaction of the electorates that they represent. In no way does that imply that misconduct can be approved of but it is for local authorities to determine what measures they put in place to effect a code of conduct.

[Lord Beecham]

I hear what the noble Lord says but the Bill distinguishes, does it not, between matters which will be made criminal offences. Failure to register or to declare an interest are offences at the serious end of misconduct. But is that not a national provision? What is the difference in principle between obligations of that kind and obligations of other sorts of conduct that can affect a community that a council is representing?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I do not think the noble Lord is suggesting that to offend the code of conduct in any way should be made a criminal offence. What is clear is that some aspects of conduct in public office are indeed criminal matters and therefore subject to prosecution under the existing law. We will come on to the declaration of interests at a later point.

This has been a worthwhile debate, but I hope that noble Lords understand exactly where the coalition is coming from and why it is seeking to introduce a regime that puts the responsibility on local authorities themselves to ensure the proper conduct of their members and their business. We will have useful opportunities between now and the Report stage to discuss these matters further. In the mean time, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Beecham and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 9th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Pannick, for bringing back these issues because it gives me the opportunity to clarify the Government’s position. As they say, Amendments 1 and 6 revisit the issue of consultation and so I shall respond to them together.

Amendment 1, to which the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Pannick, have spoken, would require Ministers to publish the proposed reform on their department’s website or to otherwise make it publicly available in the event that a full public consultation was not to be undertaken. This is a helpful amendment and one that speaks to an important principle, so I thank noble Lords for bringing it back at Third Reading.

I said on Report that I thought that this was something that the Government could consider, and I can assure your Lordships’ House that we have done so. Supportive as we are of the objective behind this amendment, on balance, we do not believe that such a requirement is appropriate on the face of the Bill. We are debating ostensibly an issue of guidance and best practice, not imposing a legal requirement. For that reason I am able to support the purpose of the amendment but not its inclusion in the Bill. Given that I believe that this is an issue of guidance, I am happy to give a very specific assurance that the guidance for use by officials on making orders under the Public Bodies Bill, to be published by the Cabinet Office, will include a specific reference that departments ought to consider the most appropriate way of making a proposal publicly available.

The Government are committed to increasing transparency and accountability across the public sector. I do not believe that I can honestly stand here and say that I oppose the purpose of the amendment and still be true to that overall objective. I fear that our only point of divergence is on how to ensure that this purpose is reflected in the best way possible when Ministers are developing proposals and drafting orders. It is the Government’s clear judgment that a more practical and proportionate way of achieving the noble Lord’s objective is to capture this issue in the guidance which will be used by departments when bringing forward orders. On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, described my pledge to take this back to my colleagues in government as “handsome”. I hope that he will not now consider this an ugly conclusion by the Government. I can assure him that the principle of making proposals publicly available is one on which all sides of the House agree.

I should like to make one further observation on the noble Lord’s amendment. I agree that, in 2011, a website represents a very sensible vehicle for making proposals publicly available; indeed, I should expect departments seriously to consider whether website publication is not appropriate for publicising their proposals. However, my crystal ball will not tell me whether this will be the case for ever. Technology moves on. The statutory framework for consultation on this legislation is set out in Clause 10, and it is intended to be a stable and firm statutory requirement for reforms long into the future. It is guidance, not the statue book, that can be readily updated to reflect whatever is most appropriate at given times. That provides further weight to the argument that, however sensible this amendment might seem, it is not an appropriate addition to the Bill.

I am disappointed that I cannot be more supportive of the noble Lord’s amendment. I know that it is a sincere attempt to improve the Bill and to help the Government deliver a comprehensive and watertight piece of legislation. However, the vote on Report made it clear that consultation must not always be full public consultation and that a Minister must ultimately be responsible and indeed accountable to Parliament for deciding how to undertake proportionate and meaningful consultation. It is therefore not appropriate to seek to alter this legal framework through the noble Lord’s amendment.

I shall now turn to Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. This proposed amendment to Schedule 1 in practice concerns the issues of consultation and subsequent procedure, set out in Clauses 10 and 11, and how they might apply to the closure of the regional development agencies. I shall start by once again taking the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the RDAs. I also acknowledge that the noble Lords have a strong regard for the work that the RDAs did and would prefer them to continue.

