Localism Bill
Lord Greaves Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
I have the other amendment in this group, Amendment 204F, which has a very similar purpose. I very much support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and what he said in his speech. In our view this is one of the important remaining issues in the planning parts of the Bill. The two amendments are about the pragmatic position of the local planning authorities. Some are faced with old plans under the pre-2004 legislation; some with emerging new plans—local development frameworks—under the 2004 Act; and some with adopted core strategies—new plans—under that Act. All of those are now up in the air as a result of the Government’s wish to do away with a great deal of the previous planning guidance and instructions which local authorities had in regional strategies and in the planning policy statements. Instead those will be replaced by a much shorter document, the national planning policy framework, but that is going to take some time to approve.
The Government originally said that local authorities would have six months in which to adapt their local plans, whatever state they were in, to the new guidance. Frankly, they have not thought through the practical problems that this would have caused. They are now doing so, and that is extremely welcome. I am taking a lot of advice from planning authorities, from the planning world and, indeed, from Members of this House. We understand that it is now their intention to include clear guidance on how to adapt their local plans, and pursue their new local plans, in line with the NPPF. My first question is to ask the Minister if she will confirm that that is the route they are taking. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, would put a great deal of the detail of how this is to happen on the face of the Bill, and this would be our first choice. Transitional provisions have appeared in quite some detail in previous planning legislation. In our view this would be the best place for it, but for various practical and other reasons, the Government do not want to do that.
My amendment would put a duty on the Secretary of State to issue regulations which would set out the transitional arrangements. It states:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations specify transitional arrangements concerning the timetable and procedures involved in the introduction of changes to local development schemes and the preparation and adoption of local development documents”.
Regulations are stronger than guidance so we would prefer to have it in regulations rather than simply in guidance. Wherever it is, it needs to be clear and well understood. It needs to give local planning authorities the necessary flexibility and time to get it right.
There have been fears that local planning authorities will be left with no defences against any kind of inappropriate development as a result of some of the wording in the draft national planning policy framework, particularly the suggestion that in the absence of a plan the default position on planning applications would be to approve. The noble Lord, Lord Best, said that that might be opportunistic and unplanned development. My description of it might be a bit cruder than that but I am happy to align myself with his more elegant wording there.
The timetable from transition is crucial. Six months is clearly ludicrous. We have heard rumours of 18 months but in practice it needs to be a lot more than that. The noble Lord suggested three years. We would perhaps go along with that. We clearly do not want it to be seven years or more, which is the position now following the 2004 Act, where half or more of the authorities have still not got their new local plans in place. My second question is about the timescale.
Thirdly, do the Government believe that the inspectorate will be able to deal in a practical way with the huge congestion that there will be in all this work of getting the local plans in line with the new planning guidance? How much work will be needed locally and at the inspectorate simply to get a certificate of conformity for approved core strategies? In determining planning applications during the transitional period, what reliance will local planning authorities be able to put in the mean time on approved core strategies under the 2004 Act which have not yet been certificated as compliant with the new NPPF? What reliance can they put on old, pre-2004 local plans which are still being used by many authorities as the basis for planning? As material considerations in planning application decisions, what reliance can be put on emerging core strategies which are perhaps near inspection but not there yet? What will be the relationship between these existing local plans and the emerging NPPF? Finally, what will be the relationship between the adopted NPPF and all these various kinds of uncertificated local plans?
This is absolutely crucial if there is not to be a free-for-all but a smooth transition from the existing, old system to the new one. This is not in any way trying to undermine the new system but rather to make sense of converting from one system to another, which will take a number of years.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, I would like to add my support to Amendment 204EA—supported also by the RTPI, which I think is very significant—and particularly subsection (14) of the new clause, which specifies the three-year minimum for transition. I completely understand why the Government have eliminated the regional tier but there remain instances where regional decisions are particularly valuable—I would say irreplaceable—such as matters to do with housing shortages, the issue of Gypsy and Traveller sites, which we discussed at the last Committee meeting, and the lack of planning expertise at a local level which could result in really unattractive developments. If we are not to go backward in all of these areas we need a transitional period as the amendment specifies for local authorities to work out how to co-operate where it is really essential.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, while the regional strategies are there and before they have been revoked, the plan will have to have regard to them. They will also have to have regard to the emerging NPPF in determining a planning application. Unless they conflict wildly, that should work very well. There is going to be a short period only before the regional strategies are revoked. I do not think there will be any inconsistency. Local authorities are going to want to keep only part of the regional strategies in their local development plan and they ought to be able to work in conjunction with the NPPF for the short space of time, if that is necessary.
With the explanations I have given, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Best, will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I am afraid I said that the NPPF consultation ended yesterday; in the interests of accuracy, it ends today.
Lord Greaves
Before my noble friend the Minister sits down, would she consider the possibility that not giving any indication at all to local planning authorities of the time they have got to get themselves sorted out—I completely share her view that they need to get on with the job—might prolong the process rather than speed it up? In that context, I do not think she answered the question of what the Government are going to do to assist the Planning Inspectorate to cope with what everybody thinks is going to be a very substantial increase in its workload in the short run.
Baroness Hanham
Discussions are going on with the Planning Inspectorate at the moment to see what is required to make the examination process quicker. Under the new way of working, local authorities will be able to have single areas examined one at a time instead of the whole policy having to be dealt with. It is well understood that the Planning Inspectorate will be put under pressure and we hope and expect that that will be able to be worked around.
I have said all that I can say about a transitional period. The transitional arrangements will come about as a result of the consultation on the NPPF. The noble Lord thinks that a set period might be a good idea. However, as I said, with the experience of the previous set period, which does not seem to have put any pressure on local authorities, we would need to consider very carefully whether there is any value in having that.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I enthusiastically support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord True. I do not want to repeat everything he said about the common sense of building on existing successful systems and structures rather than trying either to set up a separate parallel structure, as the noble Lord suggested may well happen, or alternatively closing down something that exists or trying to transform it into a template imposed from on high.
I have been involved in the idea of getting people in communities to take a much greater involvement in local affairs generally, and in planning specifically, for about 40 years now. Forty years ago, when some of us started to talk like this, we met total opposition, and indeed hostility, from almost everybody else in British politics outside the Liberal Party at that time. Opinion has so changed that we have won the argument over those years. The last Labour Government talked about double devolution—central government devolving powers, and perhaps even resources, to local authorities and the local authorities devolving them to “communities”. It never actually happened very much but there was a lot of talk about it.
In the present Government we have had the idea of the big society coming from the Conservatives and, separately really but perhaps as part of that—I have never really been quite sure—the idea of neighbourhood planning, which is a very strong part of this Bill. Always, mechanisms are difficult because there are always the questions: “What is a community?” and “Who are the big society?”. Many of us have argued for a long time that, on a democratic basis, the default position is: “The many, not the few”, as the noble Lord, Lord True, said. A neighbourhood is a clearly definable entity, unlike a community which is much more difficult to define as you may have several communities in a neighbourhood. In a neighbourhood you start off from the basis that everybody who lives there is a member of that neighbourhood and you build it from the bottom upwards. Of course, some do not want to take part in it but that is up to them.
As regards who in the neighbourhood area takes part, lots of councils of pretty well all dispositions have been working hard on this idea in their patches. In a truly localist way, they are approaching the matter in different ways that are appropriate to their area, the ideas of the people who live in that area and, indeed, the people on the local authority, so the systems that exist in many parts of the country are different. There are obviously similarities but, basically, each area has built its own system according to its own circumstances: the noble Lord waxes lyrical about Richmond; my noble friend Lord Tope could wax equally lyrical about Sutton; and I could go on for ever about attempts to do all this in Pendle, some of which have been very successful. Many others could make similar remarks, but the systems are all different.
However, the real problem arises when central government comes along and, in order to do something which is very worth while, imposes a national template on very different systems. Where there is nothing at all, that is a good way to tackle this matter as at least you get people going. However, where measures exist on the ground, it is counterproductive and, indeed, ridiculous to force people to spend a lot of time either closing something down in order to start something else up or, indeed, trying to adjust and adapt to the new rules and regulations coming from on high. Therefore, I very much support this amendment. If nothing else, I hope that the Government will be rather more flexible in carrying out this measure than seems to be the case at the moment.
Lord Greaves
“Community governance review in area of a neighbourhood forum
In the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, after section 80 insert—“80A Community governance request by a neighbourhood forum
(1) This section applies to a neighbourhood area where a neighbourhood forum makes a request for a parish council to be created.
(2) A request may be made to create a new parish council for—
(a) the area of the neighbourhood area, or(b) the area of the neighbourhood area together with the area of an adjacent parish council.(3) A request under subsection (2)(a) must be made jointly by the neighbourhood forum and the parish council.
(4) Following a request under this section the principal council must commence a community governance review relating to the area of the request within three months of receipt of the request.
(5) A community governance review under this section shall have a presumption that a new parish will be created.
(6) The provisions of this apply only insofar as they do not prevent action being taken on the request made under this section.
(7) In this section “neighbourhood area” and “neighbourhood forum” have the meanings given by section 61F of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.””
Lord Greaves
My Lords, it has been drawn to my attention that there is a typo in my proposed new Section 80A(3). It refers to subsection (2)(a) instead of (2)(b). The misprint will be obvious to anybody reading it. I am sure that it was my fingers that got it wrong and not the Public Bill Office.
The amendment tackles the problem of the democratic deficit and creates the opportunity for more democratic legitimacy in unparished areas where neighbourhood areas and neighbourhood forums may be set up. It does this by amending the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, covered by Schedule 9 to this Bill, which then affects the sections of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 that cover community governance reviews. It is slightly complicated, but I think that what is set out is clear.
I remind noble Lords that in parished areas, the body that will be responsible for neighbourhood planning—for the creation of a neighbourhood plan or of neighbourhood development orders—is the parish council. In unparished areas, the local planning authority can, on request, designate a neighbourhood area; and no fewer than 21 people in that area can be designated as a neighbourhood forum. Clearly in that situation there is a democratic deficit in the formation and accountability of the neighbourhood forum compared with parished areas where there is an elected local authority—the parish council—responsible for carrying out the work.
This is a modest proposal. It does not force anything on anybody. It seeks to give a neighbourhood forum—where it exists and is recognised by the local planning authority for the purposes of neighbourhood planning, and where it believes that it would be advantageous to convert into an elected parish council—an easier and quicker means of doing that than exists at the moment. The Government recognise the problem. After the summer the Minister wrote a number of letters to various Members of the House setting out the views of the Government on this. I want to quote from the letter to my noble friend Lord Shipley, because when I was digging this out I could not find the letter to me, which I think includes the same stuff. My noble friend Lord Shipley apologises for not being present at this debate on a topic which he has raised repeatedly. He has had to go to another gathering in order to make a speech.
The Minister wrote to my noble friend as follows:
“In these neighbourhood areas, we have sought to recognise the democratic legitimacy of parish councils by ensuring that, within an area that includes any part of a parished area, only the parish council has a mandate to undertake a neighbourhood plan. We would therefore encourage communities to use the opportunity of preparing a neighbourhood plan to consider whether they wanted to apply to become a parish, town or community council—with the extra powers and responsibilities that brings”.
Community councils, of course, are parish councils in Wales. The letter continues:
“However, we do not want to force communities to become parish or community councils before they undertake neighbourhood planning—hence our neighbourhood forum provisions”.
The problem with the way that the Government want to go ahead on this is that where a neighbourhood forum and a neighbourhood wish to consider setting up a parish council, the process under a community governance review—under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007—is fairly cumbersome. More to the point, the principal local authority—the district or unitary council responsible for the community governance review—can put a stop to it if it wants to do so. In the best of all worlds, it will not be carrying out local community governance reviews very frequently. It may say, “Well, we have just done one and we are not going to do another for five years”, or something like that, or it may, as has happened with a number of local authorities, simply be hostile to the idea.
This amendment puts forward a means by which a neighbourhood forum can require a community governance review covering just its area, which has to take place fairly quickly. It also provides for a presumption that, unless there are some very good reasons, it will be approved. That is the purpose of this amendment. What I would really like to come out of this debate today is for the Government to tell us how they intend to tackle this problem, which they have recognised, and how they will make sure that there are more community governance reviews for more parish and town councils, particularly in urban areas where they do not exist at the moment, and where local people, through the neighbourhood forum, actually want them. They should not be compulsory by any means, but there should be a means by which a lot more could be created. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lytton
My Lords, I support the principle behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I cannot speak to the wording, even less to the typos I am afraid, but noble Lords will of course know of my interest in parish and town councils. At present a parish council is the only community-based organisation that combines a democratic base, truly local roots and a statutory status. So it has a special cachet from that point of view, and indeed many communities aspire to that status. Crucially it is independent of other local government bodies in having its own power to precept, and that of course gives it a financial independence as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has touched on this, and it is certainly no reflection on the borough—which I think has an exemplary record towards communities in its area—of the noble Lord, Lord True, who I see is no longer in his place, but some local authorities have been obstructive to the formation of new parish and town councils, and I do not think that there is any point in overlooking that. That has happened on occasions despite an authentic and well-argued local desire having been put forward.
I would put one caveat in here and that is that the geographical template for new parishes in unparished areas needs to be a reasonably good fit. I am concerned not so much about the precise geography as about the cohesion and the identity which is to some extent reflected, as it must be, in geography. Size is clearly not the main issue because, up and down the country, we have very large and very small parish and town councils. One feature that they benefit from is that they serve the needs of the community and have grown up to reflect that community, whether large or small, over very many years.
I welcome the sentiment behind this amendment, which I see as a way of effectively creating, to some extent, the possibility of a fast-track route to parish and town council creation. It enables neighbourhood forums that wish to to migrate to the statutory basis where they can join and become one of the family of democratic structures that form the first tier of local government. I welcome the principle behind this amendment and I hope that the Minister will be able to give a positive response.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am going to leap in because I think, with the greatest respect, that the noble Earl is out of order. On Report, we normally get the Minister to wind up after the Opposition. But I hear what he says.
The amendment has its faults, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has already recognised that. But having said that, we are not unhappy about the principle of neighbourhood forums investigating opportunities to create town or parish councils for their area, and we accept that that gives greater democratic legitimacy. The noble Lord is also correct that there were a great many standards inquiries on parishes, but we also accept that they have responsibilities, duties, income and powers that would bring benefit to these neighbourhood proposals.
This is why we have already committed, in the Open Public Services White Paper, to look and see how to make it easier for neighbourhood forums and others to have a parish or town council for their area. In doing so we are looking at streamlining the community governance review process, to which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred in rather uncomplimentary terms, but we need to strike the right balance so that neighbourhood forums or communities that want a parish council can get one relatively quickly. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was correct that this is not a speedy process at the moment, but if we speed up the process there will have to be safeguards to ensure that parish areas reflect community identity and interests.
The listening phase—which I have written down here, by which I assume consultation is meant—on the Open Public Services White Paper has just finished, and we are looking at cross-government implementation plans being announced in November. Building stronger neighbourhoods, including making it easier for people to set up parish councils, will be a priority for us in those plans.
While I do not want to pre-empt this work that has got to be done, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that we will consider the issues raised in this amendment in conjunction with that. I hope that, as I said, that process will not be terribly long in coming to conclusions. I hope that with those reassurances, the noble Lord is willing to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I am grateful to everybody who has taken part. I have to point out to my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree that there is a fundamental difference between a parochial church council and a civil parish. If he would like to do some historical research he will find that a not very great Liberal Government in the middle of the 1890s—perhaps in 1894, but I would not stick to that—introduced the concept of civil parishes against the hysterical opposition of Conservatives, particularly in your Lordships’ House, who thought that the idea of elected parish councils in the countryside was the nearest thing to communist revolution they could think of. But it was forced through, and it was just about the only good thing which that short-lived Liberal Government managed to do before they lost power.
Having made the party political plug, if I can comment very briefly, the point is —and I am grateful for the support from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton—I accept the nitpicking complaints about the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. If he were to investigate the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 he would find out what is in this section which this amendment is referring to. In my opinion, it is all together far too long-winded and bureaucratic in terms of community governance reviews. On standards, it is often little rural parishes which cause the most bother.
However, I am extremely grateful for the Minister’s comments, which are extremely positive. I look forward with enthusiasm and anticipation to the Government’s proposals in November, which some might say is a pleasant change for me, although it is not entirely. I thank her very much for what she has said. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I hope to be brief in moving this amendment because I think a point here was left outstanding. This brings back an amendment that was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in Committee. In responding to the amendment, I think the noble Baroness confirmed that plans could not be approved under these provisions unless they were compatible with the Human Rights Act, but she said that neighbourhood forums do not exercise a public function and therefore we have the anomaly originally pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that parish councils are subject to the equality duty while neighbourhood forums are not. This remains an issue of concern because the impact assessment for these provisions points out that certain communities are much less likely to engage and therefore be involved in this process than others. I do not think we dealt with the question of whether there is a technical problem in bringing neighbourhood forums within the scope of the equality duty, notwithstanding that they apparently do not exercise public functions. Otherwise, there is an issue about doing all we can to ensure that all communities have a chance to become engaged in these neighbourhood planning opportunities. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has quite rightly said that I brought this amendment forward at the Committee stage. I apologise to him because I had intended to add my name to his amendment at this stage, but in the hustle and bustle of the Bill, I failed to do so. The noble Lord has set out the position clearly and I do not have anything to add other than to support his remarks.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am not going to be able to take this any further, so the response I made in Committee is the one I am going to give to the noble Lord again. Neighbourhood forums are not public bodies and therefore by definition they are outside the requirements of the Equality Act. Their purpose is to form themselves in order to make a neighbourhood plan and subsequently, when they have done that, to disband, so they will have a shortish life. By definition they are expected to be widely inclusive in terms of who is on them, and that will be checked by the local authority. The neighbourhood planning proposals cannot be approved unless they are compliant with human rights obligations. Built into this is an expectation of equality both in terms of who should be on the neighbourhood forum and in the way that plans have to be compatible with human rights obligations. It is a requirement, but it is not an absolute legislative requirement because it cannot be one. I hope that, with my explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves
My noble friend has just said something I have not heard before, which is that the expectation is that neighbourhood forums will be short-lived. They will be set up for a particular purpose and they will then close down. I wonder if she would like to comment on that because it is something that we would like to take away and think about, particularly in light of the comments made on earlier amendments by the noble Lord, Lord True.
Localism Bill
Lord Greaves Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, it is right that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has brought this matter back to the attention of the House. I have attended a number of lectures and presentations about the development of shale gas. As he said, it is perfectly true that there are substantial areas of shale several kilometres or more under the surface of this country, which could be, in appropriate circumstances, a source of gas for this country. However, a good many people have said to me, “But you would never be able to deal with this properly in a country that is as crowded and as fully populated as the United Kingdom”.
It has happened in the United States—indeed, it is happening on a very substantial scale—but there are wide open spaces there. It is apparently likely to happen in Poland where, again, there are substantial areas where it could be done without interfering with the life of the normal population. But in the crowded areas of western Europe and the United Kingdom, there is a widespread view that this is not likely to happen.
I, too, have had correspondence from a farmer in west Lancashire who has written in terms of being extremely anxious about what is happening. Yes, we had the small earthquake outside Blackpool, which is perhaps a foretaste of what may come. But the real concern is the huge amount of surface activity that has to go on at regular intervals. There is a limit to the amount you can drill horizontally before you need to drill another hole down and have all the equipment and plant at the top to deal with it.
There is quite a movement now to say that there should be a moratorium on this until it has been examined a great deal more thoroughly. I do not know enough about it. The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, clearly regards it as very important: he is the chairman of Cuadrilla, which is the only company that I am aware of that is drilling so far in this country. One needs to treat this very seriously, as it is a serious prospect. If we could find an acceptable process for recovering very large quantities of shale gas, that would replace a lot of the North Sea gas, which appears to be coming towards the end of its life. At the same time, however, if there are enormous disturbances of local populations and communities because of a huge rash of surface activity, this solution would seem to be worse than the problem.
I do not know what the answer is—whether it is a moratorium, or it is simply sufficient to say that it will come under the NISP process. As I said to the lady who wrote to me, it is going to be jolly interesting to learn what the Minister says in answer to this amendment. All I know is that there is a widespread view that it is not going to catch on in this country for the reasons I explained a few moments ago. I look forward hearing my noble friend’s response.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, this issue is closer to me than to other noble Lords, since the Bowland shale, which is the reserve of rock that potentially contains a large amount of methane, if it could be extracted in a sensible and safe way, underlies at a very great depth of some two miles or so a large amount of the Lancashire plain, and extends up towards Pendle Hill, where it is rather nearer the surface. Like other noble Lords, I have taken an interest in this and decided that I ought to find out something about it, as it is clearly extremely controversial. I have been doing just that, and I spent an extremely interesting three hours last Friday afternoon at the site at Banks in Lancashire where the firm Cuadrilla is currently drilling. Its employees showed me around, explained what they were doing and told me a very good tale. I listened and, like all very good tales, will assess it against all the other evidence in this particular case.
I have been deliberately trying not to take a view on the desirability of the extraction of shale gas until I discovered a great deal more about it. My current view is that the people who claim that this will be the answer for decades to the gas problems of this country are overegging their case a little bit, or quite probably a very large amount, but, equally, the people who claim that it would be the kind of environmental disaster in this country that it clearly has been in parts of the USA are also overstating the case. The regulatory regime in this country is very much stricter and more acceptable than the regime in the USA, particularly in some states of the USA. I doubt whether we will get the environmental devastation that has happened in some parts of the USA. I am told by Cuadrilla, although I cannot confirm it, that the famous picture which we have probably all seen on television of the water tap setting on fire was a result not of shale gas but of drilling into coal-seams. Even so, this clearly has to be taken extremely seriously indeed.
The licensing regime at the moment appears to be threefold. First of all, drilling for shale gas comes under ordinary petroleum exploration and development licences. Areas in which shale gas is currently being looked at have licences, issued in 2008 as I understand it, under that regime. It is a licence to explore and develop, but it does not grant planning permission or give the go-ahead even with planning permission. It is the first stage. The areas of this country where these licences have been issued in relation to shale gas include part of south Wales, where a different company, a British one I believe, is involved. I understand that there is also a wish to explore in a part of Somerset that has given rise to concerns in Bath about the spa waters.
The second stage is planning permission, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has been talking about. Planning permission is needed for exploration, and that is what is taking place in Lancashire at the moment. That planning permission was obtained from Lancashire County Council because in two-tier areas, the upper tier authority gives permission for mineral extraction. I have to say that, given the scale of the present exploration, it seems reasonable that the local planning authority, the county council in the case of Lancashire, should be in charge of this, although if it really took off, the points made by the noble Lord make a great deal of sense.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, Amendment 223B seeks to require the Secretary of State, by order, within 12 months of Royal Assent, to add hydraulic fracturing of underground rock, commonly known as “fracking”, to the list of nationally significant infrastructure projects in Section 14(1) of the 2008 Act.
The first exploration for shale gas in the UK has begun only recently. Fracturing has so far been used on one shale gas drill site in Lancashire but is currently suspended pending a geomechanical study into seismic activity.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised some wider planning issues, but fracking is no more difficult or technical than other mineral extraction methods, and my noble friend Lord Lucas said as much. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, covered some of the regulatory issues, and I shall not go over that ground again. My noble friend Lord Jenkin referred to a small earthquake. Of course he was actually referring to a seismic event, which is slightly different.
The amendment would require hydraulic fracturing to be added to the types of activity that are considered nationally significant. It is not necessary, however, to use this Bill for that purpose; a secondary power exists to achieve this. I am happy to undertake that this issue will be raised with my colleagues in the Department of Energy and Climate Change and, if it appears appropriate to the purposes of the Bill to add this type of activity to the list of nationally significant infrastructure projects, we will use the secondary power. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, there has been a great deal of discussion previously about thresholds and nationally significant infrastructure projects. Does the Minister agree that the question of thresholds may also be relevant in this case?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am sure my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Energy and Climate Change will take all relevant matters into consideration.
Lord Greaves
“Notification of initiation of development etc
(1) In the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, after section 106C insert—
“106D Notification of initiation of development
(1) A local planning authority may require a person who carries out relevant development to inform the planning authority of the date on which they intend to initiate the development as soon as possible after they make a decision on that date.
(2) A relevant development for the purposes of subsection (1) is one for which permission has been granted or for which a local development order, a neighbourhood development order or a community right to build order has been made.
(3) A local planning authority may apply the requirement in subsection (1) to all planning applications or particular descriptions of applications.
(4) A notice of planning permission or a community right to build order must where appropriate include a statement of the requirements of subsection (1) and section 171 and, where relevant, of section 106E.”
(2) In section 171A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (expressions used in connection with enforcement), after subsection (1)(b) insert—
“(c) initiating development without giving notice in accordance with section 106D,”.”
