Localism Bill
Lord Jenkin of Roding Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has very kindly added his name to this amendment, tabled in my name. With this group of amendments, we turn to the subject of the mayoral development corporations in London.
Anybody with experience of development corporations, such as the London Docklands Development Corporation and other development corporations outside London, will recognise their hugely important role in urban regeneration in often very run-down areas. One essential characteristic that led to the success of these development corporations, not least the LDDC, was the provision that they had to be planning authorities and therefore had full authority over planning in their areas. In the 1980s this enabled my noble friend Lord Heseltine and my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon to trigger what we must all agree has been the most amazing regeneration of what was then the almost derelict area of London docks. My role came later, as Secretary of State for the Environment, and with my late friend Nicholas Ridley, then Secretary of State for Transport, we were responsible for promoting both London City Airport and the Docklands Light Railway. These have transformed the Docklands area and indeed much of east London. Therefore, it is no surprise that the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, supported by the Greater London Assembly, has persuaded the Government to include mayoral development corporations in the Bill. This is what Chapter 2 of Part 7 of the Bill is all about. As with all those who are concerned with the development and future of London, I warmly welcome most of this chapter but I have a few points to make.
I note in passing that the origin of this suggestion related to the Olympic legacy, for which these clauses will be of great value, but if it had been confined to the Olympic legacy, that would have made the Bill a hybrid bill. Therefore, the Government very wisely accepted that this proposal for development corporations in London should cover the whole of the area. Of course, they may not be confined to single boroughs, and indeed one of the attractions is that they could well cover an area that extends over more than one borough. The combination of this and the fact that they will be planning authorities in their own right has caused some anxieties on the part of the 33 London boroughs and the City of London. I remind the House that I have declared an interest at each stage that I am a joint president of London Councils.
There are two issues: first, whether the London boroughs should be represented on the mayoral development corporation boards, committees and sub-committees; secondly, what appears to be in the Bill an inadequate consultation of the boroughs on the formation and operation of a mayoral development corporation. I tabled the amendments in this group and I very much welcome the support of the Official Opposition in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I am grateful for the care with which my noble friend has replied to the amendments, but I have to say that I am concerned at what he said towards the end of his remarks about the London boroughs having to put their views to Assembly members who, in turn, will put them to the mayor. That is not a proper or, indeed, a dignified treatment of independent elected authorities which have made substantial comments on the mayor’s plans. I really am quite disappointed about that.
I understand the point made by my noble friend on the question of representation, and in particular on the question of numbers. What we are asking for is that they should at least have representation on committees and sub-committees, but all my noble friend has been able to say so far is that it would give maximum flexibility if this were not in the Bill because there is nothing to prevent the mayor making sure that there are such representatives. However, it does not oblige him to do so; the Bill merely says that this can be done. So I have to say that I am a bit disappointed.
I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to look at this again between now and Third Reading. I have to tell him that the boroughs feel strongly about the issue, and I am grateful to my noble friends Lord True and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill for what they said on the issue. The boroughs are concerned because while at the moment no other mayoral development corporations are planned beyond the Olympic Park Legacy Corporation, there will be, so we need to guard against the possibility of there being a serious conflict of interest, and the Bill ought to provide a proper machinery for dealing with that. I hope that I have convinced the House that this is the not the case at the moment.
Obviously I am not going to divide the House, but it does seem to me that I am entitled to ask my noble friend to have another look at this between now and Third Reading, which we shall not have for some weeks yet so there is plenty of time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Localism Bill
Lord Jenkin of Roding Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, this is the first time that I have addressed the House at the Report stage of this Bill. I have not taken part on the housing part of the Bill hitherto for one very good reason. It is exactly 50 years since I became the chairman of the housing committee of Hornsey Borough Council, and there has been an astonishing amount of change in that 50 years. Over the past two days I have learnt a very great deal about the current state of housing and the institutional framework in which housing in this country is currently run and managed. We all know that there is a huge shortage—perhaps more in London than in other parts of the country—and of course measures are in hand to deal with that.