We have had very thorough debates in the House, in Committee and on Report, on the RDAs. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to these debates. I have explained that the Government's strong preference is to abolish the RDAs, and I have set out the reasons behind this, including why the current arrangements are no longer sustainable. The coalition agreement, the June 2010 Budget Statement and the local growth White Paper are equally clear about the Government's proposal to abolish the RDAs. The Government continue actively to engage with RDAs and interested parties on how closure is to be achieved. Individual RDAs have been in touch with their stakeholders, for example about their asset plans. The consultation and engagement are taking place irrespective of the requirements in the Bill.

I have listened to the arguments for the reform of public bodies to be an open process. Clauses 10 and 11 underline the Government’s desire for this to be the case. Clause 10 requires a Minister to consult on a proposal to which an order made using the Bill would give effect. The amendment proposes that in the case of RDAs, the explanatory document that accompanies an order should include, first, the question that was asked about the principle of abolishing RDAs and, secondly, a summary of the representations received on that question.

The requirements of Clause 10 on a Minister to consult when making an order covered by the Bill are clear. The requirements applied to the RDAs would oblige the Government to ask about the principle of abolition. Similarly, Clause 11(2)(d) requires that any explanatory document should include a summary of representations received in consultation. Therefore, I do not believe that the amendments in this group would provide any additional information for Parliament. Instead, they would unnecessarily complicate the drafting of the Bill. I hope that, in the light of the clarification that I have given with regard to the existing requirements—

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, does the Minister recall that on Report, I asked about the consultation process for RDAs in the light of a letter that the Minister had written to my noble friend Lady Royall, in which he stated that consultation effectively would take place after the passage of the legislation? I asked on that occasion whether in those circumstances the consultation that took place with individual RDAs would be on the basis that each case would be considered on its merits, or whether in effect it was all or nothing in terms of abolition. Will there be an individual consultation in respect of each RDA, with the possibility of a different conclusion in respect of one RDA as opposed to another, or is it to be abolition tout court?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The consultation will be based on the statutory instruments that will be tabled in connection with each RDA. Therefore, there will indeed be consultation, and an opportunity for each regional development agency to have input on its future. The regions of the country, if they feel particularly motivated, will be able to discuss the reasons why they believe no change should be made to their status.

[Lord Beecham]

Will the Government be open to persuasion?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

It is the nature of consultation that the Government are open to persuasion: that is the purpose of a consultative exercise. The policy decision has been made. It is the resolve of the Government to implement the policy. None the less, there will be a consultative process, at which there will be an opportunity to argue the opposite case.

I hope that, in the light of the clarification that I have given on the requirements of Clauses 10 and 11, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will not press their amendments. I also hope that, given my assurances on guidance and the problems with adding Amendment 1 to the Bill, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Beecham and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

When we are in a position to make an announcement about that, we shall. I am not in a position to do so at this point in the debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, raised a number of interesting questions based not only on the experience of his work with the Forestry Commission but on his location in Cumbria. On the issue of competition with Scotland for inward investment, UKTI co-ordinates the work on this, and one of its main aims is to avoid wasteful competition between different parts of the UK for inward investment. The noble Lord, quite appropriately, asked specifically about the trees and their liabilities. At present, the Northwest Regional Development Agency is discussing plans for its assets and liabilities with the Government. I cannot give a response on the future of these assets until these discussions are completed.

A number of noble Lords asked about the process of consultation. One of the lessons noble Lords will take from this Bill is that the Government are serious about consultation. The procedures laid down in the Bill require Ministers to come to Parliament with full details of the impacts of any policy change that they seek to bring in through statutory instruments. There will be full consultation. I shall be happy to keep the House informed on the nature of this consultation over the next few months while this process of change is going on.

From a standing start in September 2010, partnerships now cover 80 per cent of active businesses in the UK and 87 per cent of the population. We are looking forward to reaching 100 per cent. We believe that we have unleashed a wave of enthusiasm for economic development at local level. In many places there is no appetite to go back to the old arrangements. It was clear from our earlier debate that many noble Lords retain their attachment to RDAs as they were. However, we do not believe that a return to the circumstances of a few years ago is either appropriate or possible. We are now in a new situation and we need to ensure that economic activity is taken forward across the right geography by fully committed partnerships. RDAs do not fit in with that new approach and I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

Will the Government consult on the basis of all or nothing or will they approach each case in each region on its merits and listen with an open mind to the arguments of business as well as local government and its social partners? Will they take a decision on a case by case basis or, as I say, will it be all or nothing.