Lord Greaves
My Lords, the amendment is a slight variation of an amendment that I moved in Committee and concerns the notification of the initiation of development. It is a development of the amendment suggested by the Royal Town Planning Institute which I put forward in Committee, and it has the support of the Town and Country Planning Association.
In Committee, I suggested that when development is initiated the developer should inform the local authority of the date on which it expects to start work in order that the local authority knows what is going on and can make appropriate checks if it wishes to do so.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, my noble friend’s Amendment 223C is, as he has said, a simpler, more permissive version of the one he tabled in Committee. However, I regret to say that it still does not overcome the Government’s concerns that this would add yet a further element of complexity and box-ticking to the application process for both the applicant and the local planning authorities and yet yield no practical benefit for local planning authorities.
In the March 2011 Plan for Growth, the Government clearly cited the problem of the cumulative additional cost to business of new regulations introduced since 1998. It is essential that reforms continue to reduce costs, delays and bureaucracy in the planning system and support the Government’s collective approach to driving sustainable economic growth. Local planning authorities can, and do, ask for notification of commencement of development when and where they think it necessary. A developer failing to notify the local authority that the works had commenced would not be a good start to the relationship between them.
My noble friend may argue that an administrative scheme has no teeth if the developer does not return the form but the Government’s view is that new Section 106D, to be inserted by the amendment, would have no teeth either. Making the commencement of development without giving notice a breach of planning control implies that enforcement action could be taken. However, the point of enforcement action is to remedy breaches of planning control. Once development has started it will no longer be possible to give prior notice, so the breach could not technically be remedied and enforcement action would be ineffective. If it turns out that the developer has failed to comply with pre-commencement conditions as well as not giving notice, then the local planning authority can take such action as it sees fit, perhaps by serving a breach of condition notice.
The Government’s view is that this amendment will inject additional complexity into the planning process yet provide little practical benefit. I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves
I do not know whether the Minister incites me to call a Division but I will not do so at this time of night. I can see my Chief Whip in his place, who might not be very pleased by that and I do not want to fall out with him.
The Minister made some good points. On reflection, the amendment could be further simplified, particularly by the removal of the last four lines. There is a problem. The Minister wants to reduce the amount of bureaucracy on the part of local planning authorities. At the moment, particularly on major developments where there is concern about whether the development has started, the authority sends people round to find out and look on site or ring people up. That takes time and effort.
It is really six of one and half a dozen of the other. On the local planning authority side, this would not make much difference at all. However, I am sorry that the Government will not accept this. They will not accept everything that I put forward in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Perhaps I may clarify that I am not suggesting that the hole is of the noble Earl's making.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, that reminds me of a song about digging a hole, but perhaps we should not go into it. In Committee, I attempted to search for a compromise on this and to help the Government to clarify what they were saying. I spend a lot of time trying to do that on Bills. The Government should be congratulated on and thanked for the huge amount of time and effort that was put in by Ministers and their civil servants in the Bill team, and by their ministerial colleagues in the House of Commons, to try to sort out a bit of a mess—perhaps more than a bit of a mess—that has resulted from what some of us would say was the rather hasty addition of this clause at the end of the procedures in the House of Commons. They made a huge effort, and I have no doubt that the amendment moved by the noble Earl is an improvement. It helps a bit. My noble friend says that it takes him further into a hole, but I am not sure that that is the case; it probably keeps his head above water. However, it is our clear view after reflection throughout the summer that far and away the best thing to do would be to remove the clause altogether. That is why I support the amendment eloquently spoken to by my noble friend Lady Parminter.
I want to make a couple of points—and one point in slight jest, which I will make now. My noble friend Lord Attlee said that one argument for accepting that this clause should remain is that it does no harm. I must say that I am so used to Governments telling us that amendments that we put forward may not do any harm but are not necessary that I think the boot is on the other foot now. Every time I move an amendment, while the noble Lord is taking the clause for the Government I will look forward to reminding him that my amendment does no harm and therefore should be passed with acclamation.
I would like to make two serious points. There is a very clear difference between CIL and Section 106, for example, which are themselves tied to an application and cannot be untied in any way, and the new homes bonus, which is not tied to a particular application and can be tied, as I think my noble Friend, Lord Attlee, said, only by a clear decision, a resolution presumably, of the council that will receive the new homes bonus. That is the real difference. The noble Earl said quite clearly that it can be taken into account only if it is tied to the application by the receiving council.
I have been thinking about this. In a possible case study, which may happen more often than people might imagine, a big development may result in a lot of new homes bonus and a significant amount of money coming to that council. The use of that money might be politically controversial and contested within the council. In advance of that money coming, the council, the executive, the cabinet, or whoever it is that makes decisions about its allocation, might corporately pass a resolution that makes it quite clear that when it comes, and if planning permission is given, the money will be tied to a project linked to that development. However, it is controversial and the opposition on the council does not agree to it and campaigns against it. Then there are some elections and the opposition wins them, and this large amount of money is taken out of that project and put somewhere else. Once a planning decision is made and issued, that is it; it cannot be revisited by the council. However, decisions about how to allocate money can be revisited whenever the council wants to revisit them. What happens if the development is clearly given on the basis, say, of flood damage or a new swimming pool in the middle of the estate that is linked to that development, and planning permission is passed and the council later changes its decision about how to use that money? They might have a huge budget crisis. Perish the thought that any council has a huge budget crisis nowadays, but if does have a huge budget crisis, the council may find that it simply has to put this money into the general fund in order to keep its head above water. It is quite clear that that could happen. What is the legal position? I do not believe that anybody can do anything about it, except that that planning permission will have been given on false pretences.
Lord Best
My Lords, I think the government amendment does something helpful. Councillors on planning committees have to face the accusation, if they are not careful, that they are selling planning consents, that they are just doing it for the money. There is ambivalence as to whether they can take on board the fact that it is surely important to consider that the local community may benefit financially from what happens if the development goes ahead.
The Minister has clarified the circumstances in which it is entirely legitimate for the planning committee to say, “Yes, we have taken on board the fact that there are financial gains for the locality as a result of this. It is not the only thing we take into account. It has no greater weight than the other material considerations. The fact that local people are going to benefit from this”—as the noble Earl made so clear—“can be taken into account, but don’t let anybody accuse us, the planning committee, of just doing it for the money. We’re doing something that is legitimate”, as this clause makes clear. I think it can be quite helpful.
Lord Best
My Lords, I shall be brief as we had an interesting debate on this issue in Committee. Amendment 232 relates to vexatious town and village green applications. There is a widespread view that, under the Commons Act 2006, the measure allowing areas that had been used for sporting, leisure and recreational use to be declared village greens and never to be built on, a status that would last in perpetuity, was being abused and being used as a pretext for stalling and blocking developments that in other terms would have succeeded. It is a very cheap way to stop anything happening. It costs those who do it very little. I quoted the example of the 50 acre site for which I was responsible on the edge of York, which was held up for a considerable period of time because someone was deemed to have walked their dog on the site for 20 years. I think that the dog was changed somewhere along the way. Even if the application fails, this can inflict a great deal of damage, delay matters and cause a lot of expense.
As I understand it, the Government are seized of all this, for which I am very pleased, and consultation is under way to see what might be done. The problem is that this consultation exercise concludes that action should be taken to prevent vexatious applications of this kind. As my amendment suggests, local authorities should have the power to turn down applications that they deem to be frivolous or vexatious, but that the Government will come to that conclusion at the end of a consultation period after the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament. There will be no opportunity until the next legislation comes along—in I do not know how many years—to set this one straight.
I ask the noble Earl on the Front Bench to let us know what the Government are expected to be able to do through regulations or other methods so that we do not find ourselves in the bind that without any legislative amendment nothing can happen, even though all are agreed that it should. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, because of the time of night, I shall make a couple of statements rather than explain them. This is not the right Bill or the time to do this. It probably does not require any amendment to Section 15 of the Commons Act. It can be dealt with in two ways: first, local authorities can pull their fingers out and not be unnecessarily legalistic and bureaucratic, which in my experience they have been; and, secondly, by tweaking secondary legislation. It is not necessary to do it here. The problem can be solved in a much more efficient way in secondary legislation through Defra.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Best, in what he seeks. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, says that this is not the right Bill. It may be that it is not appropriate to put something in primary legislation but, surely, it is absolutely pertinent that we discuss it in the context of the Bill before us. It cannot be outwith the thrust of this Bill, given the whole range of stuff that is encompassed in it. I think that the noble Lord is simply seeking clarification of what the Government intend, what they propose to do, and when and how they propose to do it. If it is in secondary legislation, that is fine, but clarity is needed.
Localism Bill
Lord Greaves Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
“Duty to promote sustainable development
(1) Each person who is carrying out functions under any Acts relating to planning and who is—
(a) a local planning authority,(b) a county council in England that is not a local planning authority,(c) the Secretary of State when carrying out functions relating to applications for development consent,(d) a qualifying body for the purposes of Schedule 9 (neighbourhood planning),(e) a body, or other person, that is prescribed or of a prescribed description,must carry out their functions with the objective of promoting sustainable development.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) “sustainable development” means development that meets the social, economic and environmental needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, based on the following guiding principles—
(a) living within environmental limits, namely respecting the limits of the planet’s environment, resources and biodiversity, to improve our environment and ensure that the natural resources needed for life are unimpaired and remain so for future generations,(b) ensuring a strong, healthy and just society, namely meeting the diverse needs of all people in existing and future communities, promoting personal wellbeing, social cohesion and inclusion, and creating equal opportunity for all,(c) achieving a sustainable economy, namely building a strong, stable and sustainable economy which provides prosperity and opportunities to all, and in which environmental and social costs fall on those who impose them and efficient resource use is incentivised,(d) promoting good governance, namely actively promoting effective, participative systems of governance in all levels of society and engaging people’s creativity, energy and diversity,(e) using sound science responsibly, namely ensuring policy is developed on the basis of strong scientific evidence, whilst taking into account scientific uncertainty (through the precautionary principle) as well as public attitudes and values.(3) Section 10 of the Planning Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(4) After subsection (3) insert—
“(4) In this section “sustainable development” has the same meaning as in section (Duty to promote sustainable development) in the Localism Act 2011.””
Lord Greaves
My Lords, we return to the Localism Bill and have reached Part 5, which is about the substantial changes the Bill makes to the planning system. Amendment 203K, which is grouped with one other amendment, is about sustainable development. This is the third time during proceedings on the Bill that I have had the privilege of opening a debate on sustainable development. We had a comprehensive debate at the beginning of our consideration of the Bill, and a further, pretty comprehensive debate at the beginning of the planning section. Both debates took place in Committee. We are now on Report and come to sustainable development again. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, for adding his name to the three Liberal Democrat names on the amendment.
The amendment seeks to place in the Bill a definition of sustainable development. This debate reappears every time a planning Bill comes before the House, or a Bill related to planning or similar things. So far, although Governments have increasingly included the words “sustainable development” in legislation, they have always resisted including a clear definition of it in legislation. This amendment also sets out a duty of each person who carries out functions within the planning system, from the Secretary of State down to local planning authorities, to promote sustainable development. It also applies to the neighbourhood forums or parish councils which will be carrying out neighbourhood planning functions under the new provisions within this part of the Bill.
There are therefore two issues. The first is whether a definition should appear in the Bill. It has always been the view of the Liberal Democrat Benches in this House that it should, and we have not really changed in that view. The second is what that definition should be.
Sustainable development is a phrase which has been in current use for about 20 years. However, it has really come to the fore in the past 10 years. In 2005, the then Government issued a report called Securing the Future—Delivering UK Sustainable Development Strategy—I am not quite sure why the title does not have an “a” or a “the” in it. Page 16 lists a set of guiding principles, and it is those guiding principles which this amendment sets out, exactly as they appeared in the 2005 strategy. These are: living within environmental limits, ensuring a strong, healthy and just society, achieving a sustainable economy, promoting good governance, and using sound science responsibly—all with the detail set out. Although this strategy was issued by Defra, it was to apply across government, throughout all departments and all government activities. One assumes that that definition applied to the planning system, since the planning system is part of what the Government do, although parts of the strategy might be more relevant to planning, just as other parts might be more relevant to other aspects of government activity.
In 2010, we had the exciting development of the formation of the new coalition Government, who clearly had to review their policies and strategies, and in particular those which had been passed on to it by the previous Labour Government. In February of this year, the Government issued Mainstreaming Sustainable Development—the Government’s vision and what this means in practice. That vision was very much based on the 2005 strategy, and according to the Defra website, which still existed when I looked last week, the Government are reaffirming their vision for sustainable development.
The website said in February this year:
“The Coalition Government has reaffirmed its commitment to sustainable development and set out its vision of achieving economic growth, improved wellbeing and a protected environment now and for future generations”.
The word “wellbeing” has come into prominence recently since it appears in the health Bill as well, but I take it that in this context it encompasses the social side of the three prongs of sustainable development: economic, social and environmental.
The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, welcomed the new vision by saying:
“The Government is determined that as we reduce the deficit, we also rebalance the economy and put it on a greener, more sustainable footing. In order to achieve this, we must lead by example. I am pleased to see this document”—
He means the document entitled, Mainstreaming Sustainable Development—the Government’s vision and what this means in practice published on 28 February last—
“sets out exactly how we can do that and take our place among the greenest governments of the world”.
I am going to read out much of the introduction to the document because it is crucial:
“The Coalition Government is committed to sustainable development. This means making the necessary decisions now to realise our vision of stimulating economic growth and tackling the deficit, maximising wellbeing and protecting our environment, without negatively impacting on the ability of future generations to do the same. These are difficult times and tough decisions need to be made”.
That is what they say all the time, but it is true, of course. It continues:
“This Government believes in going beyond the short term with eyes fixed firmly on a long term horizon shift”—
this is the crucial bit, and I think I know what it means—
“in relation to our economy, our society and the environment … This refreshed vision and our commitments build on the principles that underpinned the UK’s 2005 SD strategy, by recognising the needs of the economy, society and the natural environment, alongside the use of good governance and sound science”.
These are the guiding principles that appear in my amendment. The introduction goes on to say:
“Sustainable development recognises that the three ‘pillars’ of the economy, society and the environment are interconnected. The Government has initiated a series of growth reviews to put the UK on a path to strong, sustainable and balanced growth. Our long term economic growth relies on protecting and enhancing the environmental resources that underpin it, and paying due regard to social needs. As part of our commitment to enhance wellbeing, we will start measuring our progress as a country, not just by how our economy is growing”—
although clearly that is very important—
“but by how our lives are improving; not just by our standard of living, but by our quality of life”.
I could not have put it anything like as well as that.
In launching the document, the then environment Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said:
“While the Government is committed to tackling the deficit and rebuilding Britain’s economy as we recover from recession, not least through the development of a sustainable green economy, we recognise that our success and progress as a country is about more than economic growth”.
The Prime Minister, when announcing the measurement of the nation’s well-being in April, said:
“Prosperity alone cannot deliver a better life … The Government must be focused on quality of life as well as economic growth … Improved wellbeing is important to our goal of creating a more family-friendly country … Sustainable development is also about ensuring a high quality of life for our children and future generations”.
We appear to have a pretty firm commitment from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, Nick Clegg, David Cameron and from the Government themselves.
The purpose of the amendment is to suggest to the Minister that now is the time to put all this on the face of the Bill so that we are absolutely clear about what it is. If she cannot agree to do that on the wording in my amendment today, perhaps we might consider this again at Third Reading with wording suggested by the Government themselves. In any case, it asks her to give a firm assurance—in view of the controversy around the country, not least over the national planning policy framework—that the firm commitments made back in February this year by the high-ups in the Government to sustainable development are still the view of the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I agree with almost everything that my noble friend has said about the desirability of promoting the concept of sustainable development. I rise to speak only for one reason—namely, the news of the death of Sir Arthur Norman, who was a very distinguished president of the FBI, as it was before the CBI. He and the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, came to see me when I was Environment Secretary. They were very concerned about what appeared to be a growing conflict between those who championed the environment and those who were concerned with the well-being of industry. Their view was that, in fact, they are mutually dependent on each other—you cannot improve the environment unless there are the resources there to do it; and business cannot hope to succeed if it flouts all the canons of good environmental behaviour. They came and asked me to help them set up an organisation that could reflect this—and, if I may say so to my noble friend Lord Greaves, this was well in advance of the Brundtland definition, which he has just quoted. I had no hesitation in offering them a launching grant to set up what became the United Kingdom Centre for Economic and Environmental Development—UK CEED. It is going strong today.
I believe that this has now become—as my noble friend has rightly said—absolutely embedded in the policies of, I suspect, every party in this country and, indeed, across the world. My only concern with my noble friend’s amendment is whether it is actually going to achieve anything. “Sustainable development” is one of these expressions that tends to mean, rather like “humpty-dumpty”, what I want it to mean when I use it. I am not sure how far it helps to seek to have a definition, because circumstances and conditions change and one is going to find oneself having to amend it as new developments, inventions and technology come forward. I support the concept of trying to build in sustainable development, as has been done in this Bill and certainly in the framework planning policy document. I just question whether putting an amendment of the sort that my noble friend has proposed in the Bill carries this forward. I say this with some background awareness of the huge importance of trying to get everybody—every major part of the economy and the community—committed to this principle of sustainable development.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I am grateful for that extremely helpful reply from my noble friend the Minister. I am particularly grateful to her for reiterating that the Government believe that sustainable development is built on three pillars—economic, social and environmental —and that balance is required to resolve this matter. That is crucial. I included the statement of existing government policy in the amendment but I certainly accept that it may not be appropriate to include this detail in primary legislation. Nevertheless, I commend the principle of the three pillars and balance to the Government. I hope that they will build that into whatever solution they come up with. As the Minister and other noble Lords have said, the problem we have when moving amendments and deciding what form this Bill should be in when it leaves this House is that it is running in parallel with the national planning policy framework. The question of sustainable development is one of the key areas—probably the key area—which links the planning aspects of the Bill with the NPPF. We are shortly going on to discuss a further amendment which would do it more overtly, but regardless of whether that is to be done, the link exists and is fundamental and a lot of the concern about sustainable development has arisen, as many noble Lords have said, from the wording in parts of the NPPF.
I am extremely grateful for the astonishing amount of experience, knowledge and common sense which noble Lords have contributed to this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, said that the problem with sustainable development is that, “It means what I want it to mean”. That is indeed the problem, but, despite that, the words “sustainable development” now litter legislation, particularly planning legislation. They also litter the Bill: the Minister’s little amendment tagged on to this group adds a requirement of neighbourhood development orders to promote sustainable development. It is normal practice in all legislation that when a Government use a term such as this it is defined in that legislation. It is normal practice precisely because the people taking action under the legislation know what it means and the courts can look at it, define it and interpret it. All Governments since, we now discover, my noble friend Lord Deben invented the term “sustainable development” for John Major—
Lord Deben
What I said was that that was the first time it was mentioned by a Prime Minister. It was well around in those days. I would certainly not claim anything other than being a mere conduit.
Lord Greaves
Well, ever since my noble friend conducted it, if that is the verb that comes from conduit, I am not sure—I have forgotten the point that I was making in relation to that, so there we go.
That is right, it is a policy statement. It can be put as a policy statement and it is existing government policy—it is still there on the website and it is confirmed. However, it was effectively confirmed by the statements in February of this year. But there is, of course, a difference—a huge difference—between government policy, on the one hand, and the words that appear in legislation on the other, and certainly a great difference as far as the courts are concerned. I understand all that. Nevertheless, the Government are on something of a hook over this matter because of the controversy about the national planning policy framework. If we can help the Government to get themselves off the hook, we will be performing a service not only to the Government but to the country.
I was grateful for the contribution by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield. I am not sure that I understood all the theological allusions. I spent my teenage years living on the Yorkshire coalfield near Wakefield and I admire his skill in combining a speech about deep theological matters with what in those days we called the new pit villages but are now the former pit villages. I am not sure that I understood all the theological stuff, but I agree with his basic points.
The Minister has offered to take this matter to Third Reading—we have another fortnight. I am extremely grateful for all the debate and discussion that has been taking place with her Bill team and with her and other Ministers on this matter. They are, in her words, “getting nearer”. I am aware that they are not yet there—they are having terrible trouble with their lawyers, who keep finding reasons why they cannot do things—but those discussions are going on. I will bring it back on Third Reading on the grounds that that will, at the very least, give the Government the opportunity to say how much further they have got by then, if the Minister does not bring something back to Third Reading herself. On that basis, I hope the House will give me leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Parts of it, I am bound to say, I thought were a little strange. In terms of the comparison with the national policy statements, she suggested that the NPPF had a lesser impact because local plans only had to have regard to it. Given where the Government are on the presumption in favour of sustainable development and where they are so far on transitional provisions, is it not the fact, or the likelihood, that unless something else changes before we conclude with this legislation, the NPPF will be the key document for determining a whole range of development applications? This is because local plans may not be up to date or complete for all the reasons that we are going to discuss shortly. To make that distinction therefore seemed to me somewhat strange.
The noble Baroness also said that there was no statutory requirement to have a sustainability appraisal of the NPPF. But is there a statutory requirement—again we are pre-empting an amendment we will come to—to have a sustainability assessment associated with the revocation of regional spatial strategies? If the Government are doing an assessment for that on a voluntary basis, as I understand them to be, then that does not seem to be a very coherent argument for not having an appraisal of the NPPF.
We are partly looking back, and partly shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted on the first NPPF, but this is looking forward as well. It deals not only with the existing NPPF, but requires there to be some parliamentary process attached to it. Of course I accept that we have two debates, by one route or another, coming up in your Lordships’ House. I am not sure what the arrangements are at the other end; the Select Committee always has the opportunity to review a policy and hold the Government to account. However, that is not the same as having a formal process by which Parliament can have its say and express its opinion on this hugely important document before it is finalised. If the NPPF were so insignificant and something that people only had to have regard to, then why on earth has there been this great furore both inside and outside Parliament? It is partly because of trying to understand the Government’s intent, and I can see that that can be resolved in due course. I also accept that the Government are as a matter of fact involved in a lot of consultation and discussion, and that is to be welcomed. But what is so wrong in having that as an obligation written on the—
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I cannot avoid teasing the noble Lord, and I hope he will answer this question. The national planning policy framework will replace planning policy statements and such of the old planning policy guidance documents as still exist. Why was it not necessary to have a requirement for planning policy statements on the face of primary legislation if it is now necessary to have it for the NPPF?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, an argument could be mounted to that effect. I prayed in aid my absence from those debates before, so I shall excuse myself. The question is a fair one, but that does not necessarily mean that the balance should come down in favour of not having this process for the NPPF. It is such a hugely important document. One has just to look at the impact assessment of some of the changes being proposed covering town centre and parking policies. These things are very important and really go to the heart of our national life in so many respects. It is about communities, how we conduct our lives and how we plan for the future. To take that formally outwith Parliament does not seem to be right. In the circumstances, I am inclined to test the view of the House on this matter.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on showing signs of becoming the second free radical on the Government Benches in these matters. He is a better informed free radical than I am but I welcome his addition to the ranks. Secondly, I confirm, having connections with both counties, that Essex and Suffolk do not always do things in the same way. I will not judge which is best because I would be dead in one county or the other if I did, but they are certainly different.
Thirdly, I will show that I am an uninformed free radical on this occasion by saying that what is mystifying me, especially in the wake of the non-pressing of the amendment that appeared to be trying to define sustainability a few minutes ago is whether there is a definition of sustainability in the Bill. I cannot find it. If it is in the Bill, where is it? If it is not, what is it?
Lord Greaves
My Lords, my noble friend has missed a little of the discussion this afternoon. I have to confess that I always thought that Essex was in East Anglia and I claim to be a geographer. I stand corrected and I will never make that mistake again. All I know is that all those places in that easterly bulge in the country are deplorably flat.
The serious point that I want to make on these amendments is simply to lend my support to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and the noble Lord, Lord Deben. It would be good for the Government to use “development” and “sustainable development” in a rather more rigorous manner and not confuse them with each other quite so much.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Young’s amendments are entirely reasonable and I see the thrust of them, but I thought that they were about removing the term “sustainable” from provisions in the Bill and not adding it.
On the duty to co-operate, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, makes an interesting point about knowing how to be local. However, to be local on a sustainable basis in some respects needs co-operation and engagement not only with near neighbours but on a broader front. Some of us have ongoing concerns about the demise of regional spatial strategies. They were not necessarily the answer to everything and were perhaps not perfect, but with those gone the only thing that exists between the regional strategies that were there hitherto and local authorities is this duty to co-operate.
It seems to me that there should be requirements on local authorities to co-operate. Part of the problem is knowing how extensive that co-operation would and should be—for example, on transport or waste issues. Unless there is recognition that this must be an integral part of the way forward, then I think this really is going to be a recipe for isolationism, that we are going to draw up the barriers around our little location, irrespective of what happens around us. As regards definitions of the eastern region, I can say as somebody who lives in Luton—long since known as the urban bottom of the county—that Luton and the rest of Bedfordshire do not always do things the same way. I must apologise—I have been referring to the noble Lord, Lord Gummer, and it should be Lord Deben. I do apologise. Thank you for that correction.