I should immediately declare an interest, as I did in Committee. I am a president of London Councils and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has made the case for putting the housing and regeneration board for London on to a statutory basis. The question here is of the long-term security of the existence of an institution. As my noble friend said in response on this matter, and as was set out in the Government’s response to the amendments that were withdrawn at the end of Committee, the question is why you need to put this on a statutory basis when the Greater London Assembly, the mayor and London Councils have been able to agree it without a statutory basis. They say that putting it on a statutory basis would make it less flexible. However, the central point is that they asked for this. The mayor, the Assembly and London Councils all asked for it to be put on a statutory basis. Everything else that they asked for when they wrote to my right honourable friend last year—the end of the London Development Agency, the setting up of the Homes and Communities Agency and so on—has all happened; that is in the Bill. One thing that has not happened is putting this housing and regeneration board on to a statutory basis.
When really responsible democratic bodies such as the mayor, the Assembly and London Councils ask the Government to provide some stability and security for the arrangement that they have made, it is a little impertinent—if I may put it that way—for the Government to say, “No, we are not going to do this. We don’t think you should have it. You don’t know what you want”, or whatever it is. There is a strong case here for putting this on an effective statutory basis.
The amendment has been supported by Members of all parties in the House. All right, I am on record as having said that we must have much less bureaucracy etc. in the Bill. Happily, we are on the path to getting some of that. I had a nice birthday present of an e-mail from one of my noble friend’s officials this evening and I am extremely hopeful. This is not adding new bureaucracy. It makes an existing arrangement, set up voluntarily by democratic bodies, a statutory body and gives it and all those who will work with it the security that that would imply.
My noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill has made a strong case, supported by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and, from the government Back Benches, me. I hope that my noble friends will now be able to think again.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I can be extremely brief. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, indicated, we have put our name to the amendment and support it for the reasons that have been advanced by the noble Lords, Lord Palmer and Lord Jenkin. It is about getting long-term security of what has been agreed and what is seemingly in place into primary legislation. I am bound to say that we do not expect that Ken would overturn these arrangements any time soon. I can well understand that people may want security just in case it might cross his mind.
It is good to hear the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, again in our debates. His long-standing engagement with housing in Luton under the old system was seen as one of the more important committees. It was 10 years before I was allowed on it. He has a great deal more experience than I do. I support the amendments and urge the Government to take them forward. We do not need to be apart on this. There is agreement on what is happening. It is the right thing to do.
Localism Bill
Lord Jenkin of Roding Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Greaves, who tabled this amendment, is unable to be here this afternoon—sadly for us, maybe not for him. Clause 124 deals with local finance considerations in connection with applications for planning permission. It provides that local finance considerations may be considered in dealing with those applications in so far as they are material to the applications. My noble friend’s amendment provides:
“For the avoidance of doubt”,
the relevant subsection,
“should not be read to imply that any greater weight should be placed on local finance considerations than on other material considerations”.
My noble friend Lord Greaves knows, because we discussed it yesterday, that this is not my preferred option, but I am very happy to move it in order for it to contribute to the debate.
We have heard that, in this reference to local finance considerations and their materiality, there is no change to the law and that this is merely a matter of clarification. Indeed, that is what the amendment says. Perhaps it is necessary to make it clear that the materiality of financial matters should be no weightier than other material considerations. However, it is important—indeed, essential—to be clear that planning permissions cannot be bought and sold and that they should not be thought of as being able to be bought and sold.
The issue is topical because of the new homes bonus announced by the Government. In their response to consultation on the bonus in February this year, they said:
“Local planning authorities will be well aware that when deciding whether or not to grant planning permission they cannot take into account immaterial considerations. The New Homes Bonus cannot change this, and nor is it intended to. Local planning authorities will continue to be bound by their obligations here”.
This bonus is not the first matter on which finance and planning have come together on a list of matters which a local planning authority has to consider. Noble Lords will be familiar with Section 106. The not bought or sold issue was stated unequivocally in Circular 05/05, which deals with Section 106:
“The use of planning obligations must be governed by the fundamental principle that planning permission may not be bought or sold. It is therefore not legitimate for unacceptable development to be permitted because of benefits or inducements offered by a developer which are not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms”.
That is fine so far and, I should have thought, fine as regards any new source of finance. However, Clause 124 raises a number of issues, of which I shall refer to just two. One is material considerations. That term has been defined in case law, not statute, since the birth of our town and country planning system in 1947. The second raises the issue of how government incentives are to influence planning decisions. The Royal Town Planning Institute commented on this. It stated:
“The RTPI recognises that the use of incentives to stimulate development is at the heart of the Government’s approach to growth. However, we firmly believe that the point at which incentives should affect policies and cultures is when local authorities and communities are preparing plans for their areas—not at the point of deciding on the individual applications that deliver that plan”.