Greater Manchester Combined Authority Order 2011

Debate between Lord Beecham and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I join the right reverend Prelate in paying tribute to my noble, and indeed personal, friend Lord Smith. George Orwell would recognise him as an exemplary Wigan Peer if he were to rewrite his book. I also congratulate the Minister and the Government on proceeding with reasonable alacrity to bring forward this order. I have not checked, so I am not sure whether it meets the requirement of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, of being printed on recycled paper. If not, that is the only defect one could possibly find with it. However, although this was the first order of this kind and there was a change of Government, it is nearly a year since the proposal was made. One would hope that on the basis of the experience of this order, if further applications are made—and I certainly hope that they are—the process will be a little swifter. Otherwise, particularly if there are a number of such applications, it will be quite a long time before they can be dealt with. However, presumably now that government departments have the experience of dealing with the process, it will be speedier.

I must also pay tribute not only to my noble friend but to his colleagues across the political divide in the authorities in Greater Manchester. They had their differences over the congestion charge, as he reminded us, but generally speaking they have worked very well together. I am sure that that will be the case after the pending local elections in May, although whether there will still be the same number of councillors of different political colours remains to be seen. In any event, it is clear that, not for the first time, Greater Manchester has blazed a trail for metropolitan governance in this country. The councils have, of course, a very strong municipal history. Now that they have come together and formed, in effect, a sub-region, those of us who are concerned with other areas of that kind need to watch carefully and learn from that.

I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I strike a slightly partisan note, but it is regrettable that the Secretary of State has seen fit to single out Manchester City Council for, in my view, excessive criticism—not in relation to this proposition but in more general terms. One hopes that the spirit animating the Government in reaching this satisfactory conclusion to the approach from Greater Manchester will be reflected in more measured language in looking at the problems encountered by all the authorities in that area. But of course they have worked successfully for many years, as the Minister and other noble Lords have said. There has been a very striking urban renaissance in Manchester itself and in Salford, which is welcoming hordes of reluctant BBC employees with open arms as the headquarters move there but also in other parts of the conurbation. As an LGA study some time ago demonstrated, the scale of sub-regional governance is a key factor in bringing together the requirements for the development of the local economy and some of the infrastructure that goes with that, although there are other issues which transcend those boundaries and which need to be considered on a regional basis. In that regard, the structures that have existed will unfortunately no longer exist, and that may slightly impede the success of a very promising venture. Of course, it has to be borne in mind that this takes place against a background of a very difficult financial situation for the authorities.

My noble friend referred to Community Budgeting, or Total Place, as it was known before it was rebranded after the election. There is certainly potential here to look at problems across the range of public services that might be tackled more effectively, given the fairly cohesive nature of the area, although each borough has its own distinctive character. In the local health economy, for example, the issues of skills and further and higher education are not confined by boundaries. Like my noble friend, I hope that the new organisation will be able to influence developments there. Equally, I hope the Minister will persuade the relevant government departments that they must look outside the traditional silos and co-operate fully in the development of such an approach.

I join all those who have spoken in warmly welcoming this critical development. I hope that others will seek to follow it. I have but one question for the Minister, which relates to the constitution. Manchester city is to be visited with the novel creation of a shadow mayor, assuming the proposal is accepted under the Localism Bill. It is an interesting concept: the shadow mayor has to be appointed and there then has to be confirmation of the position in a referendum, perhaps the following year. However, that applies only to the city of Manchester, which is extremely well led by Sir Richard Leese. He will not be the mayor of Greater Manchester—the surrounding boroughs will not quite accept that proposition, although I have no doubt that the press will try to portray him in that capacity—nor will anybody who might be elected to that position, if the referendum goes in favour of an elected mayor.

A question arises from the constitution, on which the noble Lord can perhaps help me. The membership is described as being based on each constituent council appointing one of its elected members to be a member of the new body. Maybe I am being even more pedantic than usual but it is not clear whether a mayor is an elected member of the council. The shadow mayor will be in place for the duration of that year; he is, by definition, a member of that council. If there is an elected mayor, the question then arises of whether he is to be regarded for the purposes of this order as an elected member of the council. He is not an elected member in the way that every other member is an elected member. It may be that this is a point with no substance to it but it might need to be considered. If it is not clear, perhaps some thought might be given to dealing with the situation. If it is clear, that is wonderful—we can all go away happy.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