I hope that I have made my point. It seems to me that my noble friend is addressing the strength and importance of the duty to co-operate, and in that we support her.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, being from Essex, albeit from Braintree and not Basildon, I am a bit hesitant, as my noble friend will probably understand, to follow him down the path of the issue that he has raised. I have to say that it was a brave speech and I have considerable sympathy with the approach that appeared to underlie it.
I want to come in on a different aspect of this, which is emboldened by the speech of the noble Lord from the Cross Benches. My concern in this field is that the more you go for localism and devolve decisions downwards, the more you will risk people saying, “We don’t want this in our back yard. Put it in somebody else’s”. As regards affordable housing, we need to recognise that even in the smallest units, which are not always recognised by villagers in some quite small villages—I live in a fairly large village in Essex—or the most articulate and active people, there is a need to provide houses for the families and young people who are perhaps not so comfortably off but who are essential to the overall life and social structure of the village or the neighbourhood, as it is defined in this Bill.
We need to recognise that with the disappearance of pressures from above—that is, the spatial strategy—on local authorities to build this, that or the other number of houses, we slightly strengthen the ability of everyone to say, “Yes, we all know that a lot of houses are needed but not here, thank you”. We may need to do something to correct that. The thrust of the point of the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite, although not the wording particularly, is probably well made, and I hope that it will receive an understanding response.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, if I understand it correctly, the purpose of these amendments is to make sure that a proper assessment and evidence base for housing needs is incorporated into the work on the local plan. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, spoke about the immediate crisis in housing. Of course, these amendments will not solve the problem in the short term. The problem of why houses are not being built is far more to do with the financial situation, and the lack of availability of finance for building houses and of mortgages for people buying them. It is nothing to do with the planning system per se but the points he is making are very valid in the longer term.
However, the argument comes down to whether this kind of requirement on local planning authorities should be in this Bill in primary legislation or should be provided in guidance. I have no doubt that the Minister will point out that the draft national planning policy framework, with which we all live and sleep at the moment, has a great deal in it about this. For example, on page 30, under the heading “Significantly increasing supply of housing”, paragraph 109 reads:
“To boost the supply of housing, local planning authorities should … use an evidence-base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full requirements for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period”.
Paragraph 111 is rather longer, and therefore I will not read it all out, but it requires that,
“local planning authorities should … plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends”,
which I think was a point made very eloquently by the noble Lord. I suspect that there is not a great deal of difference between what the noble Lord is putting forward and what the Government want to happen, and that it is simply a matter of where the requirement should be and whether it is necessary to be in the Bill.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am sorry—over four years. However, even 150,000 a year is less than what the previous Government achieved. If you go back a couple of years, the number of housing starts was the highest for around 20 years. The Government constantly quote a later figure, which was affected by the financial crisis. However, if you look at the data over the period you will see something else.
Lord Greaves
I wonder if there is confusion here between housing starts and affordable housing starts.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Indeed, the noble Lord is absolutely right. However, I understand that the mechanism to achieve affordable housing is through 80 per cent of market rents being the primary funding source for it. Therefore, what the Government have done has slashed capital funding for affordable housing by driving an approach that jacks up rents, which for many people will be paid out of the housing benefit budget. It is difficult to see the logic of that approach from the Government’s point of view.
The Minister’s response to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, was to say that local development plans have to be adhered to. I thought that the noble Lord’s point was about what happens in adjoining local authorities and how they can be persuaded to provide affordable or other housing when a neighbouring authority is fully developed or has little room to develop further. As I have mentioned, that is precisely the situation in which we find ourselves in Luton, as do other local authorities. The noble Baroness says that the route is through the NPPF; I think the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, quoted from that. However, as we have debated, it is a question of having regard to that. We want to put something transparent in the Bill. That transparency will help the understanding of local people as well.
Lord Greaves
If the NPPF had only to “have regard to”, people might be less concerned about it. Is it not the case that local plans—core strategies—will not be approved by the inspection process unless they conform to the NPPF? They do not just have to have regard to it.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
That may be the case up to a point. How that works in practice remains to be tested, particularly given the pressures on the inspectors. We shall come to that point in a moment.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that I am old enough to have watched “Cathy Come Home”. I think I did; it was on a black and white television. It was a defining moment in our country. We are at risk of going back to that. These assessments must also be seen in the context of what is happening to housing benefit. We know that many people will be made homeless and that many will be uprooted from their current communities and forced into new ones. Following the point of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, about how robust and up to date those assessments are, they would also need to take account of such movements, which could be very significant.
I very much warmed to the comments of my noble friend Lady Whitaker and the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. The Minister’s response was that there is already a statutory responsibility. However, the reality is that to date it has not delivered for Gypsy and Traveller families. It is right that we should focus on that. It was absolutely commendable of the noble Lord and my noble friend to do so in the course of this debate.
My noble friend Lord Beecham, in supporting the amendment, said that we should look not just at social housing or affordable housing—whatever description we apply to it—but at the private rented sector as well. That is absolutely right: we have to look at all areas, particularly the private rented sector. We know that the formation of households over the next decade will increase—certainly at a faster rate than new homes are projected to be provided. That is the source of some challenge.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, made the point that it is not just about whether somebody can afford a property but about what they are affording. What is the quality of the home that they are able to access? That is why, like him, I am a great supporter of the social housing sector. I am sure the noble Lord himself remembers council house-building when it took place and Parker Morris standards, with decent garden sizes. That may not be easy for us to return to but it was indicative of a time when we believed that people should be properly and decently housed.
Localism Bill
Lord Greaves Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I rise to move and speak to Amendment 195ZAZMAA.
I am doing some work at the moment on political engagement of young people and this amendment is the result of meetings that I have had with hundreds of young people up and down the country and with people who are working or have been working in youth services—that is to say, statutory youth services, which are fast diminishing, charities, and organisations such as Girlguiding UK, of which I am a very proud member. What happens to young people and the services that they receive is, of course, crucial to the well-being of this country and the future well-being of individuals and our society. We have the most fantastic young people in our country, who often get a very bad press thanks to a very small minority of them. Most young people in this country are full of energy and have real determination and a real desire to contribute to their communities. Sometimes, however, they need a bit of help. At the moment, rather than being helped, a lot of young people in our society are suffering disproportionately from the cuts, which we believe are too fast and too deep. In my part of the country, in Gloucestershire, the area that I know best, youth services have been decimated. While volunteers are doing an extraordinary job, volunteers are not enough. Young people in our country cannot just depend on volunteers. They need properly trained youth workers as well. The Minister may well say that it is up to local authorities how they spend their money. I think that is a bit of a smokescreen, but that is by the by.
We talk about rights and responsibilities of young people and the fact that they need to get that balance right from a very young age. We all talk about the need to engage our young people more in our communities, and we want to nurture democracy by ensuring that more and more young people vote and perhaps even become councillors or MPs. One of the best ways to engage young people is to include them and to make them part of the democratic processes in which we engage, including the decision-making process. At the moment young people, if they are under the age of 18, are excluded from the decision-making processes of councils despite the fact that so many decisions taken by local councils are extremely important for those young people and have a huge impact on their lives. I am not just talking about youth services. For example, when a decision is taken to cut bus services—sometimes for good reasons and sometimes I would question the reasons—it has a huge impact on the ability of young people to go to college or to sixth form college, and indeed to have a social life. Consequently those young people cannot reach their full potential.
I have tabled my amendment because I think it is very important that young people should have some means of engaging in the decision-making process. This is just one suggestion, on which I hope the Government will look favourably. However, if they cannot accept the amendment, I should be very grateful for an opportunity to discuss with the Minister and her officials how we can better include young people in the decision-making process in the future. Of course I understand that at the moment the voting age is 18. Personally, I would argue on other occasions that that should be reduced to 16.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, we will have that discussion at a later date. For the moment, we have a voting age of 18. Notwithstanding that fact, I think that it is very important that young people who are younger than 18 should have their views properly assessed and that they should have an opportunity to have proper discussions with the people who are taking the important decisions in councils and other bodies that so profoundly affect their lives.
There is another amendment in this group that relates to petitions, but I understand that there may be some other movement from the Government on petitions and referendums. If, however, the current proposals from the Government stand, I would argue that young people themselves should have an opportunity to petition the Government as outlined in Amendment 195ZAZNZA. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
My Lords, in moving Amendment 195ZAZN, a relatively short number compared with some we have just had, I shall speak to 17 others in this group, some of which are even shorter. The purpose of these amendments is to make the Bill itself even shorter, which I think would benefit the people of this country generally.
The first amendment removes Clause 42, which is the duty to hold local referendums—a duty to hold a local referendum under ordinary local election rules if a petition received by a council signed by at least 5 per cent of the electors in a ward, a county division, or the whole authority, is received. If passed, the result of the referendum would be advisory on the authority. The first amendment removes this duty from the Bill; the other 17 amendments in the group remove the remaining 17 clauses in this chapter of the Bill, which set out how the referendum procedures would operate and how the referendums would take place.
The reasons why I would like to do this were fairly fully set out when I spoke at Second Reading and described this part of the Bill as “nonsense”, and in the discussions we had in Committee. It is a provision which is over the top. It would be very expensive in relation to its value, which would simply be advisory referendums, and if combined with a local election, it has the potential to distort that election. If it is free-standing, then it carries the whole costs of a local election. It is open to abuse by extreme groups; as I said in Committee, in my own ward, in Waterside in Pendle, less than 200 names would be required, and the last time I stood for election the BNP got more than 300 votes. It would also be open to people demanding large numbers of referendums on all kinds of things that the council would find it extremely difficult to refuse to hold.
There is the question of planning: the Government removed planning applications from the scope of this chapter, but not the plan-making process, where it really is superfluous to a process which already has provisions for public participation.
Councils already have the powers to hold referendums when they want to do so, and as I have already said, if passed, the referendums would only be advisory anyway. Councils could simply ignore them, and the whole thing would be a waste of money.
The Bill retains provisions for referendums in various specific cases, such as elected mayors, what the Government call excessive council tax increases, and neighbourhood plans. While I have views on those referendums I am not trying here to remove those provisions, but merely to remove the provisions for advisory local referendums in Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, my amendments take out the whole of Chapter 1 of Part 4. I would be quite happy to take out the whole of Part 4 but I do not think I would get quite so much enthusiasm from the government Front Bench.
Like my noble friend Lord Lucas, I have some concern that localism in this Bill is very rurally orientated—village-orientated and small-town-orientated—while over half the population of this country lives in large towns and cities. We have a lot of hard work to do in working out how localism will work in those areas.
I am grateful for the very welcome support of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I do not agree with him, as he knows, about the petitioning procedure which has been removed. When the Bill introducing that procedure came to this House, I struggled manfully to stop it. I am delighted that it has now gone, and I am delighted that struggling manfully against this Bill has had a little more success. That does not mean to say that councils should not deal with petitions properly, expeditiously and seriously: they clearly should. However, bureaucratic procedures laid down from on high are not the way to do so.
Finally, I congratulate and thank my noble friend the Minister, and the whole Government but particularly the Communities and Local Government Ministers, on and for their support for these amendments.
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
Lord Shutt of Greetland
I do not know whether I can give the noble Lord any comfort. The problem is that, on the one hand, people are asking for localism and letting the locals decide and, on the other hand, the noble Lord is saying, “Let the Secretary of State be on their back”. We cannot have it both ways. We certainly hope that people will be reasonable. For example, to have an expression of interest that is open for five minutes would not be reasonable. I should have thought that there would be other ways in localities to put a stop to that. It is as a result of our earlier debates and concerns about the Secretary of State being too prescriptive in these matters that some of these amendments have been brought forward. I should have thought that that would be appreciated by the House. But we are seeing the other view, which I know exists from time to time, that there will be recalcitrant local authorities which will not get on with things as people hope they might. I think we have moved in the right direction and, if it goes wrong and the recalcitrant authorities become a multitude, clearly something would have to be done, but perhaps we ought to trust local people and local authorities.
Lord Greaves
I take it that that was not the Minister’s reply to the debate. I have three brief points to make. We are moving on to the community right to challenge, and some of us have found it quite difficult to understand how it will work and how some of the problems which might result will be overcome. I thank the Bill team for their time and patience in explaining exactly how they see it working and being fairly honest about some of the difficulties which might exist. This is a difficult part of the Bill and it is one which, when it is enacted, as no doubt it will be, will need a careful eye kept on it. I cannot say that we have not had an immense amount of co-operation in trying to thrash it out.
I very much support Amendments 197B and 197E to 197G on the timing issues. Those are clearly a result of responding to the public consultation, but also to the discussions in Committee. I do not share the worries of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the timing issues. The way in which the timing issues are now presented in the Bill is much better and leaves a great deal of initiative to local authorities. It is much better than the existing wording which leaves it all to the Secretary of State to lay down rules and regulations. I wish that the Government had been more flexible on similar matters in the 100 or so areas in the Bill that we can point to as giving excessive powers to the Secretary of State. In this instance, the Government have listened and we welcome that.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, the Minister referred to the extension to Ministers of the definition of agencies which might be subject to the right to challenge. That is the burden of Amendment 197B. Perhaps in his reply the Minister might indicate whether that could also include next-step agencies of government, which might carry out functions. More particularly, when one looks at Amendment 197D in conjunction with Amendment 197B, it seems to me that something of an anomaly is being created. There would be a community right to challenge Ministers under Amendment 197B, and that would extend to parish councils, but it would not, by virtue of Amendment 197D, extend to other local authorities, assuming one defines parish councils as local authorities. So we could have the anomalous situation of a parish council being able to exercise a right to challenge a government department or Minister about a provision of a service, but not the principal authority in which it is situated.
I do not imagine that that has been deliberately constructed in that way, but I should be grateful if the Minister would undertake to look at that anomaly before Third Reading. Parish councils can be quite substantial bodies—there can be 40,000 or 50,000 people in a parish area—and they might bid for a government service, whereas the county or district in which they are situated could not. That strikes me as a situation which would be difficult to explain. Perhaps it has not been envisaged as a possibility, but it seems to arise from these amendments. Perhaps the Minister could indicate a willingness to look at that point before we get to Third Reading.
Lord Greaves
Before the Minister sits down, and without wishing to pre-empt the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is that an indication that there might be some tidying up to be done at Third Reading, and that that issue therefore could be considered then?
Lord Shutt of Greetland
If we can do this by writing a letter and giving comfort in that way, it will be done that way. If, ultimately, it really were needed, we would indeed have to come back to it at Third Reading.
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
My Lords, this little group of amendments raises some important and fundamental issues relating to the community right to challenge. I shall speak also to Amendment 197DA. I think that there is also a Labour amendment in the group.
We are back in the Alice in Wonderland world of relevant bodies, relevant authorities and relevant services. Amendment 197CA would leave out the provision that two or more employees of a relevant authority—a local authority—can be specified as a relevant body, in other words, a body which can challenge to run a service. The Bill defines “relevant body” as,
“a voluntary or community body, … a body of persons or a trust which is established for charitable purposes only, … a parish council, … in relation to a relevant authority, two or more employees of that authority, or … such other person or body as may be specified by the Secretary of State”.
The term “two or more employees” of a relevant authority does not seem to fit in with that list of defined bodies. One assumes that the other bodies defined by the Secretary of State will be community bodies. Employees are different.
That is not to say that there are not circumstances in which employees can, and indeed ought to, take over responsibility for the running of services on behalf of the principal council. Many of us would like to see far more organisations such as mutuals and co-operatives, which provide what, in a long lifetime ago in the Young Liberals, we used to call worker control—my noble friend Lord Tope remembers all that. Employee bodies or groups of employees taking over the running of services in a co-operative way is a perfectly valid and desirable way in which, in appropriate circumstances, public services can be run. They may be arm’s-length or more than arm's-length bodies.
However, it is our view that if the Government are interested in that—they have given some indication that they may be—that should be addressed as a separate issue. It is not the same as allowing a couple or half a dozen employees to go off on their own initiative and to do their own thing regardless of what the rest of the staff think. The Labour amendment in this group suggests that any such initiative should have the support of at least half the employees. On the face of it, that seems sensible.
There is concern that a small number of employees could act as a proxy for commercial companies coming in on the back of the provision. In our discussion with Ministers and civil servants, we have been given many assurances that safeguards are set out in the Bill to avoid that happening. The Ministers we have talked to have been absolutely clear that they do not see that as desirable, that it ought not to happen and that it can be prevented. I am asking my noble friend today not just for a statement that the safeguards are there but for a clear explanation on the record of how local authorities will be able to prevent that possible abuse. It is possible, as Ministers have told us, that that is unlikely to happen very often, but that is not a reason for not taking action to prevent it.
As for the process in which the community right to challenge will take place, I am widening the debate slightly to avoid saying quite so much on the next group of amendments. The first process is that a relevant body has to be approved by the council. If it is a parish council, it is automatic. If it is a community or voluntary body, the principal council will have to approve it as being a relevant body. The second part of the process is that a relevant body may make an expression of interest to run a service and the principal council has to decide whether to accept that expression of interest. So long as it fits the rules and regulations, it will not be able to reasonably refuse it. The third part of the exercise is that, having accepted an expression of interest, the principal council has to carry out a procurement exercise.
The concern that a lot of us now have is not about the processes in this Bill for approving a relevant body, which are full of all kinds of safeguards, with the possible exception of the provision relating to employees. We are not too concerned about the process of accepting an expression of interest, which again seems to have a number of safeguards written into it. It is in the procurement exercise where the problems seem to lie. Once the expression of interest is accepted, the procurement exercise comes into effect automatically. It seems to us that safeguards against abuse of the process are crucial.
Amendment 197DA is a different amendment. In Clause 69(8), “community body” is defined as,
“a body that carries on activities primarily for the benefit of the community”.
This amendment would add on the end of that,
“and is actively engaged in doing so in the area in which the relevant service is being provided”.
The amendment restricts the definition of a community body to a body which is active in the community referred to. It restricts it to local bodies or to wider bodies which are already active in the area. Otherwise, it would be wide open, for example, to a large national charity that has no presence whatever in an area to move in and try to take over services. If it is about community bodies, surely it is about bodies which are already active in that community.
I look forward to the Minister’s comments on that and in particular to his explanation of how the safeguards will apply to prevent abuse, particularly of a small number of employees putting in a bid for a service. Also, in general, what safeguards will there be against large commercial companies using this operation to sweep up services, which is what Ministers are repeatedly telling us they do not intend to happen?
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I face in a slightly different direction from my noble friend Lord Greaves. I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench can give me some comfort that, when the regulations are set out for this, they will have in mind how desirable it is that we should encourage the creation of neighbourhood-based community organisations to take on services currently provided by the state. One of the difficulties that we face in cities is that people have become used to the comfort of state provision, although they are getting extremely grumpy in some cases with the way in which it is provided.
If a community in a city is to get together and go through the process of preparing to bid for a service which it values, it is going to need considerable comfort and assistance in the regulations to make sure that it is not going to get tripped up on technicalities and that the local council can offer advice rather than having to stand back and treat this strange creature as a competitor to any commercial interests which may come along to bid for it afterwards. We need to be equipping ourselves in this Bill to nurture local enterprises and communities in cities to give them a chance through the provision of services to generate a surplus for reinvestment in the community. That is what we are doing elsewhere in this Bill for rural communities, which will generate a comfortable surplus out of planning permission, but we are doing nothing for inner city communities. This is the bit of the Bill where we give relatively compact communities easy access to a diversity of resources. Cities exist because they have that advantage over rural communities.
We need to give the local elements of those communities a real chance to get involved in providing local services and in that way generate surpluses which they can reinvest in the community and do the things that they want to do. I should like my noble friend to give me comfort that the department has urban communities in particular in mind in this part of the Bill.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I am very grateful for the long and comprehensive explanation. I am sorry—I have a cough, but I shall try to keep going until I get a drink of water. Thank you for that; I am glad that some of my elders and betters have got important things to do. I shall try not to spill water on the Bench.
I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in the debate. I shall simply say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that I think that there are major problems with the whole of this Bill in urban areas, but these are matters to which we will come back time and again. To the noble Lord, Lord True, I will say that I do not think that the Liberal Party ever stood for workers control. There was a slight difference in the 1960s between the young Liberals and the party as such, as my noble friend who was in the young Liberals with me at the time will no doubt confirm.
The more explanations I hear about this, the more questions seem to come. I am extremely grateful for the efforts made to explain it all, but some of the answers that we get confirm that there are difficult questions that have not been resolved. As for the coalition programme and open public services, in a sense they confirm my concerns. Involving employees and staff in running or even handing over services to groups of staff is something quite different and requires a different approach to that of a community right to challenge. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that employees have to be seen as a group, as a body, and not as individuals. When councils recognise relevant bodies in the community, as I read it, they are recognising voluntary groups. They are recognising community groups. They are recognising parish councils representing the community. However, when it comes to employees, any two or three or half a dozen people seem to be able to come along and ask to be recognised as a relevant body, whereas what they seem to be is a group of individuals. I think that if transferring services to staff is going to be successful, it has to be done by negotiation and agreement across the staff, not just by two or three individuals, who may be disaffected because they have not been promoted and think they ought to have been, or who may be senior members of staff who think that they can run things perfectly well but do not have the support of everybody in their departments. There are serious problems here that will come out in practice. I suspect the matter will come back to allow a better and more comprehensive view of it.
As the Government have said in all the briefings, they would have to show how they propose to engage their staff in their proposals. Surely they should have engaged them and got their views before they put the proposals in, not afterwards. We were told that this would take up a lot of time, energy and resources, but if asking the people who are going to be working in this enterprise is going to take up too much time and energy, how on earth are they going to find the time and energy to put in the sort of comprehensive bid that, we are assured, is an absolute safeguard that it is going to be a serious bid?
Bulky Bob’s gets raised quite a lot in your Lordships’ House. I suppose most of us have been there to see it at various times, and it is great. However, Bulky Bob’s has done what it did under the present system by agreement and negotiation with the councils and the communities in which it works. It did not do it by challenging them from outside. In a sense, I do not think that it is a good argument for the Bill at all.
We are grateful for all the policy statements in the briefings that have been produced, even if some of them seem to confuse more than help. In Committee my noble friend the Minister said he hoped that we would have draft regulations by this time, so that at least we could look at them rather than the much vaguer policy statement. I know that he has made strenuous efforts to try to achieve that. It has not been possible, but it is not his fault at all. However, when we see the regulations, I think that we will have a better idea of whether this is going to work and how it is going to work. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves
“(1A) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify an annual cost of a relevant service at or above which level a relevant authority may reject an expression of interest.
(1B) An annual cost of a service that is specified under subsection (1A) shall be set at the level at or above which a full open tendering process is required to take place by any Act or regulations.”
Lord Greaves
My Lords, this is the other group of key amendments in this part of the Bill. I speak to four others in the group, and there are two more in the group from my noble friend Lady Hamwee. These amendments are all about the process of procurement once an expression of interest has been accepted from the relevant body. The problem is that once the expression of interest is accepted, the procurement procedures roll forward automatically. The kind of procurement may vary according to the scale of the operation. It could be very small—for example, taking over a local pocket park. It could be modest, such as meals on wheels in a village. It could be a bit larger, such as running a village hall, an estate community centre in a town or a local library. It could be quite substantial, such as providing adult domiciliary services across a district, refuse collection and recycling across a large borough, or county library services. So the challenge, at least in theory, could apply to a wide range of services.
All these processes will have to be carried out according to basic standards such as openness, transparency, non-discrimination, equal treatment and proportionality, which, apart from anything else, are imposed by the relevant European directive, which was transposed into the public contracts regulations in 2006. As I understand it, and perhaps the Minister can confirm this, the underlying system is unchanged relating to contracts by local authorities that contract out services.
In addition, we have the standards of auditing and supervision by, at the moment, the Audit Commission, by the system that will replace it, by the councils’ own standing orders and by financial regulations. As I understand it, the community right to challenge contracts will all be bound by existing regulations in this way. The key cut-off is imposed by European rules and public contract regulations. Those regulations are set out in euros so the monetary threshold varies a bit according to how the euro goes up and down, but I am assured that it is around £156,400. That is the threshold over which the annual value of a service must be open to tender throughout the European Union.
The fear and the danger is therefore that the community right to challenge could open the way to a new and rather random form of compulsory competitive tendering and the takeover of relevant services by large commercial companies, even if that might be against the wishes of the principal council—the “relevant authority”, in the jargon of the Bill—and the community group, the parish council, the charity or whichever relevant body put forward the bid.