As I said, that is the view of the RTPI and it is my view as well.
If there is no change in how material considerations are to be dealt with, not only, in my view, is it not necessary to provide for this in legislation but it is positively harmful. Clause 124 must mean something and I think that it can mean only the elevation of financial considerations above others. Can this not be dealt with by circular or guidance in the way that these matters are currently dealt with?
I have a question for the Minister, of which I have given him notice. Can he explain the case law or anything else that has led the Government to take the view that the position needs to be stated in primary legislation rather than simply confirmed in guidance? If it has to be referred to in primary legislation, why is there not just an obligation on the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the local planning authority so that it has regard to local financial considerations so far as they are material to the application, as well as regard to the provisions of the development plan so far as they are material and any other material considerations?
I hope that I have been clear about the danger that I believe exists in trying to address a problem that is not there. By doing so, you suggest that there is an issue which you are denying—have the Government stopped beating their wife yet? My strongly preferred solution is to remove the clause entirely, but I am very happy to move my noble friend’s amendment because it raises issues on which I hope the Government can reassure the Committee today. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hamwee has put a very convincing case. Like others, when I received a flood of representations from a number of environmental and other bodies that the clause opened the door to buying planning permission, I thought to myself that that cannot be right. I looked into it and, of course, I found that the provision is really intended to be a restatement and clarification of existing provisions. I shall not repeat what my noble friend has said about the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and her reference to any other material considerations.
In his absence, I say to my noble friend Lord Greaves, who has taken a great deal of time during the passage of the Bill to put his views to the House, that I think this is a brilliant amendment. It exactly meets what we want to say. We need a restatement of the law and it would not surprise me at all if my noble friend indicated that that was the legal advice which the Government have had. However, it is right to say that finance is no more material than any other consideration that a planning authority has to take into account. I would be perfectly happy with the clause if amended in this way.
My noble friend Lady Parminter’s opposition to Clause 124 standing part forms part of the first grouping on the list and I thought, “Gosh, this must be important”. I think this matter has been blown out of proportion. Nothing in this suggests that planning permission can be bought and sold. Other provisions, which we discussed earlier, such as the community infrastructure levy, the whole question of Section 108 and various other measures, are all important planning considerations. As I understand it, this clause with the amendment is exactly what the House should want. I very much support it.
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, I oppose that Clause 124 stand part of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Jenkin was kind enough to reflect on the fact that I gave notice of this matter only because I think it is important, and it remains an important issue. This clause outlines the fact that financial considerations can be material to a planning application and it was added on Report in the Commons. The Minister then said that,
“it is an incidental measure for clarification”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/5/11; col. 271.]
Frankly, why is such clarification needed in statute?
As my noble friend Lady Hamwee has stated, the test for establishing what considerations are material in planning have developed from case law, not statute, since 1947. The classic statement is found in the 1970 case of Stringer v Minister for Housing and Local Government, which makes it clear that any consideration which relates to the development of land is capable of being a planning consideration. Accordingly, there is no legal or policy restriction in place that forbids financial considerations from being taken into account in relation to judicial decisions on planning applications. Indeed, over time, the courts have asserted that a range of particular financial considerations can be taken into account.
However, as this clause stands, it threatens the probity of planning. It sends a message out to developers that under this new planning system, which relies heavily on incentives—not top-down targets—to secure development, such planning permissions can be bought and sold. This concern has a long history. In 1997, the Nolan committee’s report on the standards of conduct in local government made it clear that the Government should consider whether the present legislation on planning obligations is sufficiently tightly worded to prevent planning permissions from being bought and sold. A key principle of planning has been that applications are decided on their planning merits, which can already include financial considerations, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee has said. Many of us who are or have been councillors will be only too familiar with Section 106 and other planning obligations where funding is used to make an otherwise unacceptable planning application acceptable in planning terms.
However, this clause elevates financial considerations above all other legitimate planning considerations, which are not mentioned here or anywhere else in statute, and it can be read as meaning that financial inducements that are irrelevant to the merits of a particular development proposal can be material in determining planning applications. As such, it is a fundamental and deeply damaging change to the planning system.