It is quite clear that we all arrived happy. It is very nice, as a Minister standing in for a colleague, to get such a warm and congenial reception across the board for a statutory instrument. Perhaps I should volunteer to do this more often. It is a very pleasant experience. It has been interesting, too. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, for his involvement in Manchester and for the way in which he welcomed this measure. I acknowledge the work of AGMA in serving as a nursery for this. What is so useful about it is the way in which both AGMA and Whitehall have worked together to make a success of the opportunity that the GMCA represents. I hope that that can be built on. During the debate, various noble Lords have suggested ways in which it can be built on. In many ways, it forms a model and is very much the pioneer. Of course, Manchester would say that it is always the pioneer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I apologise if I have got it wrong. My briefing states that mayors would be elected members of the constituent councils and can sit on the combined authority. The mayor would be an elected member of the authority. However, I stand corrected if I am wrong.

[Lord Beecham]

My question was whether the mayor would count for the purposes of the instrument as an elected member of a council in order to serve on the GMCA. That appears to be position. If it is, I accept it, but the mayor is not for other purposes a councillor.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I take that point. I am sorry to show my ignorance. I am grateful to the noble Lord. Paragraph 1(8) of Schedule 1 to the order states:

“For the purposes of this paragraph, an elected mayor of a constituent council is to be treated as a member of the constituent council”.

[Lord Beecham]

I apologise for not having spotted that.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

At least the noble Lord has taught me an interesting lesson. I am grateful to him, and I hope that he is grateful to me.

Transfer of Functions (Dormant Accounts) Order 2010

Debate between Lord Beecham and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I must apologise for not being in the House when my noble friend Lord Hunt opened this debate, especially as he was kind enough to make reference to me subsequently—although I did hear that.

I want to take up one point, on which my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley touched almost in passing, while welcoming the principle of the order and of the bank and recognising that there is certainly some potential for helping the voluntary and community sector. She mentioned in general the terms under which investments and loans will be made. Can the Minister give us any assurances about that? Sir Ronald Cohen, who is a very enthusiastic supporter of the principle, has suggested that interest will be at commercial rates. If that is the case, is there not a danger that voluntary organisations, which after all will be seeking investment anyway because they are having some financial difficulties, will find it difficult to proceed when they are being expected to pay commercial rates of interest on loans? It would be different if grants were being made, but my understanding is that this is to be a rolling investment fund and that it will be a question not of grants but of loans. It would be helpful if the Minister were able to give an indication on that issue.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I am sorry if my slowness in rising rather gave the impression that the debate would be longer than I had imagined. I am not reluctant to spring to my feet for I believe that this is a very welcome debate and thank all noble Lords who have participated in it, in particular those two noble Lords whose Motions are before us this evening, because it gives me an opportunity to expand further on the Government’s plans and actions deriving from the order which is the debate’s subject.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has expressed concern over the current challenges facing voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations. I share the view that the VCSE sector plays a crucial role in our society and economy, but as I will make clear in these closing remarks, the big society agenda, with its emphasis on social action, community empowerment and public sector reform, will open up many new opportunities for these organisations to thrive in the future. This Government are taking a number of measures which will directly support the sector through this difficult time in the short term, but which will help to ensure a more secure and stable future in the long run. Those measures include the setting-up of the big society bank.

I join the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in welcoming the coming-into-force of the transfer of functions order. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, will know, and as he said, this derives from legislation enacted under the previous Government which we supported. It marks an important step on the way to meeting the Government's ambitious plans for a big society bank. With this order, the Minister for the Cabinet Office can now direct the Big Lottery Fund on how to use England’s portion of released dormant accounts to achieve social benefits in line with the provisions of the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008.

As the Prime Minister announced in July 2010, the Government intend to use all the dormant accounts money available for spending in England to capitalise an independent big society bank, or—I apologise to the noble and learned Baroness for the phrase—social investment wholesaler. The role of the big society bank will be to help build a sustainable social investment market, making it easier for voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations to access the finance and advice that they need. Although a nascent social investment market has emerged over the past decade, it remains small and fragile. Many of these organisations tackle our most intractable social problems and deliver vital public services. They empower local communities and work with the most marginalised members of society, yet still struggle to access the finance they need to grow and develop.

The big society bank will work with a range of social investment intermediaries to increase the overall pool and variety of capital available to front-line organisations. In the long term, our vision is of a fully functioning and more sustainable social investment market which will enable voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations to grow and develop, and to become more resilient.