Again, we have had a large number of government assurances. Ministers at all levels have stated time and again that that is not their intention with this provision. If councils want to test the market, as they are able to, they should do so clearly and deliberately, not by accident under the community right to challenge. That is what Ministers in the Government assure us is their position. However, it is not clear how that can be prevented in the Bill as it stands. May we have a clear statement that the Government do not intend the community right to challenge to be a way in for large commercial companies, and that clear guidance will be given to councils on how this can be prevented? May we please know how it can be prevented?
Meanwhile, the amendments suggest two possible ways forward as safeguards. Amendment 197EZA says that the relevant authority can reject an expression of interest for a service above the annual cost at which a full tendering process is required. In other words, if it goes over that threshold, that can be a reason for saying, “No, we’re not going to put it out to tender because of the consequences”. In practice, this is the £156,000-odd threshold imposed by the public contracts regulations.
Amendments 197EB, 197EC and 197ED would allow a council, instead of going for competitive procurement by tender, to carry out a full and open public service review. New subsection (3A), which we are proposing, reads:
“A service review carried out for”,
this purpose,
“must include a consultation process with the relevant body, users of the service and any bodies representing them, employees engaged in providing the relevant service and their representatives, residents of the area and such other persons that the relevant authority considers appropriate”.
In other words it would be a very open, transparent and, one hopes, effective process, looking at how the service was provided to see whether the challenge from a particular group could in fact provide the service more effectively, economically and advantageously for the community.
These amendments may not be the best ways to provide safeguards against the problem that we have identified, but that there is a problem seems to be the case. There does not seem to be an answer to the problem that if you go for a competitive procurement you are bound by the European rules and regulations, and if it is a service that is worth more than £156,000 each year, then there is a real risk that you are putting it out to a commercial company. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I have Amendments 197FA and 197FAA in this group, and I am well aware that my noble friend at the Dispatch Box will tell me that what I am proposing is not lawful. What I am proposing is that a local authority can apply its own criteria essentially in assessing the expressions of interest, and include whatever restrictions and requirements it thinks appropriate—to very much the same aim, the same end, as my noble friend. I have no expectation about the amendments being accepted but, like him, I am looking for reassurances.
My noble friend the Minister said in response to the previous group of amendments that an expression of interest by two or more employees would not be a proxy for a commercial organisation, and referred to that in terms of abuse. I wrote down what he said about that but confess that, having printed off the policy statement to which he referred some weeks ago, I have completely forgotten about it, and it is probably somewhere in a pile of papers on my desk at the moment. What he said was that those expressing an interest would have to show that they are capable of providing a service, that they had engaged with the staff, and that what they were doing was not vexatious or frivolous. I have to say that I would have thought that any commercial organisation will very easily satisfy those criteria.
A concern to which my noble friend Lord Greaves has not referred is that having set up the arrangement—and this of course is not just something that would apply to the two employees; it could apply to a community body as well—it could then sell the business or dispose of the shares in the company which it had formed to run the service. I have not seen any way in which this could be prevented. I suspect that I would be told that it would be improper to prevent it. But it concerns me that it is taking this proposal a good deal further than appears on the face of the Bill.
I turn to subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 71, the first dealing with an expression of interest, the second dealing with a procurement exercise. Both talk of the authority considering—and I will come back to that term—whether the activity would,
“promote or improve the social, economic or environmental well-being of the authority’s area”.
Well indeed, and well and good. But consider: it is not bound to apply those factors. It needs to consider them. I dare say that means that it must be able to show how it has considered them.
Turning to subsection (7), we are told that this,
“applies only so far as is consistent with the law”.
There is no particular assurance at all here, if I may say so. Subsection (7) refers to the procurement exercise but I am worried that an authority may well read this as applying to the expressions of interest as well. In general, I suspect that local authorities will need quite a lot of reassurance over how they apply these provisions.
I speak only for myself in this. I am finding it difficult to articulate some of the unease that is almost more instinctive than technical. However, general expressions of reassurance and consolation may not go quite so far, technically, as to amount to real reassurance. I have rambled enough. I hope that the House has a sense of my unease.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
It is extremely unlikely that the noble Lord will get it as quickly as that, but I believe that it will be available before 31 March.
Lord Greaves
Before my noble friend sits down and before I stand up, perhaps I may ask a question which has just occurred to me. If a service—for example, the refuse and recycling service—goes out to a contract and it is for well over £156,000, will an existing in-house provider be able to take part in that tendering exercise and compete against outside contractors in exactly the same way as it would under the old compulsory competitive tendering system or under the system in which councils sometimes put out a contract to test the market against their own in-house provision? Under the community right to challenge, if a contract goes out to tender like that, will the in-house provider still be allowed to take part in the exercise or will it be doomed?
Lord Shutt of Greetland
I may need to think about that and write to my noble friend. However, it seems to me that the in-house provider here could be the “two or more employees”. Those in-house people whom my noble friend speaks of would be the group of workers. That is how I think it would be done but, if I am wrong about that, I shall let him know. It seems to me that that is how the challenge would be used. However, if my noble friend is talking about procurement and there is an existing body, I do not see any circumstances in which that existing body will not be able to participate in the procurement exercise. I hope that that is helpful.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I am grateful for that. I realise that my noble friend has not had a chance to think about that question but I think that the issue of “two or more employees” is totally irrelevant in this case. We are talking about a challenge made by an outside body or organisation. The contract is put out to general tender and there is not a two-person or six-person challenge from inside the organisation. There is an existing department full of staff who are currently working for the council and who may or may not be able to take part in the competitive tendering exercise. The more I think about this, the more it seems to be a crucial point, and it would be very helpful if the Minister could come back to us on it. This is a very new point and perhaps some clarification of it at Third Reading, if only to put the Government’s view on it on the record, would be extremely helpful. I hope that that will happen.
There are times when I listen to Ministers reading out their briefing when I think, “If that is the best they can do, I must be on to a good point”. The attempt to rubbish my amendment concerning a service review by suggesting that it would involve consulting every single resident, which would not be possible, was really rather derisory. I do not blame my noble friend for that; he has his briefing to read out. Councils and other bodies consult users of services all the time and they know how to do it. It is not difficult and you do not have to be absolutely certain that you have consulted every single resident. You put out a consultation by whatever means are reasonable. It might be through the internet, leaflets, articles in local newspapers or whatever. Therefore, I thought that that response was a bit pathetic.
The Trojan horse argument is important but the real problem arises when that Trojan horse is accidental. If you get a community that is really keen on taking over a service and it has real local support but the contract has to go out to tender and the community cannot possibly match what an outside commercial organisation can provide in terms of cost, then that community is not going to be very pleased. It is going to say, “We challenged and these people from outside who have come in to make a profit have stolen our services away from us”. They might well have preferred the service to stay with the council rather than for that to happen. That kind of scenario will simply lose public support. It is not about rights for communities, it is about communities potentially being set up to provide rights for the commercial challenges from outside. The advice to councils is going to be absolutely vital. It has got to be clear, it has got to be strong and it has got to provide councils with all the safeguards they need—not to stop communities challenging and taking services over—but to stop it being abused.
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I think we have thrashed this to death now. I do not think there is anything else to come. I will therefore not move it.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, concerns about the unintended consequences of the assets of community value provisions were raised at Second Reading and in Committee. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Cathcart and I tabled amendments because of our concern. Therefore, I thank the Minister very much for her understanding and determination to ensure that the Bill hit the right target in bringing forward the Government’s amendments tonight.
I also include in my acknowledgement and appreciation of the work undertaken the Bill team and, indeed, outside bodies such as the Country Land and Business Association for securing practical solutions. The common objective that we all share is vibrant communities for the future and I hope that the Bill as amended will help to fulfil that aspiration.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I thank the Government for listening to the debate on this matter in Committee and for coming forward with amendments which, by and large, are very sensible. I particularly appreciate their picking up the ancillary use point that I raised in an amendment, a great deal of which makes sense. Furthermore, I think that we all owe a debt to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, for the hard work that he put into this part of the Bill—not least because it meant that we could leave it to him and concentrate on other parts of the Bill.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, we have had an interesting debate at this late hour on this group of amendments. I can offer the Government some measure of support tonight, as there is lots to welcome in their proposals here, and they have clearly listened to the concerns expressed in the House.
The origin of some of the proposals can, of course, be found in the previous Administration. Amendment 201A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, is not an amendment that we on these Benches can support, although his Amendment 202A , requiring the Secretary of State to publish criteria by which an asset must be assessed in order to be defined as being of community value, could be of some merit, as is the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington.
Localism Bill
Lord Greaves Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
My Lords, I also declare an interest as a local councillor. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that my aged aunt, who has a great fear of spiders, says, “In September and October never talk about a spider, otherwise you will talk one up”, and one invariably comes up. I heard what he said about the contributions of Members on this side to these debates. When he makes such comments, I have to point out that we made very little progress with groups yesterday and there may be some connection—not with the Conservatives but with other Members in the Chamber.
I wish to follow very strongly what my noble friends Lady Eaton and Lord Tope said. I have visited a number of authorities and it is true, sadly, that in many authorities where there has been large-scale voluntary transfer, there is a growing disjunction between the council side and RSLs. As I see it, aspects of this proposal from the Government may be designed to break that down and to reinforce the role of a councillor. In my authority we have introduced a tenants’ champion system in order to encourage people to use the local resource of the council as a first resource for complaint and redress against social landlords. That is desirable. Surely in the spirit of this Bill things should be settled as locally as they can be. There are all forms of bureaucracy and the ombudsman system in itself is potentially that. I agree that tenants may not need a filter, but in some circumstances they may need a local champion.
I am not quite so absolutist about these proposals as some others who have spoken. However, I hope that my noble friend will listen to the debate, particularly to the points made by my noble friend Lord Tope, and see whether some middle ground can be found that will enable tenants to have this recourse, but perhaps in the normal course of events to encourage people to seek to settle matters locally.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, this is the first time that I have spoken on Report so I should declare a few interests. I am an elected member of a district council in Lancashire, a vice-president of the LGA, a vice-president of the Open Spaces Society and a member of the access, conservation and environment group of the British Mountaineering Council. Those are the interests I can think of that might come up during Report. If I have any others, I shall declare them later.
I apologise for having to nip out of the Chamber for the latter part of the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the beginning of the speech by my noble friend Lord Tope. I can assure everyone that I probably agree with every word that they said, even when I was not here, on the basis of what they have said otherwise. We had a glowing account from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about how wonderful the complaints and resolution system is in her housing association.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I was not trying to say that. I was trying to say that, having gone through such an exhaustive system, I could not see what added value would come by having a fifth tier, an MP or a councillor, as opposed to going direct to the ombudsman.
Lord Greaves
I entirely accept that. However, in my experience, not all housing associations are the same and some do this better than others, which is inevitable with any type of organisation. In a sense, if there are housing associations or social landlords that do not do it quite as well as the organisation in which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is involved, that is an even more important reason why tenants should be able to go to the housing ombudsman as easily and quickly as possible.
Like my noble friend, we on these Benches would have preferred that this proposal from the Government was not in this Bill. It seems to go back to a local government ombudsman system that, as noble Lords have said, used to exist in local government but that, frankly, was not necessary and in some cases was harmful. There is no doubt whatever that on some occasions councillors used to find reasons not to pass complaints on or tried to persuade people not to pursue them. I always took the view that unless it was clearly vexatious I would automatically pass it on, even on one occasion when it concerned a complaint against the borough council about a housing matter in which I had been closely involved. I was chairman of the housing committee and I still said, “I will pass it on because it is right and proper that it gets dealt with”.
At Lancashire County Council, on one occasion I made a complaint against the education authority. Shortly after, I went to a reception of important people at county hall in Preston. As soon as I walked in the room, the then education officer came bounding across the room and at the top of his voice tore a strip off me for daring to question the reputation and organisation of that education authority. He then marched back to the other side of the room. I was much younger and a bit more timid than I am now but I still marched after him and, in an equally loud voice, tore a strip off him and told him that he was undermining democracy. In a sense, I should not have had to be there as part of that system. The people involved should have been able to go direct.
Along with other noble Lords, I think, around the Chamber, we have had quite a few discussions with members of the Government, particularly with Grant Shapps, who I believe is in charge of the housing parts of this Bill. We came to the view that we might win the argument but would not win the process of this legislation of removing these parts of the Bill or of putting in an amendment along the lines of that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, which I would otherwise strongly support.
To help the Government, in these discussions we are looking for some compromise that at the very least provides a backstop so that, if any of these designated persons are not helpful and try to resist or are just incompetent in passing on a complaint, the tenant can nevertheless go direct to the housing ombudsman. It is a slightly messy process and it is not as good as now, but it can work and at the very least would maintain their right to go direct to make the complaint, even if someone else tries to persuade them otherwise or to block it.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, does not the noble Lord accept that if a tenant has reservations about their circumstances, which may be very personal, it is not just a question of whether if they go to them they may be rebuffed, but that they would be seriously inhibited about going to their councillor or their tenants’ panel, or possibly even their MP, in the first place? We should take that into account.
Lord Greaves
Yes, I accept that and I think the noble Lord is quite right. All I would say is that I would expect that most Members of Parliament are used to dealing with that kind of sensitive information, and if they are not, they are not fit to be Members of Parliament. I think also that there are councillors who are prepared to help and are experienced in dealing with that kind of information. I do not entirely take the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that they have to be skilled in the processes of assessment, conciliation and so on. All they have really got to do is say, “You have a reasonable case. I will sign this and you can send it on”.
The objections to going to a councillor can be overstated. As the noble Lord said, the legislation states that you can go to any member of the housing authority, so you will have a choice of 40, 50 or 60 people to approach. I would have thought someone could be found who would pass it on, and not necessarily knowing all the details. Sometimes people come to me as a councillor and say, “I want to tell you all about this”. I say, “Look, I am not an expert in this. It seems to be very personal and I really do not want to know. What I will do is put you in touch with the people who can help you and with the authorities who might be able to sort it out”. So I think that this can be overstated.
Nevertheless, we are absolutely clear that we would like to support an amendment along the lines of that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. We have a compromise amendment in an attempt to help the Government to resolve this in a way that is not as damaging as perhaps it otherwise would be, and perhaps not very damaging at all. However, we would really like an assurance from my noble friend the Minister that between now and Third Reading she will think seriously about this so that it can be considered again at that stage, either through a government amendment along the lines of our amendment or perhaps something a bit better. That is the assurance we are looking for and I hope that she will be able to give it. I should say that if we get it, I will not move my amendments when we get to them later on.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I am pleased to support my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town in the amendment she has moved in respect of the Housing Ombudsman. I have known my noble friend for many years and we have worked together on numerous matters. As usual, she has hit the nail on the head, identified the problem and provided us with a sensible and reasoned solution which I think should command widespread support across the House. The Housing Ombudsman provides a free, independent and impartial service to the tenants of social housing providers. It is a respected organisation which provides resolutions for problems as well as valuable advice and guidance to the providers of social housing on how to get it right by developing effective complaints procedures.
As noble Lords are aware, tenants currently have the right to complain to and deal directly with the Housing Ombudsman where a complaint has not been resolved to their satisfaction. The Government propose to take away a tenant’s right to make a direct complaint to the Housing Ombudsman. That is just wrong. It serves no purpose other than making matters more complicated for everyone concerned, and especially for tenants, who will feel that they have already suffered an injustice and are seeking independent redress for their complaint. If this amendment is not accepted, as we have heard today, tenants will in future have to go through their local Member of Parliament, a local councillor or a tenants’ panel. Again, that is wrong. If the tenant wants their MP or local councillor to be fully involved and to make the complaint or support them, that is absolutely fine. I would welcome that. But to take away an individual’s choice in this matter is bizarre in the extreme. Can the Minister tell the House why the Government think that this is the right approach? Also, what happens if the local MP or councillor refuses to take the matter to the Housing Ombudsman? Where can the tenant go then?
There is also a practicality issue in that, in more cases than not, the complaints the Housing Ombudsman deals with are complex issues, often evolving over many months or years. Local MPs or councillors, who are working hard for their constituents, may not have the capacity in their offices or the town hall to deal with these complex matters as effectively as the ombudsman could. No criticism of anyone is intended—it is just an observation. In conclusion, I congratulate my noble friend on bringing this matter forward and other noble Lords who have spoken in support of this amendment, and I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, to think again and accept my noble friend’s proposal.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and, indeed, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. We all support the idea that the service provider should be the first person to solve the matter and that there should be good ways of doing so. We all prefer local resolution and we all want councillor involvement. I do not think that there is anything between us on that. The only difference is in whether an extra layer should be added and whether we want a veto regarding whether people can, after that extra layer, go to the Housing Ombudsman.
Obviously I am addressing myself to those who I think have already reached a compromise. I hope that they have not, because some problems remain with the amendments, which may not now be moved. One, which has not yet been covered, is that the complaint is still required to be made in writing. Part of our amendment was intended to remove that requirement. I realise that we are on Report rather than in Committee, and therefore that may be a possibility. However, it would be a new statutory requirement. It would go against good practice and, indeed, the Law Commission has specifically recommended against it. Its latest report on public service ombudsmen states:
“We recommend that all formal, statutory requirements that complaints submitted to the public service ombudsmen be written are repealed”.
That is because of vulnerable consumers.
Lord Greaves
Does the noble Baroness accept that our amendments are not intended to be a perfect answer? We tabled them to persuade the Minister and the Government not to resolve the matter finally today but to give us more time to discuss it before Third Reading and perhaps to come to a resolution that might be agreed around the House at Third Reading. The Minister has given a very clear assurance that that will now happen. The matter can be brought back at Third Reading and, on that basis, I wonder whether the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Lord Greaves
“(3A) If a designated person who is asked to refer a complaint to a housing ombudsman declines to refer that complaint, the individual making the complaint may make it directly in writing to that housing ombudsman.”
Lord Greaves
My Lords, we discussed this issue at some length when debating a previous group of amendments. The Minister gave a clear assurance that we can have discussions before Third Reading. I hope that we can come to some consensus. On that basis, there is nothing more that I need to say.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am in an interesting position. I offered discussions when debating the last group of amendments, but the offer was rejected forcibly by the vote. I have now been asked whether I will have discussions on these amendments, and I am happy to say that I am content to have them.
Lord Greaves
I think that that was an acceptable answer. I understand that we cannot bring back the amendment that was defeated in the vote, but there are plenty of things in these amendments that we can talk about in relation to what the Bill states. That gives us sufficient leeway to talk about what we want to talk about. Whether the Government will extend their offer of discussions to the Opposition, who rudely threw it back in their face on the previous group of amendments, I do not know. I would welcome their participation, but that is up to the Government.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Perhaps I may make it clear that we voted on the original proposition because we believed that it would secure the best outcome. As that did not succeed, it is not inconsistent to want to see a lesser position that nevertheless improves on what is in the Bill. That is entirely sensible and reasonable. Whether we will be involved in those discussions is up to the Government. If they are going to bring something back—and I believe that that is the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—we will have an opportunity in this Chamber to join in the debate.
Lord Greaves
These are all interventions on my speech, but that is quite all right. I happily give way to the Minister.
Baroness Hanham
I will try to dig us out of this muddle. I am happy to have discussions and to include the Opposition. The discussions might be overshadowed slightly by the way in which we proceed on these amendments. However, it is perfectly proper that we should have them and include everybody.
Lord Greaves
On the basis that we are all happy pals together, at least for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and look forward very much to the discussions.
Localism Bill
Lord Greaves Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee
“(2A) For the avoidance of doubt, subsection (2) should not be read to imply that any greater weight should be placed on local finance considerations than on other material considerations.”
Localism Bill
Lord Greaves Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Best
My Amendment 170CK, which comes later in the Bill, is not quite as imaginative as the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. It is a more pedestrian way of dealing with the matter by amending the Commons Act 2006, which is essential. At nominal cost to the applicant, frivolous and vexatious applications can add so much cost and delay to a scheme as to deter the developer or housing association from proceeding. I have personal experience of this, being familiar with a development in York. We were attempting to create a significant new mixed-tenure community of some 540 homes and, despite the council being fully in support of that, havoc was wreaked by a village green application to incorporate the whole of a 53-acre site. It was made on the basis that a local resident had been walking their dog on the site for the past 20 years, thereby meeting the criteria of lawful sport or pastimes. Since the tolerant owner had taken no legal action against them, the case could be made that this large site could possibly be England’s largest village green. Although the proposition was in due course thrown out, it involved my charity in considerable frustration, the potential loss of public and private funding, considerable expense and delay of more than a year. A less tenacious developer might well have given up, depriving the city of York of what will be a huge asset for generations to come.
Perhaps I may quote from one landowner in Norfolk, whose perspective has been sent as an illustration by the Hastoe Housing Association. They state:
“I believe that affordable homes are vital in sustaining rural communities. As a result, when Hastoe with the backing of the parish council approached me about selling them some land, I agreed. Many people retiring from the south-east have moved to this area of Norfolk, raising prices beyond the local people’s means and threatening the future of the [village] school … Unfortunately, this decision to help has resulted in me becoming involved in an extraordinary process that will last several years and cost me many thousands of pounds. What is so frustrating is I have detailed crop records for the past 20 years and an acknowledgement from those claiming the arable field as a village green, that they never walk on it when it is in crop. On top of that, those making the claim have taken more than two years putting in their village green application, are funded by somebody whose main home is not in the village and have refused to reveal themselves to the rest of the village. However, it appears that the law is so badly drafted and open to so much interpretation, that the County Council admits that it is extremely unlikely to throw out the claim until it has gone to Public Inquiry as they do not want to run the risk of having to pay for any legal challenge to their initial decision”.
Naturally, this example of big society action by the landowner means that he and no doubt dozens of others are unlikely to part with any land until this overindulgent legislation is reined in.
My amendment looks at the nitty-gritty of the situation and proposes ways in which the law could be amended. I will briefly outline what it says. Amendment 170CK would stop retrospective application for town and village green status after planning consent has been granted, which is currently possible. It would prevent efforts to overwhelm the authority with excessive paperwork, allow authorities to reject vexatious or frivolous applications and allow the recouping of costs in such cases. It would make deregistration possible where a review showed that the village green status had, some time later, become obsolete. I hope that the amendment commends itself to your Lordships and the Minister.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I remind the House of the interest that I declared at the beginning of the Committee stage. I am vice-president of the Open Spaces Society, which is the expert voluntary organisation on village and town greens and spends a lot of its time advising people who wish to register greens. It strongly advises people not to do so purely to resist development and not to proceed if the evidence appears to be poor. Not everyone takes that advice, unfortunately.
The amendments attempt to tackle this perceived problem—it is indeed a problem in some areas—by amending this legislation and thereby amending the Commons Act 2006. I suggest that this is probably the wrong time and the wrong legislation to do that. Town and village green legislation, as noble Lords who took part in the discussions of the Commons Act in 2006 will know, is extremely complex and somewhat difficult. Section 15 of that Act laid down a new system for the registration of greens, but that was based upon much older commons legislation, going back to the past, describing what is and is not a green.
I have some questions. Is there an identified problem? Yes. Is it hugely widespread? No, but it is serious where people are abusing the system. Some instances of that have been identified here today and I could provide some more. Does it need sorting out? Yes. Does it need new primary legislation and is this the right Bill to do it? No. As the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has identified, what is required is an overhaul of the Commons Registration (England) Regulations 2008, which result in a system of greens registration that, in my view and that of the Open Spaces Society, is overly bureaucratic, takes far too long and can be far too costly.
I was involved on the other side, as it were, in an application for a green in Lancashire where Lancashire County Council wanted to build a new secondary school, which I was in support of, and a group of people tried to suggest that the land on which it was being built was a green. I met them, advised them and told them that it was not, but fortunately Lancashire County Council, perhaps because it was a project of its own that was potentially being blocked, was very expeditious in sorting it out. Quite correctly, it rejected the application.
We have a 10-point programme that would greatly improve the green registration system. It could be done simply by secondary legislation by amending the 2008 regulations. I am not suggesting that that is the whole answer and I am not going to tell your Lordships today what all the 10 points are, but we are happy to discuss this with Ministers. They will be Defra Ministers, though, as this is not a CLG matter. Defra is already looking into the problem; it has commissioned research, it is having discussions and it is considering its responses. I hope that on that basis we can let the department get on with it.
There is an understanding on all sides that this is urgent. It is important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and not destroy the system of registration of town and village greens, which is a very useful process, but to stop people abusing it.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we should thank the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Lucas, for identifying and raising this issue this evening. Clearly, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, we must cherish and support the legislation which enables the identification, reclamation and maintenance of town and village greens. However, there is clearly a problem here. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asks: is there a problem? Yes. Does it need sorting out? Yes, it does.
I am not sure that we necessarily have the way forward encapsulated within the amendments before us. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has made some interesting suggestions and I will be interested in the Minister’s response. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, offers the prospect of being able to identify and establish a town or village green only through a neighbourhood plan. That seems potentially too restrictive: if you do not have a neighbourhood plan in place, what happens? They will not necessarily be universal.
I side with those who say that a misuse of this legislation is taking place. I accept that it may not be widespread, but it does need sorting out. I look to the Minister to see what solutions he offers.