If further clarification is needed on the relationship between financial considerations and considering planning applications, then the way to achieve this is by drawing up guidance for local authorities, not through primary legislation. The probity of the planning system is crucial, and is indeed vital if we are to achieve community buy-in to sustainable development, and meet the housing needs that we know are out there in our communities.
This clause threatens to bring the planning system into disrepute, and should be withdrawn.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would like to speak to Amendments 168 and 169.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly entitled to speak to an amendment that has not been moved because, as the clerks will tell one, an amendment belongs to the House. I have to say, though, that it is totally contrary to the spirit and conventions of this House that someone should seek to speak to an amendment that has not been moved. We cannot stop the noble Lord, but I hope that he will do so extremely briefly. I have a number of other amendments in exactly the same situation, and I do not intend to say anything about them at all.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn)
If the noble Lord speaks to the amendment, he must move it.
Localism Bill
Lord Jenkin of Roding Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jenkin of Roding
“(b) providing that which CIL provided initially under paragraph (a) on an ongoing basis.”
Lord Jenkin of Roding
In moving this amendment, I wish to discuss the other two with which it is grouped. I tabled these amendments before we had the debate last Tuesday in which we discussed the application of the community infrastructure levy. Anxieties had already been aroused with regard to the original purpose of the levy being altered. My noble friend Lord Attlee spelt out that purpose very correctly. It is meant to support infrastructure development and be paid by the developer of a facility such as housing or industry. My noble friend Lord Greaves had moved an amendment which would widen the permitted use of the levy receipts beyond infrastructure matters that support the development of the area. My noble friend Lord Attlee said:
“We want to reflect on whether continuing to limit spending solely to providing infrastructure restricts local authorities’ ability to support and enable development of the area”.—[Official Report, 12/7/11; col. 707.]
He went on to say:
“We want to reflect on the amendments proposed by my noble friends Lord Greaves and Lord Tope to allow the spending of the levy on matters other than infrastructure”.—[Official Report, 12/7/11; cols. 709.]
These words have aroused considerable anxiety. I have a copy of a letter written yesterday by the Institution of Civil Engineers to the Secretary of State. The letter was copied to my right honourable friend Greg Clark and my noble friend Lord Attlee. The institution’s chairman wrote:
“I am writing to highlight concerns regarding the Government’s undertaking to reflect on allowing the use of the Community Infrastructure Levy on matters other than infrastructure. The Levy was specifically conceived and justified to provide for new and upgraded infrastructure—a point reinforced by the Government many times”.
Indeed, they did so most recently last Tuesday through my noble friend Lord Attlee.
The purpose of these three amendments is to try to get clarification on three specific issues. First, Amendment 148ZZBBBA seeks to ensure that the application of CIL is confined to the provision and maintenance of an infrastructure project which is in an approved charging schedule, on the ground that that fulfils the original purpose of the introduction of the CIL. The institution believes—I accept the case that was made on Tuesday and is in the Bill—that this should include what is called in the Bill “ongoing expenditure”, which I understand to mean the maintenance of an approved infrastructure project financed by CIL. I hope that my noble friend can give me a very clear undertaking that there is no question of this levy being used simply to fill a revenue hole in a local authority’s budget. It has to be confined to the provision and maintenance of an infrastructure project.
My second point has been touched on but I would like to be given a much needed assurance. There are plenty of examples of where developers have agreed to make a contribution under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. If a developer has made such an agreement—sometimes it can last for a number of years—he should not be charged the CIL in addition. I hope that my noble friend can give me a clear undertaking on that. It was briefly discussed, and if we had not risen when we did on Tuesday, I would have intervened, because I was expecting to move the amendment on Tuesday night. I said, “Let’s wait until I am speaking”.
My third point concerns the suggestion of compensating communities by allowing CIL receipts to be passed to other persons. I do not quarrel with that—although I know that some object—but it must be spent on infrastructure projects. It must not be allowed to be a financial recompense paid to a community because it has development in its area. I hope that my noble friend can give me a clear assurance on that.
My final point is that the area must not be too tightly defined. There is anxiety that that may be the effect of the Bill. For instance, if the money has to be spent in the area, how will that fund a bypass which may be necessary as a result of the development, or flood defences, which may have to happen well outside the area but are clearly for its benefit?