There are many ways in which the bank will work to achieve this. For example, I believe that there are people and organisations, including the public sector, willing to invest in social impact. There are also organisations trying to create that social impact but few mechanisms to bring the two together. Some new ideas include social impact bonds, community bonds and community share schemes. One of the things the big society bank might do is support innovation, particularly proposals that find new ways of matching the needs of front-line organisations with potential providers of capital.

There are also organisations—community groups, social enterprises, charities—which are viable businesses but are unable to access working capital or capital to buy new assets from commercial banks. The big society bank could increase the flow of capital via intermediaries which specialise in affordable loans to these institutions. And for organisations which are looking to expand and grow, the big society bank will look to increase the availability of risk capital, where the investor takes a stake in the future success of the organisation.

In refocusing the priorities of dormant accounts allocation, we are not downgrading the importance of youth and financial inclusion. We would like the bank to include both themes within its investment mandate and believe that far better outcomes can be achieved through the social enterprise and community-led solutions that the bank will support. I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Newby and the noble learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in recognising that the Government’s proposals build on the original Act in a positive way.

We recognise that the current economic situation and the need to tackle the deficit create a challenging and sometimes painful environment for many organisations, including those in the voluntary, community, charitable and social enterprise sectors. We also understand that organisations might have difficulties managing the transition to a tighter funding environment and getting to a position where they can take advantages of the future opportunities presented by the big society agenda. This transition is more difficult in an environment than either the Government or the previous Government would have wished.

This is why we have set up a £100 million transition fund to give a lifeline to those VCS organisations that are delivering front-line services and are affected by reductions in public spending. The fund provides grants of between £12,500 and £500,000 to help organisations make the necessary changes in order to thrive in the long term and take advantage of the opportunities presented by the big society and public service reform. Already, following a large number of applications, 18 early transition awards have been made and many hundreds more will be announced in the coming weeks and months.

We will also shortly be announcing a programme of work to give front-line organisations access to support and expert advice beyond funding matters that will enable them better to meet their changing needs. We also want to help the sector access a wider range of funding to increase its strength and resilience for the long term. That is why we are aiming to capitalise a big society bank to increase levels of capital investment in the sector and we are also reviewing ways to incentivise further philanthropy and charitable giving. We are committed to opening up public sector delivery so that voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations can compete for national and local government contracts and access a greater proportion of government spending.

We have established a red-tape taskforce, chaired by my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, to remove the barriers that get in the way of sector involvement. It is looking at a range of issues that we know cause difficulties for voluntary organisations, including charity law, licensing, insurance and funding, and will be reporting in May. We have also introduced new powers to help communities save local facilities and services threatened with closure and give the communities the right to bid to take over local state-run services.

We are working hard to set up a big society bank. Not surprisingly, this is a complex process. None the less, by April of this year, we aim to have arrangements in place so that we are able to start making early investments as soon as the first round of dormant accounts money becomes available in the summer. It will take longer for an independent big society bank to be set up and fully operational but we are already in the process of seeking the state-aid approvals necessary to capitalise it with dormant accounts. We have been delighted that Sir Ronald Cohen, previously head of the Social Investment Taskforce, and Nick O'Donohoe, formerly head of global research at JP Morgan and head of its social finance unit, have volunteered to develop a proposal for an independent big society bank. We look forward to working with them and other social investment experts. In addition to the investment from dormant accounts, as the Prime Minister announced on 9 February as a part of a broader package, four of the UK's largest banks have agreed to invest a further £200 million in a fully fledged big society bank. We expect that the final bank will be a lean organisation, and I assure this House that we are conscious of the need to keep any administrative costs to an appropriate level.

In this way, with the combination of dormant accounts money and the support of the banks, we expect that the big society bank will be capitalised with at least £300 million over the next two years, with further injections of capital as more money is released from dormant accounts. This is a significant sum, especially when we consider that in 2010 the entire amount of social investment in the UK was less than £200 million.

In addition, we expect that the bank will attract increasing levels of private sector investment over time, generating hundreds of millions of pounds for charities, social enterprises and voluntary groups, and creating a strong, vibrant and sustainable social investment market in the future.

I will try to answer some of the questions that noble Lords have asked. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, asked whether the bank would be able to raise capital, what rates it would set and the salary levels. The big society bank will be able to raise capital although it is unlikely to be able to do so in its first few years. The details of the BSB investment will be decided by its management. They will have to be demonstrably in keeping with its social mission. Salaries will be set in line with the sector, but I know that Sir Ronald Cohen and Mr O'Donohoe are giving their services free to the project to set up the bank.