Lord Greaves
There is a great deal of sense in that. Some of the difficulty is the muddle between Section 106 agreements and the community infrastructure levy, but it is the clear intention—it was the clear intention of the previous Government and I assume that that has not changed—to phase out Section 106 and replace it with CIL. The difficulty with that is that it brings levies and what they might be used for down to a quite small-scale local level. Large infrastructure projects are one thing, and I agree with many of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about that, but there are big projects, small projects and projects in-between. The amount of CIL that would be levied on many local development projects is quite small. Unless it can be seen as a replacement for Section 106 for the kind of things that Section 106 is spent on, and perhaps some further flexibility, a great deal will be lost. It is difficult to find ways of spending those relatively small amounts of money on things that might be classified as infrastructure.
One large-scale thing that Section 106 has been important in subsidising and helping to develop is affordable housing. We have had a debate about that and the Government have said that they are looking seriously at allowing CIL to be used for affordable housing. Affordable housing is not really infrastructure, apart from for the people living in a particular house. It is development that needs infrastructure around it. Classic cases of Section 106 funding include subsidising local bus services, whether it is a service to a new supermarket or a new estate. It is not infrastructure. Lots of local amenity areas, playgrounds, and so on, have been paid for out of Section 106. Are they infrastructure? A common-sense use of the word would suggest that they are not. Unless the levies can be used from local developments on this kind of thing, local authorities will find it much more difficult to provide them. Often new housing is developed by converting a mill into flats and then improving some of the areas around, which are pretty run down, by turning them into nice amenity areas and playgrounds, which is very important and linked to the development.
We have a new supermarket, which released £390,000 under Section 106 to spend on the local town centre. A lot of the spending on that town centre could not be described as infrastructure. It is about improving the appearance, relaying flags and grassed areas, improving shop fronts, and so on, which is all very important in helping the town centre compete with the new supermarket and hold its own, but is it infrastructure? My right honourable friend Simon Hughes suggested that double glazing might be an appropriate use of CIL from local projects. That is not infrastructure, but it is the kind of area in which we hope for some flexibility. I am not sure that we are that far apart. Clearly if a project is big enough to pay for a bypass, that is certainly infrastructure. However, we need flexibility.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, we support the thrust of these amendments. Certainly I agree that CIL must not be used to fill revenue holes in the budgets of local authorities. A specific assurance on that from the Minister would be entirely appropriate.
When we debated this last week, our concern was about the interaction of CIL, Section 106 and affordable housing. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, the Minister indicated possible flexibility in future after consultation. We welcome that. We also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that if part of CIL is to be paid to a neighbourhood forum, for example, it must be linked to infrastructure. We would prefer the decision to be made by the local authority rather than dictated according to an arrangement of the Secretary of State.
The definition of infrastructure for these purposes in paragraph 12 of the CLG book, Community Infrastructure Levy: an Overview, published in May this year, states, surprisingly:
“The Planning Act 2008 provides a wide definition of the infrastructure which can be funded by the levy, including transport, flood defences, schools, hospitals, and other health and social care facilities. This definition allows the levy to be used to fund a very broad range of facilities such as play areas, parks and green spaces, cultural and sports facilities, district heating schemes and police stations and other community safety facilities. This gives local communities flexibility to choose what infrastructure they need to deliver their development plan”.
There is already quite wide discretion in the rules.
I particularly support the point about potential double charging when a development has already entered into Section 106 obligations, some of which may be very long-term. Like my noble friend Lord Berkeley, we had discussions with Gatwick. However, this is not just an airport or a Gatwick issue.
I am not sure how best to resolve this issue. Part of the solution may relate to how and at what point CIL is charged. I understand that what triggers it is the commencement of development that has been the subject of some form of planning permission. Therefore, in a situation in which Section 106 obligations are already in place from prior development, I do not see how under the rules that could trigger a new CIL charge. However, any new development might, so Section 106 and CIL could still be paid at the same time. The potential for double charging is an issue, and I look forward to the Minister's response on that. However, the thrust of this is exactly right and we support it.
Earl Attlee
I am grateful to my noble friend. I hope that when I have finished my speech, he will be a little bit more satisfied.
We intend to use the powers of Clause 100 to require charging authorities to allocate a meaningful proportion of any revenue generated from development in an area to the parish or community council for that area. The local council will be free to determine how those funds are used to address the demands that the new development will place on its infrastructure. This amendment seeks to take control away from those local councils and the communities that are being asked to accept the new development and will significantly reduce the incentive effect of these changes.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin asked whether CIL can be passed to others on condition that it is spent on infrastructure. Where CIL is passed to another body, it must be spent on infrastructure to support the development of that area. I think I have repeated that answer.
Lord Greaves
Will my noble friend confirm that passing those resources to other bodies will occur only in the case of parish and town councils, and community councils in Wales, and that they will not be passed to neighbourhood forums or any other organisations?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, that is a slightly technical question for me, but I will write to the noble Lord on it, unless inspiration comes quickly.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked whether such resource will be used to meet local government shortfalls. We have clearly set out that the purpose of the levy is, and must continue to be, to support development. I can assure noble Lords that the money cannot be substituted for general local government spending.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin asked the Government to consider greater flexibility in the use of CIL. We will consider whether allowing spending on infrastructure and other matters could improve the levy’s ability to support development. We agree that infrastructure is vital to supporting new growth and development but we do not accept that it is necessarily all that is needed. We will reflect on that and return to it at a later stage.
Localism Bill
Lord Greaves Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have tabled Amendment 153AKA in this group. It requires the local authority to prepare and maintain a retail diversity scheme as part of the local development scheme. It calls for a sequential approach to the development of a hierarchy, putting existing centres first, followed by edge-of-centre locations and then out-of-centre sites. This is very much consistent with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cotter. I was interested to hear about his Retail Development Bill, which I must confess I have not studied in detail, although it seems that neither has his colleague who is sitting in front of him. Perhaps he has. Maybe I could borrow a copy during the Recess.
The amendment will be familiar in that it is a rerun of what was proposed in the other place. On reflection, we should have deleted the proposed power of direction for the Secretary of State. We have brought it back because it was spoken to warmly by the Minister, Greg Clark, who said:
“Policy on town centres has always been part of national planning policy … I wish to signal clearly the importance of having robust policy, including the sequential test that is currently in planning policy statement 4. That will absolutely be in place, and it will be clear in the new national planning policy framework”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/5/11; col. 270.]
It is difficult for us to test that issue because we still do not have the new NPPF, but we live in hope.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, which he has not yet spoken to, requires there to be an assessment of,
“the vitality and diversity of the shopping areas”,
and makes it necessary,
“to include appropriate policies to promote the vitality and diversity”.
The noble Lord’s amendment states that there must be a consultation, including with the traders. So far as it goes, we can and will support that amendment, but it is vital that there is clarity on the sequential approach. The existing vitality and diversity of shopping centres can dramatically be undermined by inappropriate out-of-town development.
I should recall that I spent a brief time as a Minister in CLG at the tail end of the previous Government, as well as trying to cope with DWP issues. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, will know, you are allocated planning issues to look at when they come forward, one of which stuck in my mind. There was a proposal for a significant retail development in an area, which would have been fantastic for that area in terms of jobs and the retail offering but would have destroyed three or more shopping centres in close proximity. There is an issue about how the duty to co-operate will work in such situations where there is a retail opportunity in one local planning area, which is substantially in the interests of that area, but could be of real detriment to other areas. We will follow with interest these issues around what the NPPF says and the extent to which that overlays local development plans.
The noble Lord, Lord Cotter, referred to the current situation on the high street. It is in a pretty dire state. Some 12,000 shops closed their doors in UK high streets last year, and 85 per cent of people feel less optimistic about the prospects for economic recovery when they see boarded-up shops in their local high street. In the past fortnight, Jane Norman went into administration, Carpetright shut 75 stores, and Habitat put 30 premises outside London into administration. Retailers Homeform, HMV, Comet, Mothercare, JJB Sports and Thorntons have recently been hit. Local Data Company states that 14.6 per cent of retail premises are now vacant. This indicates that approximately 50,000 units are not currently open to business on the UK high street, which shows just how challenging the situation is on the ground.
This matter is particularly relevant at this point for the economy of our country, and demonstrates that we need to do whatever we can through the planning process, as well as through other means, to preserve, protect, encourage and promote development on the high street. That is the purpose of these amendments, and I hope that the Minister will support and accept them.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said, I and my noble friend Lord Tope, have tabled Amendment 153AKC, which proposes a new clause, entitled,
“Health and diversity of town centres and high streets”.
Before speaking directly to that amendment, I should first acknowledge the work of my noble friend Lord Cotter in this area over the years. He has been determined and diligent in pursuing these matters and is to be congratulated on bringing the amendment. It is true to say that the three amendments in the group are all rather different but address the same basic problem. I am sure that if the three of us sat around a table, we might well have been able to come up with an amendment with which we all agreed and which would combine the best of all three amendments.
The amendment that I am proposing is slightly different because, unlike the others, it concentrates not so much on town centres but on town centres and high streets. That is not to say that town centres are not important—they are vital—but the shopping streets that we are talking about are not just in town centres. My amendment, which internally we are calling the “Cambridge amendment”, comes from campaigners in a part of Cambridge called Mill Road—a shopping street that is not part of the town centre but is a district shopping street of great variety that is under threat. It was the suggestion of the campaigners that resulted in us putting this amendment together. It clearly overlaps with the other amendment.
I want to speak to Amendment 153AKC, which relates to Section 19 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 about preparation of local development documents. I want to include an extra section in that, saying, first, that the duties in putting together the development documents should include,
“a requirement to assess the vitality and diversity of the shopping areas in the area”.
Secondly, that:
“When preparing local development documents and other local planning documents the local planning authority must consider the results of that assessment and consider whether to include appropriate policies to promote the vitality and diversity of those shopping areas”.
Thirdly, that:
“The local planning authority may prepare a scheme for retail vitality and diversity which may be a local development document or other local planning document”.
The policies that we set out are similar to those in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, but a little different.
The local planning authority may,
“define a network of retail centres in the area … assess the existing character and vitality of those centres … designate the desired retail mix for each of these retail centres … promote sustainability and diversity in the retail mix that is desired in each case”.
In doing this, it must consult with the local community, which includes the traders in each shopping centre, and a shopping area means an area of town centre or high street where the substantial use is retail. So sustainability and diversity, which we are suggesting should be foremost in these policies, means that there is an appropriate balance of independent and multiple traders, of unit sizes, and balances of classes of use.
We are putting the emphasis on what is there now. The Labour Party amendment, if I can put it that way, talks about the importance of maintaining the existing policy of the sequential test. If there is a proposal for a new supermarket, can it be fitted in the town centre, can it be at the edge of the town centre, can it be at the edge of town, or does it have to be in the countryside? It is very important that that is maintained, but it is not the only important thing. If you are having a new supermarket, or even a new relatively small Tesco- or Sainsbury’s-type store, like a Tesco Express, the issue is not just where it is, but the effect it will have on the balance of shopping in its area.
In some areas, it might do more damage if it is in the high street than if it is 10 miles away in the countryside. According to a campaign there, Mill Road in Cambridge is described as having an eclectic range of small, specialist independent retailers; as the most ethnically diverse part of the city; and as Cambridge’s Brick Lane. A Tesco Express opened some time ago to widespread concern, and now a Sainsbury’s express wants to open on the other side of the bridge. The fear is that this will seriously undermine the independent local shops, which are a combination of ordinary food shops and specialist shops. If the food element comes under intense competition, those shops might then become unviable. It is suggested that policy and guidance is changed so that the local planning authority can take much more vigorous action to take these issues into account and, if necessary, turn down planning applications if they are thought to be detrimental to the diversity and vitality of a particular high street, whether in the town centre or elsewhere.
This is not just a Cambridge issue. We all saw on television the remarkable scenes in Bristol, where there were riots at night that apparently were connected with the opening of a similar type of convenience store in a street there. For those who live in relatively small towns, as I do, the vitality of our town centres is a very similar issue. In my own town of Colne, there are a lot of small independent shops, and maintaining that vitality and diversity means that we need the policy handles to be able to resist developments that, even if they are in the town centre and high streets, could be detrimental to their future.
Again, that is a very localist view, because it will put more power in the hands of the local authority and local people. There is no magic answer. Keeping the shopping centre and the high street going requires hard work not just by the traders but by the whole community, but it can be done. There are examples around the country where it is being done, and we need to do what we can to stop that being undermined.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Perhaps I might respond because otherwise we will prolong a discussion about something that is not particularly apposite to this group of amendments. I believe that all sides of the Committee have faith in liberal market economies, and one of the effects of liberal market economies is that consumers tend to make their own choices. My noble friend Lady Byford pointed that out. I am really rather sorry that my noble friend Lord True is slightly less enamoured with the market, but I would say to noble Lords that retailing is a highly competitive business. Any noble Lord who has been engaged with retailing in any way will know just how competitive it can be. Indeed, it is changing all the time. The latest development in the area from which I come is not a shop but a shed, where people go to collect their orders that they have placed online.
I am sorry, but we live in rapidly changing times. It is a great challenge to local communities and a great challenge to those who are trusted by election to run local authorities, but the Bill is designed to give local authorities power to set the framework in which I suspect noble Lords will all accept that the market has to operate. I hope that it is possible for noble Lords not to press their amendments at this stage.
Lord Greaves
I shall certainly not move my amendment when I come to it, but I want to make a slightly different point. My amendment does not in any way suggest that there should not be supermarkets of any size. It suggests that in any particular place there should be an appropriate balance which ought to be determined by local people in the normal processes of discussion and so on. It may well be that it is unreasonable to keep out a small supermarket from a shopping street. It seems to me that it is not unreasonable to prevent that shopping street being turned over to three or four such shops, or two or three such shops, which then drive the others out—that is not a matter of competition, it is anti-competition, because it is driving out the people who cannot compete at that level. Obviously, we all agree with the market, but I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord True—the Government need to think a bit more about this.
It is absolutely true that it is a very difficult world out there for retailers, but shopping centres, high streets and town centres can, to a degree, make their own fortune. If there is sufficient campaigning desire locally, as there is at Mill Road in Cambridge, that must in itself be a plus factor in keeping that shopping street going as a diverse street. I will refer yet again to my own town of Colne where, over decades, there have been active groups of local councillors, traders, residents, historians and others interested in the town centre who have formed organisations, campaigned and actually rolled up their sleeves and done things to make Colne an attractive place to be. If you have a shopping centre and a high street which is attractive and somewhere local people are proud of, that gives the traders, who are all part of this, a head start. There are a great many towns the same size as Colne across the north of England which have something like 30 per cent or 40 per cent of their properties boarded up and empty now. I dare not say that Colne is thriving, because every time I say that, the local people—
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
May I remind noble Lords that I have responded on behalf of the Government to these amendments and I believe that the noble Lord is reiterating arguments which have been very well laid before the Committee already. We want to get through quite a lot of business and I hope that my noble friend will appreciate my interruption—I hope that I have not annoyed him to the point at which he will press his amendment. Perhaps he will wind up.
Lord Greaves
I shall say one more thing. I apologise if I am going on too long. I invite the noble Lord, who is into flowers, to come to Colne and look at all the flowers in Colne now, done by the wonderful organisation Colne in Bloom as part of the Britain in Bloom system. He would be proud of it and it is the kind of thing that keeps people in the town and encourages people to shop there. I invite him to come to Colne; he would be proud of all the flowers there.
Lord Cotter
I thank the Minister for his responses. I deliberately said, in proposing my amendment, that I did not want to go on too long, because it is a very big issue and we know what pressure we are under on the Bill, so I will try to resist going on too long now. However, I say to the Minister that this is a very big issue. The few of us here this evening, including my noble friends Lady Byford and Lord True, and the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Beecham, have come forward with tangible examples. If the House was full, which I do not expect it to be at this time of night—let us say that it was Question Time and everybody was here—I could guarantee that many people would come forward with many more.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Greaves for his support and for his example from Cambridge, which encapsulated what has been happening throughout the country for many years. Other noble Lords came up with other examples. Were we to have had a full debate, the number of examples would have been enormous. I shall resist trying to go on too long. It was good to hear the Minister express awareness of many similar problems throughout the country and talk about the need for healthy town centres. He spoke of the coalition’s commitment to high streets and local shops and its desire to strengthen shopping areas. Although it is above my pay grade, he referred to the national planning framework coming along the line, as if that were something we can hope will help in this particular area.
It has been striking that, while the amendments are quite different, their whole thread expresses the same concern. I shall not go on very much longer, because I realise that we are under pressure. I did not wish this to become a discussion about the benefits or otherwise of market forces—we all approve of market forces, and I do not wish there to be a battle between supermarkets and small shops. However, when one goes down that road, one picks up the fact that, if you get a supermarket in an area, it reduces its prices until such time as it drives other competitors out. I shall not pursue that further save to say that very complicated issues surround market forces, competition and such like. Although I shall seek to withdraw my amendment, the concerns remain. I am sure that the Minister has listened to this debate, and will perhaps have a fresh look at my retail development Bill—which addresses a particular aspect of this matter—but also have regard to the points put forward by my noble friend Lord Greaves, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and many others, which tangibly express a major concern for this country. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
My Lords, the numbering is getting bizarre but the content of the amendments makes up for it. I will also speak to the other amendments in this group. We are now on to the fairly short section of the Bill that deals with local development schemes and Clause 97 about the adoption and withdrawal of development plan documents. The purpose of these amendments is to set local authorities free, once again, to make their own decisions in a considered way, following independent examination by an inspector.
Individual documents make up the local development framework, the local plan, under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004—the Act that was going to deliver our new streamlined planning system but has not quite worked out that way. Before then, the local plan was put to inspection—a public inquiry and an examination by an inspector. He or she made recommendations to the local authority and the local authority then had the freedom to accept those recommendations or not, modify them, or accept them in part or whatever they wished to do.
In 2004, the system was changed so the local authority, in effect, has to adopt what the inspector says. If the inspector says it is okay it has to be adopted; if the inspector recommends modifications they have to be accepted exactly as proposed. The local authority can decide not to follow the inspector’s decision but if it does it is back to square 1 and has to produce its plan all over again.
I remember my noble friend Lady Hamwee opposing the changes in 2004 with some eloquence and we can all go back and read her speeches and others from then, so you do not need much more from me. However, there is a principle here—local authorities are elected and they should be responsible for agreeing their own plans. Nobody is objecting to the process of inspection and examination and most authorities in the past adopted most of what the independent inspector proposed, but they did not have to and could make up their own minds.
There was a promise, which I thought the coalition Government were going to deliver, of freeing local planning authorities to make up their own minds once again. However, what we have in front of us in this Bill is a very weak relaxation of restrictions, which does not fundamentally change the position. Under the Bill, local authorities can make additional modifications to those proposed by the independent examiner, but only if they do not make material changes to the policies in the plan. In other words, they can tidy up a few loose ends but that is about that. The purpose of these amendments is, essentially, to remove Sections 21 and 27 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 in order to free local authorities to make up their own mind. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing these amendments. I understand his purpose, but we are not minded to accept them. We are concerned particularly about the first two amendments, Amendments 148ZZZZBB and 148ZZZZBC, because they would reintroduce regulatory bureaucracy by restricting councils from making small text edits, such as correcting mistakes, page numbers and notation, before adopting their development plan documents. We do not see that that can possibly be justified.
If noble Lords are concerned that councils are being given powers to adopt or change policies without proper public debate, I reassure them that this is not the case. The Bill makes sure that councillors can adopt plans only when they are considered suitable by the inspector. We trust councillors to prepare plans that reflect local needs and bring forward sustainable economic growth.
Amendment 148ZZZZBD seeks to remove the Secretary of State’s existing powers to direct withdrawal of a council’s local plans during examination. We disagree with my noble friend on this issue, and we think that this is bottom-up. We have introduced Clause 97(5) to retain the existing backstop power in exceptional circumstances only, alongside our proposals in Clause 97(4), which will allow councils to withdraw their plans at any time before adoption. We believe that that is the right approach.
Amendments 148ZZZZBE, 148ZZZZBF and 148ZZZZBG collectively seek to remove sections from the 2004 planning Act that allow the Secretary of State to intervene in the preparation of local plans. These are existing long-standing measures that have not been used by this Government. In a practical sense, the powers are simply existing safeguards, which a future Government may consider it appropriate to use in the highly exceptional circumstance when a council is unwilling or unable to develop plans for their area. It acts as a useful reminder for local communities that their own councils should plan properly on their behalf and that they can hold them to account. I hope that with those assurances the noble Lord is prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment. I did not think I would get anywhere, but it is still very disappointing. The Minister said that the Government trust local councils to produce plans that will produce sustainable development, and so on. The truth of the matter is that no Government nowadays trust local councils at all unless they do what the Government or the inspector want, or follow the detailed rules and regulations. It is a very sad state of affairs, but it is clearly going to continue for some time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, in moving Amendment 148ZZZBB, I will also speak to the other amendments in my name, namely 148ZZZBC, 148ZZZBD and 148ZZBAA. I will comment on the other amendments in this group after they have been spoken to.
Amendments 148ZZZBB, 148ZZZBC and 148ZZZBD deal with the community infrastructure levy and its consequences for the provision of affordable housing. The amendments, which were prompted by the National Housing Federation, seek to ensure, first, that the need for affordable housing is taken into account when setting the CIL and, secondly, that the CIL charging schedules contain a provision that allows for the CIL to be waived if securing the entire amount would prejudice the provision of affordable housing.
The NHF says that the community infrastructure levy will be in most cases mandatory on new developments. With 40 per cent of social housing having traditionally been delivered through Section 106 agreements, it is vital that the CIL is set at a level that does not prejudice the delivery of levels of affordable housing in accordance with local plan policy. It is also important that, where the combination of the CIL and affordable housing makes development not viable, there is a clear mechanism that allows the CIL to be waived in whole or in part so that levels of affordable housing do not fall automatically.
In the debate in the other place, all parties agreed that the CIL should not prejudice the provision of affordable housing. The Minister was explicit about this and said that the present arrangements in the Planning Act 2008 and the CIL regulations offered sufficient protection, though he did commit to return to the issue. The Minister suggested that the requirement in Section 211 of the 2008 Act to have regard to the economic viability of development meant that proper scrutiny would be given to the effect on affordable housing.
Regulation 14, which gives practical effect to Section 211, requires a balance to be drawn between the desirability of securing funding from the CIL and the effect on the economic viability of development across the area. However, this type of balancing exercise does not protect affordable housing and it cannot do so if, as is often the case, there is no clear numerical target for additional affordable housing units. It would be far better to legislate to make the position explicit that the CIL is not meant to lead to a reduction in levels of affordable housing or land for affordable housing. There is no evidence that affordable housing requirements have genuinely been taken into account in the emerging CIL charging schedules to date.
The document Community Infrastructure Levy—An Overview, which was published by DCLG in May of this year, appears to make two things clear. First, it states:
“The regulations rule out the application of the levy for providing affordable housing”.
In relation to planning obligations, the document says:
“The levy is intended to provide infrastructure to support the development of an area rather than to make individual planning applications acceptable in planning terms. As a result, there may still be some site specific impact mitigation requirements without which a development should not be granted planning permission. Some of these needs may be provided for through the levy but others may not, particularly if they are very local in their impact. Therefore, the Government considers there is still a legitimate role for development specific planning obligations to enable a local planning authority to be confident that the specific consequences of development can be mitigated”.
However, the document then goes on to say in a sense that the planning obligations proposals had been drawn tightly by circular 5/05 and that is now enshrined on a statutory basis in the regulations.
Therefore, I have a fundamental question for the Minister. Given that the CIL cannot be used for affordable housing and the Section 106 agreements cause its focus to be narrowed, what will happen to the vital source of funding for affordable housing that came from the Section 106 stream? I stress that this is not a trick question. There is a genuine inquiry here; I am trying to understand how this should work and what the Government’s intentions are. Funding generally for affordable housing has been heavily restricted. I know that the Government are looking at so-called affordable rents or intermediate rents as a means of generating resources for affordable housing. However, if that Section 106 stream is to be reduced, and potentially overshadowed by the CIL, how will that all work? How will it help the delivery of affordable housing? I beg to move.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I have some amendments in this group, which I shall try to rattle through as quickly as possible. I start by saying that we support the broad thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has just said.
Amendment 148ZZBBB is a kite-flying amendment that would include building improvement and renovation of housing. The noble Lord has spoken more eloquently than I would have done, so I shall say no more about that. However, this is a very serious problem with the new system.
Amendments 148ZZBBA and 148ZZCA, are very similar to amendments that were tabled in the House of Commons by my right honourable friend Simon Hughes. He asked us to table them again here, since he was given a fairly sympathetic response by the Minister when he talked to him about the amendments—they were tabled in the Commons but they were not debated there. They would widen the possible use of the CIL. Amendment 148ZZBBA leaves out the words “providing infrastructure to support” and inserts the word “supporting”. The proposed provision refers to the development of an area. In other words, the amendment would allow the CIL to be spent on projects that support the development of an area, and not just what might be narrowly defined as infrastructure. The amendment would amend Section 205 of the Planning Act 2008.
Amendment 148ZZCA makes a similar amendment to Section 216 of that Act, which at the moment—ignoring the preamble—reads:
“CIL regulations must require the authority that charges CIL to apply it, or cause it to be applied, to funding infrastructure”.
Amendment 148ZZCA would add “or any other matter”. That means that CIL could be used to fund things that are desirable in the area but not necessarily described as infrastructure.
Many areas, particularly big cities, do not necessarily require extra investment in their infrastructure, but that does not mean that local residents are not inconvenienced by development. They might be inconvenienced by noise, dirt or dust, or there may be nuisance from the operation of the development. A supermarket could have people coming in and out all the time, and making noise around closing time. This could be mitigated by investment in, for example, double glazing. However, this is not currently allowed under the legislation; it is not regarded as infrastructure. In reality, councillors with the opportunity of getting CIL will always levy it and will always find ways of spending it. However, they will not necessarily spend it on the best and most useful thing that they could spend it on if they have to stay within the narrow definition of infrastructure.
Amendments 148ZZBBC and 148ZZCC just propose replacing “ongoing” with “continuous”. I regard “ongoing” as being an unpleasant American word that came in probably several decades ago—I do not know—but the English word is, in my view, “continuous”, which would be better and more elegant.
Amendment 148ZZCD refers to regulation-making powers in the Bill that refer to passing CIL,
“to a person other than that authority”.
I am not trying to remove that provision, and I should say that this is a probing amendment to find out what that phrase means and who these other persons might be that the authority would or might have to pass the CIL to.
Amendment 148ZZBAZA relates to the same argument about authorities being able to make up their own minds after a charging scheme has been examined by an examiner and to obtaining their recommendations. It is the same argument that was made two groups ago, and I will not say any more about it. I do not imagine that the Government will agree with me about that, but it is important. The next amendment in the group is about the same matter, so I shall not speak to it any further.
Finally, I speak to Amendment 148ZZZBE. On page 77 of the Bill, proposed new subsection (7A) to Section 211 states:
“A charging authority must use appropriate available evidence to inform the charging authority’s preparation of a charging schedule”.
That seems to be garbage. Why does that have to be in legislation? There are then eight indications of what CIL regulations may make provision for. I shall not read them all out, but only a couple of them to provide a flavour, including,
“provision as to evidence that is to be taken to be not appropriate”,
and,
“provision as to how evidence is, and as to how evidence is not, to be used”.
They are all like this. Finally there is,
“provision as to how the use of evidence is to inform the preparation of a charging schedule”.
They are the kind of quite extraordinary provisions that ought not to be in legislation.
It is insulting that local authorities cannot make sensible decisions on their own without being given such minute and detailed instructions on exactly what to do. If the Government are to respond to all the criticisms made in this Committee about the detailed regulations that are being imposed, I hope that they might look at this provision as being at best redundant and at worst quite ridiculous.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I wish to speak to my Amendment 148ZZCBA. It proposes to remove subsection (3)(b) of Clause 100, not, as my noble friend might think, in protest at the word “ongoing”, although it is an entirely unnecessary word. Perhaps the clause should refer only to future costs. What costs would be in or out, or out or in, because of “ongoing” being in the clause? The word is totally unnecessary. However, I want to mention this matter because it is a breach in the whole principle of CIL, which should deal with the infrastructure costs that are caused, or need to be contributed to, as a result of the proposed development.
Once you start to allow consideration of future costs, you will allow the whole CIL to be diverted to revenue and you will not get the infrastructure that you are supposed to get, and you will create a large deficit in the provision of infrastructure, because cash-strapped local councils will just hang on as long as they can without building the infrastructure. They will allow the roads to become more crowded and the schools to become fuller until the local authorities have to do something, and spend the CIL money on current costs. This is the sort of budgeting for which we criticised the previous Administration. I am very surprised that we are contemplating it ourselves.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I am grateful for the fairly positive response to some of the amendments I moved. I look forward to further discussions, and I hope that the Government will have completed their reflection by the time we get to Report.
The specific question I want to ask is on the payment to other persons. The Minister twice referred to the intention of paying over a proportion of the levy to parish town councils and community councils in Wales. Is it the intention that it would only be to parish and town councils, and to no other persons? If so, that would mean that in areas without parish and town councils no levy would be passed over to the community, which is a minority of the land in the country, but a clear majority of the people who live in England who do not have town and parish councils. Can the Minister also give us an indication of the proportion of CIL which the Government are thinking of requiring to be passed to parish and town councils?
Localism Bill
Lord Greaves Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
My Lords, in moving Amendment 120B, I shall speak also to the other eight amendments in this group, which are in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lord Tope, who will arrive in a minute, I hope.
Although we have debated only two groups of amendments so far, we have made quite a lot of progress in discussing the issues around the proposals for referendums. These amendments address the question of who can call referendums under the provisions of this chapter. We approached the question of referendums with some scepticism—that has become obvious. Nevertheless, we understand that there is a localist case for referendums regardless of whether referendums themselves are a suitable part of local democracy. The case was made well by the noble Lord, Lord True, before the lunch break. We are troubled by referendums not just because they present various practical dangers and difficulties, which we talked about last Thursday and this morning, but because of the question of whether local democracy should be plebiscitary or deliberative. The problem with referendums is that they demand a yes or no answer to questions that very often require a great deal of careful discussion and deliberation and are not answerable in a yes/no sort of way; they are answerable in a much more complex way that requires amendment, mediation and compromise between different interests in the community. This is at the heart of the question of who should call referendums.
This suite of amendments would delete those parts of the Bill that allow referendums to be called by a small number of elected councillors. It would also delete the provision that an elected mayor, whether in London or elsewhere, could call a referendum. It would also, perhaps for different reasons, delete the provisions that allow a council itself to call a referendum. I will take those points in order.
In our view, the provision that allows a small number of elected members to call a referendum in their wards is open to a great deal of misuse and abuse. In particular, if,
“one or more members of the authority can make a request”—
in the words of the Bill—then the,
“member for an electoral area”,
or,
“a majority of the members”,
in a multi-member area can call a referendum. It is not clear whether councillors for adjoining wards could join together and jointly call for the same referendum in two or more wards. I put that question to the Minister.
Last Thursday we discussed the danger—so I will not go into it in great detail now—of councillors using referendums in their wards as a tool for re-election, calling a referendum on a populist issue on the same day as they are due to face the electors. An equally dangerous prospect is rivalry within a ward, if perhaps two out of three councillors called a referendum in order to do down the election campaign of a colleague of a different party. A further problem is that wards do not necessarily, and very often do not, match communities.
For all these reasons, many of us find undesirable the possibility that a small number of councillors—one, two or three—can call a referendum in their part of the borough and, as long as it fits the provisions of the Bill, the council will not be able to stop it. The arguments apply equally to elected mayors, who could quite easily call populist referendums to coincide with their own re-election or to boost their popularity. There seems no reason why a mayor should call a referendum about issues that relate to the mayor’s powers because the mayor can address them without a referendum.
As far as the resolution of the council is concerned, these provisions seem unnecessary. Councillors can call referendums at the moment under their existing general powers, and presumably they will continue to be able to do so. They are also able to make arrangements appropriate to the particular referendum that they might want to call. We were given an example in the King’s Lynn area where a referendum called by the district council cost £80,000. It resulted in an overwhelming majority one way, and then the county council ignored it. The argument for not having a referendum on the basis of the resolution of the council is that it is not necessary, and the council can do it anyway without being constrained by the detailed rules and regulations in this Bill.
My final point is that the Bill suggests that referendums can take place within a ward or an electoral division or they can take place in a whole area. However, if you think about towns such as Keighley, which is a clearly separate town within the city of Bradford, why should it not be able to have a referendum, if we are going to have referendums, in a clear community like that? In the case of Burnley, Padiham is a clearly separate town in the Burnley district, but it consists of two wards and bits of other wards; so why should it not be able to have a referendum in the natural community rather than the artificial wards? I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I endorse most of what the noble Lord has suggested. In particular I entirely concur with his view that the provision for council members to requisition a referendum is apt to lead to mischief and is unnecessary. It is open to the whole council to choose to have a referendum if it wishes. Perhaps the Minister would confirm that it would even be the case in a mayoral council, that the council as a whole could pass a resolution for a referendum. However, to extend that principle to individual members is unnecessary and likely to be a source of considerable nuisance as well as expense. I hope that the Minister will feel, on reflection, that that particular part of the Bill can be safely abandoned without prejudice to the rights of the public at large.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Indeed I can confirm that, and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, because both he and my noble friend Lord Cathcart asked me about it. I will repeat what I said: councillors may call for a referendum, but it will go ahead only if the full council decides that it should. However, the points raised by my noble friends Lord Tope and Lord True need some consideration. The Bill makes no reference to a political party. It does not even talk about controlling councils or membership of groups because that is not the principle on which this piece of drafting was done, and indeed my noble friend Lord True will understand that sometimes it is difficult to provide definitions in legislation. I have explained that our building block is the ward system.
We are going to go on to talk about neighbourhood planning in the future, and it will be useful to consider this debate in the light of that. Meanwhile, we will consider the point made about the risks that could be involved. However, my noble friend Lord Cathcart has kindly given me an opportunity to explain that the whole council has to approve whether a referendum at the bid of an individual councillor or group of councillors should go ahead.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in this short debate and for what the Minister has said. While the question of a council being able to call a referendum under these provisions seems unnecessary and more in the way of detailed prescription, I understand that it is not a significant issue. The one significant issue that has come out of the debate is the question of whether individual members should be able to call referendums in their own wards. I just want to take the Committee through what the Bill says.
Clause 45 is about a request for a referendum by members. It says that a request complies with this section if a member for a ward—or, if it is a multi-member ward, a majority of members for that ward or division—asks for that referendum. That is subject to Clause 46(2):
“The principal local authority must determine whether it is appropriate to hold a local referendum in response to the petition or request”.
That is the point that the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, made. But Clause 47, which we will come onto in some detail in the later group, clearly says in subsection (1):
“A principal local authority may only determine that it is not appropriate to hold a local referendum in response to a petition or request”—
and that request is a member request—
“on one or more of the following grounds”.
The way in which the local authority, the council, treats a member request as far as grounds for determination—that is, deciding whether it can go ahead—is exactly the same as if a petition is received. We will discuss some of the stuff in Clause 47 a little later but the point is that, if it complies, the council does not have any discretion. It still has to make a formal decision but that decision is whether it complies. If it does, the referendum goes ahead. In an absolute way, the case made by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, is not what it says in the Bill. If I am wrong, this is a crucial issue that needs to be settled and sorted out.
On that basis, and the basis that more discussion has to take place about member-requested referendums, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves
(iii) a parish.”
Lord Greaves
My Lords, this simple amendment would allow a referendum to take place in the area of a parish council which did not coincide with ward boundaries of either the county council electoral divisions or a district or borough ward. This amendment is not about a parish council conducting a referendum or about the existing provision for parish polls. There is an amendment about those matters later on. It suggests that there may well be circumstances—in my view, there are lots of circumstances—where, if there are to be local referendums, a parish is the appropriate area for the referendum to take place.
There are many examples of where parishes are grouped together to form ward boundaries for principal councils yet those parishes are often more natural communities than are the wards themselves. That is why parishes are as they are, whereas wards are arbitrary and have to be within a certain size. Therefore, very often, wards do not reflect one natural community. They might reflect a series of natural communities or slice communities in two—that very often happens.
Where parishes consist of a village or a small town it is often the case that they are the appropriate unit to hold a referendum if that is what people want and that provision exists. By definition, parishes will consist of one or more polling districts, which exist in order to be able to hold parish council elections. I therefore suggest that even if the referendum applies to a principal council, at whatever level, it ought to be possible to call a referendum within a parish area, rather than what may be a much more cumbersome and inappropriate ward boundary area. I beg to move.
Earl of Lytton
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will doubtless have expected that the words “parish council” might cause this particular old pike to rise from the depths. I see where he is coming from, although I initially felt that this could loosely be reclassified as “Son of Clause 56 stand part”. I appreciate that he has made a distinction which prevents me from pressing that in particular. I will leave most of my comments for the question on Clause 56, because there is a generic process about parishes and how they fit into the thing.
I am a little concerned about inserting the principle regarding parish into something that relates to principal authorities. I question whether it rightly sits there, bearing in mind that the Bill proposes that the Secretary of State can make a separate set of provisions for parish councils. It seems to me that there are very good reasons for that, because we have to be rather careful about what template we are using for the purposes of referendums, so I question whether the insertion of the reference to a parish here is the right one, unless the intention is to eliminate Clause 56 altogether.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I think that I can respond positively. I say to my noble friend and namesake that I do not know how big Goss Moor is, but Holbeach has a population of some 8,500 people in one parish. Some parishes are remarkably large and other parishes are remarkably small, so it is very difficult. One size, or system, fitting all is very difficult. There are provisions, of course, for a local referendum, or parish poll, under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972, to which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, has referred.
The amendment would include parishes in the definition of a “relevant area” as that applies to a principal local authority. We do not think that this is appropriate, particularly because we are looking at how we might look at referendums at parish level in legislation within the Bill and as a result of a consultative process, as I said before. Indeed, I mentioned to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that I foresaw his organisation being very much involved in this consultative process.
Our approach to local referendums is to enable referendums on local matters at the relevant council area, but for the issue at hand. If it is a district council matter, or a matter over which the district council has influence, the referendum can be held at the district council level, whether it be across one or more wards of the district, or the entire area of the district council, but it is the district council that is the triggering authority for this poll, other than having a parish poll. If it is a parish matter, we believe that a parish poll is the most appropriate method. We will discuss our intended approach to parish council referendums later, and I can assure noble Lords that the parish sector will be fully catered for. We want to see a modernised and proportionate local referendums regime for parishes, on which we will fully consult. I hope, therefore, that with these assurances my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves
My difficulty is that I do not know what that regime might be, or even what the Government are talking about. Whether the Minister will give a little more information when we touch briefly on Clause 56 later, I do not know, but I will not talk about that now.
Let me just give one example. In the parish of Laneshaw Bridge, which is in Pendle in the ward of Boulsworth, a huge issue that has split the village is the question of whether the village school should be very considerably expanded to take in a much larger area than the village. The village was split. Nobody knows what the majority opinion in the village is; what we know is that there were campaigning groups on both sides. Yet a referendum within Boulsworth ward relating to that issue—which would be a classic and typical example of a referendum—would be irrelevant, because the village is only one fifth or so of the entire ward. The rest of the ward consists of another much larger village, another couple of larger villages in a different parish, in which I live, and part of the town of Colne. Having the referendum in that arbitrary area would be irrelevant to knowing what the people of Laneshaw Bridge think.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor
I strongly support my noble friend on this. The issue is not whether the matter is one which lies with the local authority or with the parish—that is readily understood and, if it lies with the parish, the parish poll would suffice—but it may well be a matter which lies for decision with the local authority but only affects a small community. It is the nature of rural local authority wards that they often cover a number of communities, many of which would not be affected by the issue at hand, even though it is the local authority that is the decision taker. That is the issue that was not really responded to earlier.
Lord Greaves
I am grateful to my noble friend for making the point more strongly and better than I did. There is clearly an issue here and it is clearly one that will continue to be discussed. We look forward with interest to seeing the Government’s proposals for parishes, but the continuation of the point made by my noble friend Lord Taylor is: who pays for the referendum? If it is a district, county or unitary issue, surely that authority should pay for the referendum and the cost of it should not fall upon the parish council, which may well have a view on the matter and be involved in the discussions, but is not responsible in any way for the issue before the referendum. That is a very important matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, made the point that there is possible provision in the Bill for local authorities to define appropriate local areas which are not co-incident with ward boundaries. It seems to me that a provision that they should be one polling district or a collection of polling districts is one that ought to be looked at by the Government, because polling districts, by their very nature, already have the machinery in place for elections, yet polling districts in most wards are smaller than the wards of which they form part. I put that suggestion to the Government and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rennard
My Lords, this amendment addresses another issue of serious concern regarding the potential for abuse in this system. My noble friend Lord Greaves will deal with other aspects of abuse in other amendments in this group, but Amendment 124E deals with the ban that I believe is required on paying people to collect petition signatures to try to trigger these referendums. I am concerned about this potential for abuse because big money interests may be able to use and abuse the petition and referendum systems in order to gain undue influence in an unfair way and subvert other democratic safeguards.
I have seen the way in which this happens from time to time in the United States, where what they call “initiatives” are rather more common than perhaps they are in this country where we would call them referendums. I have seen examples, which I have been given by lobbying organisations, where a big company has decided that it wants to build something and make a lot of money from doing so, but it understands that the relevant local authority might consider, even if there is a desirable benefit to the community, that it is not a priority for that community to build such a project. Rather than try to persuade the local authority that that is what it should do, the company hires people to go around canvassing door to door and in shopping centres and persuading them to sign petitions. I know from my own experience of campaigning over many years that sometimes it is not hard to get a lot of people to sign something if you are quite a persuasive person. These lobbying companies hire persuasive canvassers to go door to door in areas with a lot of people, persuading them to sign sufficient petitions to get an initiative.
When the initiative then has to be agreed to because there is seen to be public demand for it, and not to agree to that public demand would be seen to be a problem for the local authority, then the moneyed interests hire the lobbying company to run direct mail campaigns and adverts in the local paper, persuading people that this is what should be voted for. When the initiative is successful, those interests benefit significantly in a commercial sense from something that has not really been proven in a democratic way to be the desire of local people, but where money has paid for the collection of petition signatures and has been very decisive in determining the outcome of the ballot. That is not at all the intention of the Government with this sort of process, but it could open up the democratic system to that sort of abuse. For those reasons, I beg to move.
Lord Greaves
I will speak to Amendments 129B and 129C, which are in this group. They refer to Clause 54, which refers to regulations about voting in, and the conduct of, referendums. Clause 54(6) states clearly:
“Regulations under this section may not include provision … about the limitation of expenditure in connection with a referendum … for the questioning of the result of a referendum by a court or tribunal”,
or,
“creating criminal offences”.
The question here is: does that mean that established and understood election law, in these areas and in others, will not apply in the case of a local referendum? Will normal election law not apply? What redress does anyone have if it is believed that someone is rigging the referendum if there is a considerable degree of personation taking place—despite the complacency that there still is in many quarters, quite a bit of old-fashioned personation goes on at polling stations in some parts of the country—or the rigging of postal votes, which takes place on a frequent basis in some parts of the country and in any case is perfectly easy to do? If the system is that there is no criminal or other redress against this happening, the odds are that where some people think that the question behind the referendum is very important that this sort of thing will continue.
If there are freestanding referendums, that may simply be a matter for the referendum. However, it is quite clear that, for reasons of cost, where referendums are taking place councils will do their best to make sure that they do so at the same time as elections—probably on the first Thursday in May, whenever the local elections are taking place or European elections in June and so on. Under those circumstances, if I read the provisions of Clause 54 correctly, rules will apply to the election campaigns but some of them will not apply to the referendum campaigns taking place alongside them. Given what we all believe will happen— that in some cases referendums will be organised to assist election campaigning—the distinction between the two may not be all that obvious.
If I were campaigning in a local election and there was a referendum going on at the same time, I might well include reference to the referendum and what I thought people should do—both for and against it—in my election literature. Indeed, this happened on a large scale among all the parties during the AV campaign, but less so with the Labour Party because it could not make up its mind whether it was in favour or against. It happened on a large scale with the Conservative Party and to some extent among the Liberal Democrats. Leaflets were put out saying, “Vote for Joe Bloggs and, by the way, vote”—yes or no—“in the referendum campaign”. Or it was the other way around: leaflets went out which were 90 per cent “vote no” in the referendum campaign, and also “Vote for your local Conservative candidate”. I compliment their skill in doing that; it won them a lot of seats.
It is going to happen, certainly at local level. So what about rules like election law, such as the need for imprints on leaflets? Will that apply to referendum material? What about the rules about payment of canvassers? My noble friend Lord Rennard referred to the possible payment of canvassers for collecting petition signatures, but what about paying canvassers to go around and persuade people to vote one way or the other in a referendum, which is illegal in elections? What about offences relating to what you can and cannot do at the counting of the votes? What about offences relating to intimidation of voters? Particularly where there are joint elections, common sense suggests that there should be common rules. The provision in Clause 54 suggests that there should not. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain what it means and whether it needs some amendment before the Bill completes its passage through this House.
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, made a point in moving the amendment about the payment to individuals collecting signatures. I would be slightly concerned that he, as an able organiser in the Liberal Democrats, may fall foul of such an amendment if he was paying employees of the party to undertake political activity that may include support for a referendum. I would hate to think that he may end up in jail as a consequence, so perhaps he could clarify the position.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, as a preliminary point I refer again to the issue raised this morning with regard to the Delegated Powers Committee, because Clause 54 gives the Secretary of State the right to make regulations. Given what he indicated this morning, I assume that the Minister is inclined to adopt the position of the Delegated Powers Committee; namely, that these regulations should be subject to affirmative resolution. I certainly hope that that would be the case. He nods assent, for which I am grateful.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, touched on an interesting issue when he talked about paying people to requisition a referendum. I do not know of a precise precedent but certainly an analogous situation arose not too long ago in Greater Manchester, where a large commercial concern, Peel Holdings, was, among others, very hostile to the notion of a congestion charging scheme for Greater Manchester. It launched a campaign in the metropolitan borough of Bury to call for a mayoral referendum in the hope and assumption that an anti-congestion charge mayor of whatever political affiliation would be elected, and because in the great scheme of things a single authority in Greater Manchester—only one authority—could veto the whole scheme, that would be sufficient to jettison this scheme, which the company felt was against its interests.
I understand that the company invested a considerable amount of time, energy and cash in securing the signatures to enable a referendum to be held. It was held and there was a low turnout—I recall that something like 11 per cent or so of people voted in the referendum for the holding of a mayoral election, which then took place. Happily, from my perspective, an equally small proportion of the electorate turned out to vote against having a mayor. That is an indication of the dangers that might arise if there was no restriction on what commercial interests might get up to in the context of securing local petitions. Of course, the difference is that that referendum was binding and other referendums would not be; nevertheless, there is a real danger in that regard. However, I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord True, has said—one must be careful about creating new offences. Although the matter is certainly worth exploring, I do not rush to an immediate view that creating another offence of this kind is necessarily the answer. Having said that, I find it difficult to think of a better solution, so one might have to have recourse to that.
I have an amendment in this group, the number of which escapes me, which relates to Clause 54(7) about the making of regulations, and would require the Secretary of State to consult not only the Electoral Commission but the Local Government Association as well. I hope that the Minister will accede to that. It seems sensible to me to involve the LGA in matters of this kind. However, I do not understand some of the provisions that Clause 54 makes for regulations to be made by the Secretary of State. This goes back to some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, yesterday. Clause 54(4) states:
“Regulations under this section may make provision about—
(a) when, where and how voting in a local referendum is to take place;
(b) how the votes cast in a local referendum are to be counted”.
A simple assimilation of electoral law, in so far as that prescribes these matters, would surely be sufficient. The notion that detail of that kind needs to be made the subject of a Secretary of State’s regulation strikes me as absurd. On the other hand, if there are to be regulations, I do not quite follow the position of the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Greaves, and, for all I know, his colleagues on the Lib Dem part of the government Benches, who wish to take out of subsection (6) regulations,
“about the limitation of expenditure … for the questioning of the result of a referendum by a court or tribunal”,
or for
“creating criminal offences”.
Those strike me—provided that we have the affirmative procedure—as matters that should or certainly could be included.
Lord Greaves
I may have misread the Bill, but my understanding is that the Bill states that they cannot be part of the regulations.
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.
Lord Greaves
Before my noble friend decides whether or not to divide the House, I should say that these are extremely important matters and we do not believe that the Government have given them the importance that they merit. Whether we like it or not they are all about the possibility for graft and corruption—perhaps not at the same level as for an election itself, but nevertheless graft and corruption over an important matter. If they are not important matters, why are we spending all this money having these referendums?
I just want to make two very brief points. First, within electoral law for elections there is a clear and well understood distinction between paying canvassers and paying people for doing other things, such as delivering leaflets, manning committee rooms, or whatever. You can pay helpers in elections but you are not allowed to pay canvassers. There is a growing area between the two but the distinction is well understood and by and large adhered to.