The noble Lord also asked what form capital from the bank will take. That is being negotiated with the banks and we want to ensure that the terms enable the BSB to deliver its social mission. How will the social mission be guaranteed? The BSB is being set up as an independent, non-public organisation, but we have made it clear that we will direct dormant accounts only to organisations that have a clear, protected social mission in their founding articles, and governance accountability arrangements to protect that mission.

Rather predictably, the noble Lord also asked about the citizens advice bureau in Birmingham, because we have debated that in another context and I suspect that we might debate it further. Perhaps I can put that decision in context. As the noble Lord will know, the Government have a strategy for basing these decisions at a local level. Many councils have made substantial savings through increasing efficiency in back-office functions rather than passing on cuts to the VCSE groups which, as the noble Lord admits, do excellent work. The Government have set out reasonable expectations of councils, challenging them to work with the sector and organisations and not to pass on disproportionate cuts. We expect that from local government throughout the country.

The big society is not a cover for cuts. The challenge that we face in terms of public finance cannot be ignored, but the big society was an approach developed before the recession which is at the heart of the Government's programme of reform. The big society will give individuals and communities a role in shaping the provision of services and give more power to communities rather than central government.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, asked particularly about parliamentary scrutiny. The aim is for the big society bank to be independent in order to have flexibility to respond to the market, but our key criteria for directing BSB money include robust governance and accountability arrangements, which will include the principle of transparency. Parliament will, in the normal way, be able to scrutinise government spending directions of dormant accounts and in that way scrutinise the whole function of the big society bank as the recipient of those funds.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, said that in many ways the Government had gone back to the original Bill, and showed how the social enterprise sector can be an effective deliverer of community services and how these proposals will provide much-needed funding.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, asked a number of questions, but I can reassure her that the whole purpose is to use this money—people's money, as she said—to support the voluntary, community and social enterprise sectors. She is right that the big society bank is not the whole solution, but it is part of the development of this sector, which I know she believes in greatly.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seeks in his Motion to place the Government’s proposals in the context of the spending review and ignores the state of the public finances under the previous Government, which made budgetary reduction a vital part of the coalition’s strategy for rebuilding the economy. He has also chosen to ignore not just the degree to which the Government have sought to protect the VCSE sector but the measures, of which this is part, to provide it with the opportunity and ability to play its part in reshaping the economy for the future.

This has been a useful debate and I hope that I have been able to reassure the House that this instrument is being used to positive effect. I would like to thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for tabling her Take Note Motion and her support of the order. In the light of this, and my comments, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, will feel able to withdraw his Motion of Regret.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

Before the noble Lord sits down, will he comment on the rate of interest that the bank might be deploying and whether it is likely to be a commercial rate?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The bank will be operating in the market, and it is unlikely that the bank is going to be able to provide finance at a subsidised rate. None the less, the most important thing to secure is the availability of the funding. That is the direction of travel of the bank at this time.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Beecham and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 28th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I cannot guarantee that all the 450 proposals will find funding. However, I can be sure that the ones for which funding is found will be successful and provide opportunities for the people in those areas.

[Lord Beecham]

Can the Minister indicate in monetary terms the extent of the bids that have been made?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

No, I do not have that information available, but we know the amount of money that is available for the fund, which I have stated.

Finally, noble Lords raised the question of what will happen to RDA assets and activities. There has been some concern that there might be a fire sale. That is not the case. These bodies will be run down, the relevant clauses of the Bill will become law, and the RDAs will finally be abolished. RDAs have been liaising with the relevant local authorities, local enterprise partnerships and other local partners. On 31 January, all RDAs submitted detailed plans for the disposal of their assets. They recognised that there will be a variety of destinations for these assets, depending on their nature and associated liabilities. These plans are currently being scrutinised by the Government. After scrutiny, each RDA management board will sign off its plan and begin implementation. RDA asset-disposal plans have been developed while taking into account the principles that we set out in the White Paper. These include maximising value for money from these assets, ensuring that liabilities follow assets and passing control down to local level where possible. Where this is not appropriate—where, for example, an asset is of national importance, such as that set up in the south-west and mentioned in the debate, and considerable resources are needed to run it—other options will be considered.