My second point, which is more fundamental, is the point I made about joint campaigns. It is inconceivable that there will not be joint campaigns of trying to get someone to vote for or against a referendum and an election campaign at the same time, with joint literature, posters and other things that money is spent on. Unless the regulations referring to the referendum are similar to those referring to the election, it will drive a coach and horses through the limits on election expenditure. There must be the same rules for the same two things if people are campaigning for the two things together in the same place at the same time. That is common sense otherwise it is a recipe for a huge amount of misunderstanding and chaos, and as I said, driving a coach and horses through some of the local election rules, not least on the limits on expenditure. That question needs a bit more thought by the Government.
Lord Newton of Braintree
Before anybody says anything else, may I pick up on something which my noble friend Lord Greaves said? I understand that it has not been raised, even though I admit that I have not been here throughout the debate. My question has been illustrated in what my noble friend was saying: what is the position of the party agent in all this? That question has not been specifically addressed. It appears that a lot of these referendum campaigns will be organised by political parties. What is the position then of the party agent who is paid? Who is regarded as paying him? If any member of the association or the Labour Party or whatever is regarded as paying the agent, then it seems to me that if the agent does anything to encourage or assist, he is in danger of falling foul of this clause. What is the answer?
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I have been listening to the wonderful words of the Minister about how important it is that local government should not be encumbered by lots of detailed rules and regulations and thinking that at least we are on the same wavelength. Tongue in cheek, I wonder if he will take a pristine copy of the Bill home with him this weekend, and a nice big red pen, and annotate the Bill in appropriate ways to strike out a large number of the detailed regulations and the 140-odd provisions for yet more detailed regulations for local authorities, and hand it to a civil servant next week and say, “This is your job for a week; get rid of it”. I live in hope.
I move Amendment 126A and the seven amendments in my name and that of my noble friend that are set out in this group together with Amendment 128A, as I announced earlier. There is a useful Labour amendment in the group but I will let the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, speak to it.
Clause 47 is an important clause because it sets out the grounds on which the council should make its decision when it receives a petition or indeed a request from a member about whether a referendum takes place or not. This is not a trivial decision. We have heard that referendums across London might cost many millions of pounds; but for any big councils in big cities, we are talking about millions of pounds. Even for smaller councils, it can be an important item in their budget, or one that is not in their budget, which nevertheless they have to find a way of covering. In the present financial circumstances this might well mean cutting other useful services.
This is a list. Whenever we put forward lists, we are always told by the Government to be very careful because, if we put things in the list, they are in, and if we do not put them in the list, people might think they are not in. In this case, we know that they are not in because Clause 47(1) says:
“A principal local authority may only determine”—
I emphasise “only determine”—
“that it is not appropriate to hold a local referendum in response to a petition or request on one or more of the following grounds”.
The list in Clause 47 is extremely important because it ties the hands of the local authority. It does not say to it, as the Minister has pointed out, that if it is in the list, it cannot have a referendum; however, it provides grounds by which a referendum can be refused. Regardless of whether we agree with referendums, I think that everybody agrees that we do not want a proliferation of them. We do not want dozens of referendums taking place all over the place. We want them held on important and useful things.
These grounds are vital. Amendment 126A refers to the first ground. It is a probing amendment to find out what the words mean. Clause 47(2) says:
“The first ground is that the authority thinks that action taken to promote or oppose the referendum question is likely to lead to contravention of an enactment or a rule of law”.
When I read this, I thought, “What does it mean?”. The phrase,
“action taken to promote or oppose the referendum question”,
refers to something happening during the referendum campaign. It is not about the question itself—what the effect would be of carrying out what the referendum wants brought about; it is about action taken during the campaign which,
“is likely to lead to contravention of an enactment or a rule of law”.
I can only think that this refers to the possibility of public disorder of some sort. Will the Minister say what the Government think it refers to? It is very difficult to see how this could be made to stick if it was challenged, because how would you know that the referendum question would be likely to lead to an unruly campaign? Alternatively, what else does it refer to? If it refers to a referendum question that is, for example, overtly racist, it would be easy to reject it, but the chance of getting such a referendum question is very small indeed. Racists who want to use a referendum to promote their cause are going to be more careful about how they word the question. So this is a probing amendment to find out what it means.
Amendments 126B and 126C challenge the word “influence”, and again are probing amendments. We suggest that this should be brought in more tightly to a council’s powers; that is, the things it can do. Even the general power of competence might be very wide. It is difficult to think of things that people might want to hold a referendum on but over which the council does not have some sort of influence. I suppose that a referendum about the melting of the Arctic ice cap might be thought out of order, but even then it might be tied to the council’s climate change policies, so it is difficult to think of areas where the council has absolutely no influence. Some clarification of what the influence of a council is, in this sense, would be helpful.
Amendment 126D refers to subsection (4)(b):
“a principal local authority or a partner authority has an influence over a matter if the authority can affect that matter by the exercise of any of its general or particular functions”.
That is very wide indeed, and I assume that it includes the new general power of competence. Is that true, because it means that it does go very wide? Amendment 126E seeks to insert a new subsection:
“The third ground is that the action requested by the question is unlawful or discriminatory, or would contravene the authority’s codes relating to equality of treatment or its financial regulations”.
Other noble Lords may think of other things that should be included, but this is clear. Surely it should be laid down that if the action requested by the petition and the referendum question is actually unlawful or clearly discriminatory against an ethnic group, the disabled, men, women or anyone else, and would contravene all the codes an authority has on equality of treatment, or if the council could not do something because of its financial regulations, then it should be able to be thrown out without question. Indeed, anything which it would be impossible for the council to do but is being asked for in a referendum should be more clearly set out.
I turn to Amendment 126F. However, as the Minister has already moved an amendment today, this amendment is not needed, and we are grateful for that. Amendment 126H refers to the grounds set out in the Bill. At the moment they do not seem to be sufficiently wide. A council ought to be able to refuse a referendum if it judges that it concerns a trivial matter and spending money on it would simply not be worth the candle. Similarly, if the council or someone else is doing something anyway, the referendum would be a waste of time because the decision has been made. The Government have already moved an amendment to deal with repetition which provides that another referendum on the same subject cannot take place for four years. That, too, is extremely welcome. Our definition of “disproportionate” is that the cost of holding a referendum is excessive when bearing in mind the cost of carrying out the proposal in question. If a council is being asked to spend £80,000 to hold a referendum when to do what the referendum is asking for would cost only £15,000, it is a pointless waste, whether or not the council wishes to do it.
Finally, we suggest that the fifth ground for the decision is that it is not appropriate because what is being asked for is the allocation of a disproportionate level of resource in one area when it is absolutely clear to the council that it is either not practical due to financial constraints or it would be unfair; that is, it would be possible but it would mean taking resources from existing schemes and services to put into a particular scheme or service that was being requested by an area in a way that would not be equitable across the authority. Knowing that before the referendum takes place, the authority can show that it is not financially viable and that holding a referendum would be a waste of everybody’s time and money.
These amendments may not be perfect but the criteria that the Government are putting forward at the moment in this clause are not sufficient to give a council enough flexibility to carry out the kind of localist decision-making that the Minister talked about not long ago—on a common-sense basis, without holding referendums which will simply waste a lot of time and money and not achieve anything. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
I will speak to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, but also to my own Amendment 126CA, which would include on page 40, line 18, under grounds for determination in Clause 47, a definition of “local” which means that an issue can be,
“determined to be so by the principal local authority”.
In other words, in addition to the conditions for what is local, it gives the authority the power to determine an issue of locality.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has come forward with a mixed bag of amendments here. First, I will address his last proposition on the cost of the project relative to the cost of a referendum—or, indeed, the question of equity. That is Amendment 128A, to which he referred, on the deployment of extra resources in part of an authority’s area. I am not quite with the noble Lord on this. Actually, a petition for a referendum is an opportunity to debate an issue that might be of significance to that part of an authority’s area. Incidentally, I am not sure whether the amendment could extend to the whole of an authority’s area or just part, and if so how that part is to be defined, except perhaps by the petitioners.
If there is such an issue, it is proper that it should be debated. Initially, no doubt, those promoting the referendum would be invited by the council to explain their position and the council would respond. That is a sensible way of proceeding. If they then wished to proceed to a referendum they should not be prevented from doing so. That is an opportunity, certainly for the residents or petitioners to make their case but also for the authority to exercise some leadership and explain what it is doing and the constraints within which it operates. It can make that clear not only for the purposes of the particular referendum but as a matter of general interest to the area as a whole. We all face these decisions about priorities all the time. They are perhaps insufficiently acknowledged or understood by the electorate. If referendums are a way to bring home some of these truths, particularly as they are non-binding, I would not want to resist them taking place.
The noble Lord’s amendments include a reference to the question of influence as opposed to power. He cites the issue of the melting ice cap, implying that that is not a matter of local interest. The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, is not in his place today, but if he were he might say that the residents of Norfolk have good reason to fear the melting of the ice cap. Saving the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, that issue might not be specifically related to the ice cap, but climate change and its impact on a community might well be a matter over which an authority has some influence and which it is relevant to ask it to look at. Influence would surely include a power, whereas the other way round it would not necessarily be the case. I would have thought that influence is actually a better way of looking at that issue.
I want to refer to one other amendment that the noble Lord spoke to. It is Amendment 128D, on the disproportionate cost of the referendum,
“bearing in mind the cost of carrying out the proposal in … question”.
Again that raises a difficulty, as a matter might be of considerable significance to people but not involve much cost. There might be, let us say, a traffic issue or something of that kind which might be felt to be of great importance in an area. The referendum might be more costly than the exercise of dealing with the issue but I would not like it to be precluded simply on those grounds. Again, I hope that the very process of getting to the point of a referendum might facilitate the resolution of matters. As I indicated in an intervention on the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, there are other methods. Given that this will be on the statute book, it seems wrong to define too narrowly the situation in which it might be used. This might be an example of going a little too far to restrict the right, so I would not support the noble Lord on that amendment.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
This has been a useful debate. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for opening it, but even more grateful to my noble friend Lord True and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for their contributions. They recognised that there are difficulties in seeking to restrict the use of referenda too far. For example, Amendments 126A and 126E would replace the generic reference to,
“action taken to promote or oppose a referendum question leading to a contravention of an enactment or rule of law”.
I suspect that my noble friend Lord Greaves is presenting this as a probing amendment to find out what this is about and what sorts of enactments are considered unlawful. Clearly, no local authority could be obliged to consider through a referendum something which is unlawful. I hope that I can reassure my noble friend that the provision as drafted achieves the result that he requires. The Equality Act 2010, for example, is clearly “an enactment”. The way in which Clause 47(2) is drafted actually caters for all the sorts of things that we would all want to catch and leaves no space for mischievous attempts to get round the protection, such as by phrasing a question cleverly so that it is not “the action requested” that would be unlawful, but the campaign surrounding the referendum.
The second ground that my noble friend mentioned was that the matter was not a local one over which the local authority has influence. My noble friend wanted to know what influence was and what would be the effect of replacing the word “influence” with the word “power”. Amendment 126D removes Clause 47(4)(b), which contains the definition of “influence”. We can appreciate the intention behind these amendments; nobody wants councils to be forced to hold irrelevant referendums and we have seen how the unconstrained power for electors to force parish polls has sometimes been misused by particular lobby groups to force polls on matters that are far removed from the remit of parish councils. However, if my noble friend is asking whether “influence” in Clause 47(4)(b) includes the general power of competence, I would say that indeed it does.
I do not believe that the alternative drafting suggested by noble Lords improves on what is in the Bill. When one considers the impact of Clause 1, one needs to be quite cautious about referring to situations where local authorities have “power” in future. I hope that noble Lords will accept my assurance that the formulation in Clause 47 is framed broadly enough to differentiate the circumstances where there is a manifestly inappropriate attempt to abuse the referendum system from one where there is an issue of local importance in which the local authority has a genuine role. My noble friend has acknowledged that his amendment is unnecessary in the light of the government amendment.
Amendments 126H and 128D seek to expand the fourth ground to give local authorities greater scope to reject a petition. We accept that there is a case for giving councils the flexibility to reject repetitive petitions or requests for referendums, and I hope that my noble friend will accept that the proposals set out in the government amendments that I outlined earlier will meet his concerns. I contend that the arrangements in those amendments offer a better solution to what we all hope will not in fact become a problem in practice. The key to deterring frivolous calls for a referendum is to have in place a robust system for dealing with such things.
I am not sure that my noble friend is right. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, grasped the point that cost is not the proper equation to be taken into account in judging whether a council should be able to refuse a referendum. Something may be extremely important to a local community that may involve little expenditure in terms of its implementation but would have a great impact on people’s lives, and it is perfectly proper that that should be a subject for a referendum if the local authority feels that that is correct. So long as we get the framework right, and I believe that we have, there will be no point in anyone attempting to abuse the system and so they may not bother.
On Amendment 128A again, I agree with my noble friend Lord True. As he has said, that amendment would enable any referendum to be refused. I cannot see that that is the purpose of the legislation, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Greaves will reflect on that.
Amendment 126CA of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, seeks to provide that a local matter will be a matter determined to be so by the local authority. We agree that it is for local authorities to determine whether or not it is appropriate to hold a local referendum. Our provisions give local authorities discretion to do that, subject to certain safeguards that we have discussed today. I am therefore not convinced that this amendment either is necessary or would make any practical difference, given the wording of Clause 47(3), which refers to whether the local authority,
“thinks that the matter to which the referendum question relates is not a local matter”.
So, that phrasing is already there. I hope that, given these assurances, the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I will think carefully about whether to withdraw it. Clearly I am not going to win on some of the amendments in the group, such as Amendments 128A and 128D, and it may well be that the clear majority view in the Committee is right. However, this has been a useful discussion and I thank noble Lords who have taken part.
The Minister said, and I think I quote him accurately, “So long as we get the framework right, then it’ll all be okay”. However, we are talking here about some of the framework, and you cannot rely on local authorities to get the framework right unless the legislation is right.
There are two areas that require more thought. The first and by far the most important concerns things that are illegal or contrary to council codes of conduct. The Minister said, rightly, that no council would want to carry out actions as the result of a referendum, or indeed to carry out a referendum, calling for things that were not legal. However, I think that what words say in legislation is important. As I read the proposal, and as I said when I was moving the amendment, the unlawful thing set out there is not the request in the referendum question—not what the question is calling for—and it is not the outcome of the referendum if it were successful; rather, it is the campaign, or action taken to promote or oppose the question in the referendum. That must mean what happens during the referendum campaign, not what happens after people have voted and the consequences that occur if the council decides to go ahead with a proposal as the result of a referendum being passed. There is a real difference there. Perhaps the Minister can tell me why I have got it wrong.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I may have misunderstood my noble friend. I have listened to what he is saying, and there is no way that any campaign of any description can be based on illegal acts. I hope that I have not misunderstood my noble friend. If I have, perhaps he might have a word with me and explain where I have gone wrong. Not only is it not possible for a referendum to be put that demands a council to perform illegally, it is clearly wrong for campaigners to offend against the law in the nature of the campaign or statements that they make in seeking to petition for a referendum.
Lord Greaves
The Minister is absolutely right. The law is the law, and if people break the law, they break the law. My point is that, as I read the legislation, the illegality refers to the likelihood of people breaking the law during the election campaign as a ground for refusing to have a referendum. Although I tabled an amendment to remove that, it was a probing amendment and I am not suggesting that it should be removed. I am suggesting that it should be made absolutely clear that the ground for refusing to have a referendum is that what is being asked for as the outcome of the referendum is not legal. I cannot understand why that should not happen. That is different from the conduct of the campaign, but I am happy to discuss this informally with the Minister.
Briefly, the Government should think about the “trivial” point. This clause currently refers to questions which are “vexatious or abusive”, wording which comes from the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 in relation to petitions. That Act is being repealed, and we will probably have the same debate over that.
A council ought to be able to reject a petition for a referendum on the grounds that the issues in it simply are not worth the candle—that they are “trivial”, or whatever wording the Government would come up with; that they are de minimis in some way. Perhaps the Government will reflect on that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
My Lords, in moving the amendment I will say how nice it is to see the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, in his place. The noble Lord could have his referendum on parking charges and the council would meet the cost of the referendum by increasing the charges even more. Who knows what unintended consequences may occur? I will now speak to the amendment before the Whips start glowering at me.
Amendment 128H is about the publicity that a principal local authority has to give to a determination that it is not appropriate to hold a referendum. Clause 48(4) states:
“If the determination is that it is not appropriate to hold the referendum … the notification must give the reasons for the determination, and … subject to subsection (5), the authority must publish those reasons when it publishes the determination”.
That all seems fine. But then subsection (5) says a quite extraordinary thing:
“A principal local authority is not obliged to publish those reasons if it thinks that in all the circumstances it would be inappropriate to do so”.
I cannot think of any circumstances in which it would not be appropriate to publish the reasons why the local authority has decided not to hold the referendum when it gets a petition which otherwise matches all the necessary conditions.
The grounds for determination are set out in Clause 47 which we have been discussing at some length and they are fairly clear—they would be even clearer if some of my amendments were passed. Even so, the Bill is going to include a clear statement of the reasons why a council can decide not to have a referendum even though it gets a petition.
Amendment 128Q is exactly the same wording in relation to a request for a referendum from a member. Whether it has to tell the member the reasons why it is not going to have the referendum the member is asking for, I am not quite sure, but it seems quite extraordinary that this is the case. It takes me back to my very early days in local government, which are far too long ago, when the council I was on—and no doubt many others—used to publish a minute for a decision that said something like, “That the action now mentioned be carried out by the officer now named”.
That sort of thing does not happen any more. My understanding is that local authorities are now under a general obligation to state the reasons for all the decisions they make and publish. That is certainly what the local authorities I know all do and I think that is now required. If a decision can be made not to hold a referendum without having to say why, then if the people asking for the referendum are rich enough it is a recipe for lining the pockets of a lot of lawyers. If they are not rich enough they will just get very angry and the whole process will be undermined.
I am challenging similar provisions in Amendments 129D and 129CAA which cover what a local authority does after a referendum and the action it decides to take. Again, it is suggested that if no action is taken then the authority has to publish the decision. In this case what the Bill says is right: the authority has to publish the decision and the reasons why if it decides not to do anything about a referendum that has been carried by a majority of people voting and calls for action. However, it does not have to say anything at all if it decides to carry out what the referendum wants or it decides partly to carry out what the referendum wants or to do something slightly different which might achieve some of the same objectives.
It seems to me that whatever the decision is on the basis of the referendum that has taken place, the local authority ought to make a clear statement of what it is going to do in response to the referendum, the decision of the referendum and give the reasons why. In this case, I suspect it is that the people drafting this have not thought through it 100 per cent. I would have thought the Government could have redrafted this part without any real problems. The first two, where it clearly says that you do not have to say why you are rejecting it, are clearly wrong and must be challenged.
Amendment 128J is the other amendment in this group and takes us back to some discussions we had on the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act when it was going through this House on the question of identification of the organiser of a petition. It was all very unsatisfactory when that Bill came to this House. We got it right. This is less unsatisfactory but it is still not quite right. Clause 48(6) states:
“In this Chapter ‘petition organiser’, in relation to a petition, means—
(a) the person designated in the petition as the person with whom the authority may deal in relation to the petition”.
It is possible that a petition will come in and the person is not actually designated in the petition but the person identifies themselves as the organiser, they turn up and hand it in, they have a covering letter that they have signed or something like that. Amendment 128J suggests a slightly better wording. Instead of,
“designated in the petition”
it suggests,
“notified when the petition is delivered to the authority”.
All the authority needs to do is to ask who the person in charge of the petition is. It might be the first name on the list; it might be the person who has simply signed the covering letter; it might simply be the person who turns up at the council offices or hands it to the mayor, or whatever they do, and identifies themselves as the organiser. The subsection just needs to be clarified a little. I beg to move.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, some noble Lords may think that my one question for the Minister might have sat more easily with amendments in previous groups, but I hope they will indulge me because then I had to be in the Education Bill Committee, to which I shall shortly have to return. My question can loosely be attached to this group of amendments.
The problem that has been brought to my attention is that when local authorities are bound to publicise and take the outcomes of referendums into account in decision-making, it could result in them being pressured by local communities into disregarding welfare issues and the rights of Gypsies, Travellers and others. We know that there is form on this. Local communities have had that kind of attitude. My question for the Minister is: is there any safeguard to deter that?
Lord Greaves
I am grateful for the support from my noble friend and others, and for the fairly emollient response from my noble friend the Minister. The first point that I was going to make has just been made by my noble friend. Councils deal with decisions all the time—for example, not giving licences to people because they have criminal convictions. Sufficient reasons are given for those decisions without going over the top and hauling them out into the open and putting them in the local stocks, which we have in my town. I cannot think of any decisions minuted by my council in the past two decades for which the reasons have not been set out. People are perfectly capable of writing decisions that are appropriate in the circumstances.
However, I cannot quite understand how criminal convictions will come into this. I suppose that the petition organiser might turn out to be a complete rogue, but why should that invalidate a petition that was otherwise perfectly valid, especially as the Minister said earlier that people in prison should be able—it is slightly extraordinary—to sign these petitions even though they cannot vote? I cannot see why a person should not be able to organise a petition in his community simply because he has criminal convictions. The petition itself is hardly likely to reveal people’s criminal convictions. Is it? I do not know.
I am grateful for what the Minister said. I think that we will have a few more chats about this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, government Amendment 129G makes a change to Clause 57. The purpose is to make it clear that the,
“function of passing of a resolution”,
in this chapter is, in the case of the Greater London Authority, a joint function of the mayor and the Assembly, and that the function is to be discharged in the same way as the Greater London Authority discharges any other functions that are specified as the joint responsibility of the mayor and the Assembly.
Government Amendment 128K removes the requirement for the Greater London Authority to hold a meeting to decide on a resolution to hold a referendum. It reflects the constitutional arrangements of the authority, which does not hold joint meetings of the mayor and the Assembly and will instead enable appropriate arrangements to be made for the mayor and the Assembly to come to a decision about whether to hold a referendum.
Government Amendments 128N and 128P make consequential changes to Clause 49(3), again removing the requirement for the Greater London Authority to hold a meeting. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this clarification is helpful and I urge them to accept these amendments.
In this group we have some amendments from my noble friends Lord Greaves and Lord Rennard. Amendment 128L seeks to make it clear that a resolution to hold a referendum may be taken at the next ordinary meeting of the authority following determination that it is appropriate to hold a referendum. Amendment 128M in consequence removes Clause 49(3), which requires a meeting to discuss a resolution to be held as soon as practicable. These amendments assume that the wording of Clause 49(2) currently requires a meeting to be specifically convened for the purpose of resolving whether to hold a referendum. I can assure noble Lords that that is not our intention. We believe that the inclusion of the word “for” in Clause 49(2) makes it clear that a meeting must not be specifically convened but that the issue may be added to the agenda of any meeting of the full council. I will listen to the debate of my noble friend and then perhaps I can respond to his proposal.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I have two amendments in the group, Amendments 128L and 128M. Amendment 128L says “arrange a meeting”, and Amendment 128M says,
“as soon as is reasonably practicable after the determination is made”.
Clearly, if it is two and a half months until the next full council meeting of that authority,
“as soon as is reasonably practicable”,
could be taken to mean that the meeting has to be called more quickly than that. I am perfectly happy to accept the assurances that the Minister has already given. I was just concerned about the cost of these referendums to local authorities. The cost of organising an extra meeting of the full council is not cheap for any authority, especially for a small one where the cost is a larger proportion of its budget. It is not a trivial expense. If the Minister is putting that assurance on the record, then my amendments have achieved their purpose.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I thank my noble friend for that observation. It is a matter of the precision of the language, and the key phrase is,
“the proper officer of the authority must arrange for a meeting”,
to be held. Had the phrase been that the proper officer “must arrange a meeting”, it would have been clear that a meeting must be specifically arranged. We believe that the wording in the Bill is clear. If it proves not to be the case, we are prepared to reconsider it. However, we believe that the meaning is clear. I would be grateful if my noble friend would withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
My Lords, the amendments in this group need not detain us for long. They have been tabled to probe the appropriateness of the word “misleading” as the criterion a local authority can use to change the wording of a referendum question. It must consult the people who have put forward the petition before doing so, but I am not sure that the word “misleading” covers everything. For example, an authority might want to improve the grammar of a question. As my noble friend Lord Tope said, petitions to councils even for something as important as a referendum are not necessarily written in the most appropriate phrases. If more felicitous wording can be introduced, it may be an improvement, but I am not sure whether that would make the question any more or less misleading. There may be inappropriate words in the question, which the council thinks are slang or rude, but once they are removed the petition remains perfectly valid.
More substantively, a question might be asking for action from the wrong people. It might ask the council to do something which it cannot do, but the council might be able to do other things. I am trying to think of an example. There is a gap in the railway line between Colne and Skipton on the Lancashire-Yorkshire border, and a campaign called SELRAP is working to have it reinstated. Noble Lords might have had communications from the group because it is vigorous in pursuing its case with everybody. I am not sure whether I should declare an interest as a patron of SELRAP since I am talking about it, but I was bullied into it. A petition might ask Pendle or Craven council, or even Lancashire or North Yorkshire county council, to reinstate the railway line. Regrettably, that is not within the power of any of those local authorities. On the other hand, it is within their power to provide funds to SELRAP and to push the process of assessing proposals for the reinstatement of the line further along the road. The GRIP process is a series of steps that all cost money, and the authority could contribute towards it.
A petition might come in asking any of the councils to put in a new railway line, but it would be rejected on the grounds that it had nothing to do with them. On the other hand, the councils could ask for a differently worded petition so that SELRAP could be funded to undertake the next batch of work necessary to get Network Rail, the Government and everyone else to pay attention. Alternatively, it might be a county council matter but the petition is sent to the district council, or vice versa. Those are helpful changes, and I do not think the word “misleading” describes them.
Amendments 128T and 128V were meant to probe the question of holding the referendum on the same day as elections, and whether that is a good or a bad thing. We have discussed this in some detail so it is not necessary to pursue it any further. Amendment 128U looks at how quickly a referendum has to take place once a council determines that it should be held. If it is generally thought that in order to save money and for general convenience, a referendum should be held on the same day as an election, and that election is due within 12 months, the amendment would make it possible, at the discretion of the council, to delay the referendum for up to 12 months rather than only up to the six months provided for in the Bill. In most cases referendums brought forward during the summer and autumn would have to be freestanding and would therefore cost perhaps three times as much. I beg to move.
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.
Lord Greaves
I am grateful for that and will certainly do so on that assurance. I clearly put these down as probing amendments. On the timing, having listened to the discussion I agree with the noble Lord, Lord True, that it ought to be down to the local authority. If they want to call a referendum immediately, they ought to be able to do so. It may well be an issue that will be dead in 12 months anyway. On the other hand, the wording ought not to preclude having the referendum on the same day as the next round of elections, as far as fixed elections are concerned—general elections now appear to be fixed but we will see—so long as they are not more than 12 months away. It may well be that some authorities that do not elect their council every year will not have an election within 12 months. Those that do ought to be able to have it on that day if that is what they think best on the principles set out by the noble Lord, Lord True. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
My Lords, this amendment probes the material about the referendum and the question published by the local authority holding the referendum. Clause 53(4) says:
“Subject to subsection (5), the principal local authority may publish, or arrange for the publication of, material that is designed to encourage support for or opposition to the question to be asked in the referendum”,
while Clause 53(5) says this applies only to referendums which are,
“held in response to a petition”,
from the public, “or a request” from a member or members of the authority and that the authority can,
“incur only such expenditure as is reasonable”,
whatever that may mean.
I am moving this amendment to take out those two subsections as a means of probing how they will work and what they mean. I have also put down Amendments 128Y and 128Z, which say that if the local authority produces material in support and/or opposition to the question, it has to do so in a fair and balanced way. It has to give,
“equal prominence to the arguments”,
on each side. That mirrors what happens in national referendums, where the Government, or the Electoral Commission on behalf of the Government, publish statements which say, “On the one hand, vote yes; on the other hand, vote no”. They put a fair and balanced argument. In this new world of local referendums, it is not clear to me whether local authorities are going to be able to churn out publicity on one side only, or to be strongly in favour of one side and against the other, and whether that is intended or desirable. This is a very important question that needs careful bottoming.
My understanding is that the Electoral Commission has expressed some concern about this and believes that there should be balance, although I was looking for the stuff that I think I have had from it before this debate and I could not find it. I cannot quote exactly what it is saying but it would be interesting to have a definitive view from the Electoral Commission on this matter, certainly before we get to Report. It is fairly obvious that this is an important matter and that there may be different views on it, but our view is that a council ought to be putting out fair and balanced publicity, if it wishes to put out publicity at all. It ought to have the option not to spend any more money than it is already and to keep out of the argument altogether. The Bill suggests that it can because it says:
“the principal local authority may publish, or arrange for the publication of”,
with the clear implication there that it does not have to if it does not want to.
Particularly where a referendum is tied in heavily with the local political argument and where referendums and local elections get intertwined, as I think will be inevitable, it will be dangerous for local authorities to get involved on one side of an argument. The political party running a local authority may strongly be on one side with the party in opposition, which might be ready to take over if it wins enough seats, on the other. For the local authority to weigh in with public money in those circumstances seems to me to be wrong in principle. I am not saying that people should not campaign; people should campaign, but they should go out and organise their own campaigns.
Amendment 128AA seeks to put some controls on expenditure on this kind of publicity in a referendum on which the local authority spends its own money. It seeks to harden up the word “reasonable” by saying that it has to be approved by a meeting of the council. The meeting of the council that determines that a referendum should take place should also decide whether the local authority spends any money on it and how much; it should set a budget for it, because, in any case, this will be all be money outside the council’s agreed budget. I assume that councils will not put contingency sums in their budget in case they have referendums. They will all be hoping that they do not have any, from that point of view. They will not want to put the council tax up or cut other services at budget time in order to put money aside for referendums, so I assume they will not do that and therefore it may well need a supplementary vote by the full council anyway, if it is a full-scale referendum and is costing tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds. Where is it going to come from? The council will have to decide, so it would be part of that.
I would put forward Amendment 128AA only on the basis that the council was going to be even-handed. The council being able to vote sums of money to one side in a highly politically contentious question is a very dangerous way forward. This is put forward as genuinely probing, to find out what the Government’s views are, but it is also a considerable concern that might need a bit more thought before Report.
Lord True
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, wishes to speak briefly: I, too, will speak briefly. I do not think that this is a matter that we can resolve in this Committee. It is important and perhaps in the period up to Report we may see some guidance and thoughts as to how the Government, the Electoral Commission and others see it developing. There is a difference between a national referendum about an unresolved policy question and certain circumstances of local referendums. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, is no longer in his place; he has rushed out to organise a referendum against the parking-charge policy of his own council. In those circumstances it is surely reasonable for the council to defend its policy against the proposition that is put on the other side, so I do not think that we can be absolutist on this matter. I do not favour the extensive spending of public money, but I hope that my noble friend, as we discuss these things over the next few weeks, will not rule out and disarm councils—elected representatives—from putting their case in referendums.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, the debate has shown that this is a complex and sensitive area. We would certainly not want councils to be innocent bystanders when important local issues were being debated. I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling these amendments because at least they give us an opportunity to check whether the words in the Bill reflect what we want out of this process. I suspect that not just the Electoral Commission but the LGA itself will want to reflect on this area. Currently, any publicity published by an authority will have to be in accordance with the code of recommended practice on local authority publicity, which means that it has to be even-handed and responsible. It is necessary for the recommended practice to allow local authorities to put their case in a proper fashion. Generally, authorities are restrained from publishing any publicity material relating to a referendum question on issues such as whether to adopt executive arrangements. The scope of local referendums, however, is such that there is the possibility of questions being put which could have significant impact on communities. We believe that it is right that councils should be able to play a part in the process when the referendum has been triggered by a petition or request. Referendums such as have been proposed by my noble friend unnecessarily restrict the position of local councils.
The arrangements for authorities to control expenditure are already set out in Clause 53, coupled with an authority’s wider duty to have regard to the code of recommended practice on local authority publicity. They are adequate to ensure that excessive amounts of public money are not spent on publicity material for referendums. I hope that these explanations and assurances persuade my noble friend that he can withdraw his amendment. This is an area where local authorities are likely to want to satisfy themselves that the arrangements as set out in the Bill meet their need to protect community interests as they see them. With that, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves
I am grateful to noble Lords for the discussion. It is an indication of the complexity of the issue that I have agreed with most of the things that most noble Lords have said on all sides; it is in no circumstances straightforward. As I hope I said, I moved the amendment to probe and, in order to probe, I proposed something quite different from what was in the Bill. There are good arguments on both sides. I firmly believe that local authorities, faced with what they might think of as a hostile referendum question, should be able to put their point of view forward and, if it is a complex question, should be able to explain it.
It is quite possible, of course, that the local authority will be in favour of the referendum question, in which case it is not clear why they should spend any money at all. Perhaps they think that the people organising it are incompetent and will not do it very well. Who knows? One can imagine lots of different circumstances.
I am firmly of the countervailing view that local authorities ought not to be able to get involved in promoting referendum campaigns which are effectively being put forward by parties or party-political candidates—or any candidate in local elections—for political purposes. That would be quite wrong and quite contrary to the present code of publicity. It is difficult to see how to draw up regulations which cater for both the extreme circumstances of a hostile referendum which the authority thinks would seriously wreck its strategy and policies in key areas and, on the other hand—
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Does the noble Lord have a view on whether local authorities should be able to campaign on council tax referendums, which are in a sense political because the policy is effectively decided by elected councillors? Would he support the right of councils to be able to campaign in those?
Lord Greaves
Yes, I would. Although it is important that local authorities should not get involved in party-political campaigning, the present code of conduct on local authority publicity is too restrictive. Local authorities ought to be able to campaign in a general way more easily and widely than they can at the moment if they believe that what they are campaigning for is in the interests of the people that they serve and represent. However, that is a wider issue. We have the code as it is and I do not think that there is any prospect of it being changed much in the near future. However, it will be very difficult to find satisfactory wording that stops local authorities intervening in elections and political matters, but allows them to defend their well thought-out and agreed policies and strategies against hostile attack. This matter has to be further discussed and considered and the various organisations involved, including the LGA and the Electoral Commission, have to be involved in that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Cathcart
My Lords, on Tuesday, when we discussed whether 5 per cent was the appropriate figure to call referendums, I went through all the levels of local government right down to the parish level. I was rather crestfallen when my noble friend Lord Taylor dismissed my arguments by saying,
“I should emphasise that the Bill's provisions in this area do not provide for referendums relating to parish councils, which are not part of the Bill. We will have an opportunity later to discuss parish councils”.—[Official Report, 28/6/11; col. 1744.]
With hindsight, I may have got rather ahead of myself on Tuesday. Therefore, I welcome the opportunity to discuss parish councils now. I will not repeat the remarks that I made on Tuesday, but will the Minister take into account what I said then when the Government consider this clause? Five per cent of electors in my noble friend’s parish in Holbeach might seem all right, but that is not appropriate in a parish with only 200 electors, which means that only 10 people would be required to call a referendum—that is far too low. In my parish in Norfolk, with only 50-odd electors, the 5 per cent figure would mean that three people could call a referendum. Perhaps different percentages could be applied according to size. If 5 per cent is appropriate for Holbeach, perhaps 20 per cent for a parish with only 200 electors—that is, 40 people—might be the right figure.
I presume that when this clause refers to parish councils, that includes parish meetings. Will the Minister please confirm this?
Lord Greaves
My Lords, the purpose of this stand part debate and of Amendment 129F is to have an exploratory discussion to probe the Government about their intentions with regard to parishes. Is what is in the Bill to be taken at face value in that the Government realise that they have to think about how referendums will interact with parish and town councils, and inevitably therefore consider the relationship between the existing legislation for parish polls and the new provisions for referendums, which are altogether more complex and involved?
The provisions for parish polls are really very simple. A very small number of people can turn up to a parish meeting—what used to be called the ratepayers’ meeting when people paid rates—and requisition a parish poll. The parish poll is a referendum of all the local government electors in the parish, but it is often on a fairly small scale. Sometimes it is not. Sometimes it is run as a normal election, with all the polling stations open, except that the polling hours are from 4 pm to, I think, 9 pm—the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, will correct me if that is wrong—so there are restricted polling hours.
Lord Greaves
It is something like that. I do not think that it was extended to 10 pm; it might be only until 8 pm; I am not sure.
In my experience of parish polls, there is sometimes agreement between the council concerned and the district council or borough council, which has to organise the polls from its normal election process, not to have all the polling stations open. I am aware of a smallish town which has six or seven polling stations. They have a parish poll and they opened only one of the polling stations in the town centre on the grounds that it did not cost them as much. That flexibility is available, and it is an altogether simpler process. Of course, it is open to abuse because of the small number of people who can requisition a parish poll. Even if the Government are keeping provision for parish polls, I would think that, as part of the review, they will consider how the referendum provisions will impact on parishes.
There are now a lot more much bigger parishes than there ever used to be. A lot of places which, before 1974, were urban districts or small boroughs, have now become town councils. If you have an electorate of 18,000 or 22,000, or even more, having 10 people able to turn up at a parish meeting and only a small number of those being able to requisition a poll is nonsense. The parish poll provision is there for small, rural parishes, and the world is, in many places, not like that any more.
Have the Government any firm plans for what they will do or is it all provision in case they want to do something in the future? If they have firm plans, can they tell us what they will be before Report? The Bill’s provision about possible central government funding for referendums in parishes, organised by parish councils, is interesting, but I cannot believe that it is serious. It would leave it open for referendums to be organised in parishes on a large scale without any financial implication locally. The more that we discuss this in Committee, the more I come to the view that the number of referendums which will take place is probably a great deal less than some of us feared when we started looking at this, simply because of the financial problems.
We saw in the AV referendum that the no campaign campaigned heavily on the cost of the referendum itself—as though that was a logical reason to vote no, although the spending was already taking place. That was a very effective way of campaigning, and I am coming to the view that local referendums will meet a huge amount of opposition simply on the basis of cost. When people go around trying to organise them, once the cost and the implications for the council budget are revealed, a lot of them will not go ahead.
That is just musing about the future. The more that the Government can tell us about their proposals for parishes now, the better. I make it absolutely clear that I am in no circumstances trying to abolish parish polls. I am probing the Government's intentions.
The Earl of Lytton
My Lords, I welcome the amendment in so far as it opens up an opportunity to make a contribution on this point. I fundamentally support the Bill’s provisions to provide for the Secretary of State to make specific provision for parish council referendums. There are many reasons for that, of which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will be aware. I am sorry that I cannot elaborate on the question of the times of day and the hours when certain things relating to parish polls might take place. I am afraid that I am only the humble president of the National Association of Local Councils and not a fully paid-up clerk of one of the more go-getting parish councils. Noble Lords will have to suffer second best on this occasion.
As I said on Second Reading, parish councils are not a homogenous institution. They are so highly variable in size and many other ways that it is difficult to think of a standardised approach. I suspect that this is very much work in progress in terms of discussions going on with the department on how to deal with this rather difficult issue because of the problem of trying to make one size fit all. Not only are there differences in size of electorate but their budgets, capacity, degree of training and even their expertise differ widely, even within a particular size category.
My purpose was to flag up some of the things that the Secretary of State might need to consider. As I say, I am aware of ongoing discussions and I certainly do not want to be in any way prescriptive. In the parish council, being the smallest unit of local government, there must be a proper balance between engagement with representative democracy and the referendum facility. That is likely to be exacerbated in future because, as localism brings the involvement of parish councils with a larger range of things that may have been dealt with traditionally by principal authorities, the opportunities for things to be called into question will inevitably increase. We must have robust systems to guard against that. It is also the case that that can add to the risk of people wanting to reach for the referendum solution. It is beginning to look like a question of how many bites of this not very large cherry in some places is to be provided for the public.
I will not labour the point about the engagement with the democratic and representative function of parish councils. The burdens of referendums on parish councils are by and large disproportionately high. I mentioned that in a previous Committee sitting and gave an example. Currently, the trigger for a parish poll under paragraph 18 of Schedule 12 to the Local Government Act 1972 is by common consent too low. But that is no argument for removing it altogether. I was very pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, say that that was not his intention. I look forward to something better than that provision in the Local Government Act coming forward at a later stage, but I do not know whether discussions will have proceeded that far ahead. There is a need to prevent the parish being hijacked by the referendum provision. To that end triggers must be in some way relevant to the issue and possibly to the parish size. I cannot go further than that because we are dealing with tiny parish councils on the one hand and some very large town councils on the other, some of which have budgets that would exceed principal authority sizes.
There has to be a genuine local interest. I was very pleased when, some time ago, one of the smaller political movements tried to hijack the process for national political aims. I seem to recall it was something to do with the European Union and it was ruled out of order. Quite right too, because what should a small parish be doing with something concerning the European Union? Small parishes in particular are vulnerable, if we are not careful, to these sorts of pressures.
In addition, there needs to be protection for referendums cutting across other issues that have to be dealt with—the other powers and functions. I mentioned this earlier in connection with principal authorities. The same thing needs to be built in; not necessarily on exactly the same model, but in essence something similar. There needs to be a cost benefit out of all this, not for it to be completely disproportionate in the manner that I explained when I addressed this issue at our last Committee sitting.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we should thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for introducing this clause stand part debate and for his very clear exposition of localism and what it means in terms of council tax. I agree with him that the provisions in the Bill amount to a capping regime. I am sure the Government will argue that local people do determine what is excessive if they support a referendum. That is a very narrow interpretation of the Bill. This is capping by another name.
We also have to acknowledge that successive Governments have reserved the right to limit increases in domestic taxation when they have been judged to be excessive. We certainly did as a Government, and I believe that the Conservative Government did. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is culpable as well. There are arguments about whether that is important for the overall management of the economy.
When the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, introduced his first amendment in our proceedings, he talked about localism being decisions being taken at the lowest possible level, but he acknowledged that there is a wider dimension that has to be taken into account in some instances. The impact assessment for the Bill—
Lord Greaves
I think I said “underpinning a minimum level of service”. I certainly would not apply it to council tax.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Indeed. I was not suggesting that the noble Lord would have judged council tax to be one of those things, but I think there is an argument that it is. The impact assessment reminds us that some 36 authorities have been capped under legislation that this Bill will replace—I think that is since the power was first used in 2004-05—and 16 of those were subject to in-year designation and had to redo their calculations. Indeed, the architecture of the Secretary of State setting principles with the opportunity to look at different categories of authorities has been imported from the existing capping regime.
We feel constrained in denying the Government powers which effectively amount to capping powers and their right to influence levels of taxation in the broader interests of the management of the economy, anti-poverty strategies, et cetera because the reality is that each year the Secretary of State will set the benchmark for council tax increases and it is probably right that few councils will run the gauntlet of a referendum, given the costs and consequences of an adverse outcome. The impact assessment estimates the cost of a council tax referendum to be between £85,000 and £300,000. Should a referendum not be successful, the administrative consequences could be convoluted, with year-end refunds or credits against future liabilities and the possibility for people to ask for an in-year refund, so the systems and costs involved in those choices could be significant.
We are coming on to discuss the powers that the Secretary of State has taken for himself in framing how the referendum question is to be put and the constraints around expenditure. According to the impact assessment, the authority will not be able to campaign for its proposed council tax level. Given the debate we have just had about the authority’s role in referendums, perhaps the Minister will confirm that an authority cannot campaign for the council tax increase that it thinks is appropriate. Of course, we might expect the cards to be stacked against those proposing the increase. Councils are facing unprecedented dilemmas at present with budgets severely constrained and with front-end loading because the coalition Government’s approach to the deficit is to cut too far and too fast. The system will have to cope with the challenges of the localisation of non-domestic rates. If this is to happen, will not local councils be forced to look to that as a source of extra income before running the risks of referendums that would increase council tax? I am not sure that that would be good news for the business community, but perhaps the Minister will tell us—I know these things are embryonic at the moment—whether there will be equivalent capping-type regimes for a localised, non-domestic rate and, if not, what the likely impact of having these effective capping powers on council tax increases might be for the NNDR.
One of the other issues that arise from this in making an assessment about whether council tax levels are fair is how council tax rebate is going to work in the future. The Government are localising council tax rebate. Not only are they cutting 10 per cent off it in aggregate, but it seems as if it is going to be left to local authorities to make individual judgments about the scheme that they want to introduce and maintain. That runs contrary to giving powers to government to manage these things centrally, and is an added complication.
For the present, we will focus our efforts on trying to improve the provisions in the Bill rather than to do away with them, but we are mindful of the strong localist argument for not having these powers at all.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, that is a weensy bit technical for me. Some amendments deal with non-domestic rates. If the noble Lord’s point does not get covered, I will of course write to him.
Lord Greaves
The Minister mentioned parish and town councils. I think he said that only a small number would be caught by the referendum provisions and that there would be those which are very large and would have large levels of spending. He is nodding so I remember correctly. What sort of scale does he expect this to be? Would it be three or four, half a dozen, or 30 or 40? The Government must have some idea.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord has asked an important question. There will be provisions to ensure that small parish councils do not get caught by these provisions. They will be for only the larger authorities. I am sure that we will either get to a suitable amendment or I can write to the noble Lord and other members of the Committee with full details of how that important issue is addressed.
Localism Bill
Lord Greaves Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
“CHAPTER 8Appropriation and disposal of landAppropriation and disposal of land by local authorities
(1) The Local Government Act 1972 is amended as follows.
(2) For section 122(2)(b) substitute—
“(b) the council has complied with section 127A, as inserted by subsection (7) below.”.(3) In section 122A for the words after “appropriating the land” substitute “the council has complied with section 127A”.
(4) In section 123(2A) for the words after “disposing of the land” substitute “the council has complied with section 127A”.
(5) In section 126(4)(b) for the words after “appropriating the land” substitute “the council has complied with section 127A.”
(6) In section 126(4A) for the words after “appropriating the land” substitute “the council has complied with section 127A”.
(7) After section 127 insert—
“127A Conditions attaching to certain appropriations and disposals of land
(1) When a local authority appropriates or disposes of land under this section—
(a) the local authority shall give notice of its intention by advertisement in two consecutive weeks in at least one newspaper circulating in the area in which the land is situated, on the authority’s website and by notices on the land, and shall serve a copy of the notice on every other local authority and planning authority whose area includes or is adjacent to that area, (b) the notice shall indicate the location and boundaries of the land and of any land to be given in exchange, and where further information and plans may be inspected or copies obtained,(c) subject to subsection (2), unless the land to be appropriated or disposed of does not exceed 250 square yards (209 square metres) land must be provided in exchange that is not less in area and is equally advantageous to the public, to be vested in the local authority subject to the like rights, trust and incidents that attach to the land to be appropriated or disposed of,(d) the notice shall provide for a period of not less than 28 days from the date of the first advertisement during which objections can be made to the authority,(e) if the authority decides to amend its proposal these shall be subject to further notices in accordance with paragraphs (a) to (c),(f) a proposal that remains subject to objection and is not withdrawn by the authority shall be referred to the Secretary of State for decision.(2) If the local authority considers that land in exchange for that appropriated or disposed of under this section is unnecessary wholly or in part, the notice must state this and give the reasons for the statement.””
Lord Greaves
My Lords, Amendment 109A, which is on its own, is a long and apparently complex amendment, but it need not take us too long. It is about open space and what happens when open space is disposed of by local authorities. The amendment seeks to amend the Local Government Act 1972 to return it to something like its original form before it was amended in 1980.
The substance of this amendment comes from concerns raised by the Open Spaces Society, which argues that protections are insufficient, particularly around publicity, consultations and the requirement to consider objections. It is about urban open space in particular, which is precious and increasingly recognised as vital to life in towns and cities. The coalition agreement and government promises have made proposals for new designations and protections for green spaces in urban areas, although we have not yet seen the details. It would be a good time to strengthen protections for existing open space in these areas.
When we discussed a related amendment, Amendment 24, the Minister suggested that we might have a meeting to discuss the technicalities and see what substance the Government thought there might be in these proposals. Does she agree that perhaps we can discuss this amendment at the same time? On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving this amendment. We were not quite clear what was behind it but he has been very clear about the thrust of the amendment. We support its general direction, which is about protecting open space, particularly urban open space. I do question the use of the phrase “equally advantageous to the public”. I do not know if that is an existing term used in other legislation, but one of the requirements of the amendment is that it must be “not less in area”—understood; that is quite easy to determine—and is “equally advantageous to the public”. There will not necessarily be a single approach by the public as to the advantage of a particular piece of open space: it might be the tranquillity of the view or the opportunity for some recreation pursuits or indeed somewhere to walk the dog, whereas an alternative piece of open space may not be able to satisfy people in the same proportion or mix. I am sure that that issue could be overcome but I would be grateful if the noble Lord, when responding to the Minister, might expand a little on that test; the Minister may also have some views on that. However, I do see the thrust and the benefit of this amendment.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and I will, of course, withdraw the amendment on that basis. I am not sure what she meant by “devious route”. This appeared on the agenda. It consisted of me sitting at my computer and typing out the amendment and then taking it to those excellent and helpful people in the Public Bill Office who give advice on exactly how things can be done and whose office is one staircase below mine. So it was not very devious at all. This is a good moment to pay tribute and thank the people in the Public Bill Office who are extremely helpful to all of us in putting amendments down.
“Equally advantageous” and “exchanged land” are not alien concepts. Similar language is fairly frequently used as far as open space is concerned in relation to planning applications, particularly where people wish to develop on a common. I would have to check the Commons Act 2006 and the Planning Act 2008 to see what the exact wording is. I am not suggesting the wording in this amendment is perfect but I am putting it forward to get the problem discussed. I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to do that and on that basis I am happy to withdraw the amendment.