Similarly, co-ordination of some activities formerly undertaken by RDAs will be taken back to national level, and some activities, such as those of the England Rural Development Programme, will retain local accessible support. In some cases, such as managing the European Regional Development Fund and the England Rural Development Programme, we need to ensure compliance with our obligations to the European Union. In other cases, such as co-ordination of inward investment activity, we need to ensure that we can put over a coherent and effective message to potential investors. However, even in those cases, we are setting up mechanisms under which local partnerships have the opportunity to influence policy and help drive the decisions we make. For all these reasons, we do not believe that retaining all or any of the nine RDAs will help to achieve local growth. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, and for noble Lords not to move theirs.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Beecham and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 29th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The arrangements at the moment for local enterprise partnerships require the complementary co-operation of local businesses as well as local authorities. In other words, we are looking slightly beyond just local authorities, although local authorities will be channels for government funding where it is considered to be appropriate. Local enterprise partnership structure is a combination of local authorities and the business community.

I have sometimes seen criticism that the Government have not been clear enough about how they want these partnerships to be organised and what they want them to deliver. This is quite deliberate because we have set out a number of key criteria. The partnerships need to have support from businesses and local authorities, they need to be based on real economic geography, and they need to offer real added value and ambition. Beyond this, it is for the partnership to decide how it will be structured and the policy areas it will cover. We work on the clear basis that local people know best what their needs are.

We acknowledge that the RDAs have done good work during their existence. I am full of praise for the high-quality people who have worked for RDAs and have supported them. Noble Lords will no doubt point to examples when we discuss each RDA at a later stage. However, since they were created in 1999, the RDAs have had a combined budget of more than £21 billion. Despite this, they have not succeeded in their primary aim of narrowing the gap in economic performance between the three regions in the greater south-east and those in the rest of England. It is necessary to take a new approach if we are to achieve growth throughout the country. The Local Growth White Paper also announced a regional growth fund worth £1.4 billion over three years. Businesses and communities, including those working through local enterprise partnerships, will be able to bid for money from this fund. Its aim is to support projects and programmes that have the potential to stimulate growth and, in particular, to help those areas that are currently dependent on the public sector to achieve private sector-led growth.

[Lord Beecham]

Does the Minister acknowledge that the north-east alone had £340 million in its annual budget? What, therefore, is the total reduction in the £1.4 billion? It must be very significant.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am not in a position to comment in detail on the noble Lord’s figures. That is a matter for discussions elsewhere. All I know is that the focus of the regional growth fund will be, as I just said, on those areas where communities have become particularly dependent on the public sector for employment and where private sector-led growth offers an opportunity for future development in those parts of the country. The fund will support the best proposals that come forward, wherever they come from and whether they come from private enterprise or the local enterprise partnerships. It will complement the other measures that the Government are taking to support growth through investment, education and skills, improvements in competition and research and innovation.

I turn now to the noble Lord’s specific amendments. While Amendment 12 is designed to achieve the practical and sensible aim of allowing transfers of functions from bodies appearing in Schedule 1 to the Bill to local enterprise partnerships, we do not believe it is necessary. As I have said, in inviting businesses, local authorities and their partners to establish LEPs, Ministers chose to allow them the maximum level of flexibility. This extends to the type of partnership arrangements that they should put in place, which will be a matter for the partners themselves. Because of this, the Government do not intend to give local enterprise partnerships a statutory definition in the localism Bill or elsewhere. In other words, there will be no uniform model for local enterprise partnerships; they will be unique to the location in which they operate.

With this in mind, the Bill is deliberately drafted to allow transfer of functions and assets to local enterprise partnerships, whatever legal form the partners choose to give them. Clause 1(3) defines an “eligible person” in a very wide way, including companies limited by guarantee and community interest companies. We expect many local enterprise partnerships will take these forms. In addition, in the case of transfers from the RDAs, Note 2 to Schedule 1 allows transfers to any body corporate. Therefore, the Bill as currently drafted already allows transfers to local economic partnerships in whatever form the partners choose to give them. There have been questions about what will happen to RDA assets. This was all set out in the Local Growth White Paper. RDA assets and liabilities will be disposed of or transferred in line with a clear set of shared principles, which include aiming for the best possible outcome for the region, consistent with achieving value for the public purse.

Welfare Reform

Debate between Lord Beecham and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 11th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords—

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Order. I am afraid that the time is up and we must move to the next business.