I have asked a number of questions, and I do not think that I need to go on longer. Those are seen as serious issues by those concerned with re-establishing our infrastructure in this country. I took part in the original debate on the CIL when the 2008 Bill was going through the House. Indeed, I tried to ensure that both Houses would be able to approve the delegated legislation under it. I carried that in this House, but it was turned down by the then Leader of the House in another place. I have a considerable interest in making sure that we get this right. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I am very pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, on this group of amendments. He has articulated very well the problems which the CIL could cause developers. It is particularly important for bigger projects, which might be taken through a hybrid Bill process, through the IPC or the Transport and Works Act, where the decisions are effectively made by Ministers. Ministers will approve—or not—a deal which ends up as a Section 106 agreement. The worry is that, completely separately, the local authority might want to put a CIL charge on the project. One must think of the effect on business confidence when considering ports, airports, logistics centres, railways, roads, power stations or anything else of that size, and of the figures involved.
The people who run Gatwick Airport have told us that they are committed under a Section 106 agreement to contribute about £1 million annually to public transport via a levy on their car park revenues. If they had also been required to pay a CIL to the local authority—probably retrospectively, because it may well have happened after the Section 106 agreement was signed—they would not know what liability they would be stung for, frankly. To give two bigger examples, Hutchison Ports had a Section 106 agreement to extend the ports at both Felixstowe and Bathside Bay. It was committed under the agreement to spend about £100 million on upgrading the railway line to Leeds. We can question why it should be Leeds, but that is what was agreed. I think that the London Gateway port project, downstream on the Thames, had to contribute a similar amount for road improvements between there and the M25. If, having signed up to all that, they are suddenly stung for a CIL, it will put off developers from going ahead with these projects. It is after all the Government’s wish to develop new projects—I return again to the Secretary of State for Transport’s plan to build a high-speed railway line to Birmingham and beyond. You can imagine that people in villages along the route who do not like the plan, having had their referendum to vote against it, will then try to sting the promoters, whoever they may be, for a CIL. It could get quite interesting. It will put off business and I hope that when the Minister responds he can strengthen the assurance that was given in another place that a CIL will not be levied on projects for which a Section 106 agreement has been entered into and agreed.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I think that I will come to a point later in my speech that should deal with the noble Lord’s concerns.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin also proposes Amendment 148ZZD, the effect of which would be that where regulations require the charging authority to pass funds to another body, it would retain ultimate control over how those resources are used by confining spending to matters it determines appropriate.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
It is a question not of control but of what the funds can be spent on. That is what I am asking. If it is going to pass the resources to somebody else, it is with the purpose of giving the somebody else the opportunity to spend them. What I have argued is that it must be infrastructure, whether initial or ongoing. Will my noble friend not accept that?
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 Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I have listened to my noble friend with great care. I shall clearly want to read very carefully what he has said. I realise that we asked him a number of questions for which he perhaps did not have the original briefing. I do not think that what he has said today will provide any comfort to the bodies that have been very concerned about the provisions in the Bill.
The provision in Section 216 of the original 2008 Act uses the word “includes”, but this has always been taken to mean, “This is what it is”. The purpose of the clause of the Bill is to extend it: that is, the regulation is taken and the powers are there for ongoing expenditure—we have accepted that. However, the question is: can it be extended to something that is not infrastructure? I contend that the original intention of the Act was perfectly clear and that the answer to that has to be no. My noble friend Lord Greaves thinks that it ought to be spent on things like double glazing. I totally disagree. This is not infrastructure in any conceivable sense of the word, and therefore he put forward an amendment to say that it should be used for other forms of development. My noble friend replied to that on Monday by saying that he was going to look at it and reflect on it.
The people who are really concerned with getting on with building infrastructure, and I quoted from the Institute of Civil Engineers, are really very concerned about this, because this is not what was said when the Bill was introduced in 2008. We have to be very careful. We are talking about very large sums of money. I was very grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. He made the point that some of these projects are very large. The ICE estimates that the CIL income by 2016 will be around £1 billion a year, so we are not talking about peanuts, we are talking about very large sums indeed. We have to get it right. My noble friends have said that they will consider this and, I hope, be able to meet with some of those who are genuinely concerned before we have to deal with it on Report. What is perfectly clear is that this is not a satisfactory state of affairs at the moment. I will certainly want to return to it, but in the mean time I hope that we can have a meeting to which I can bring along some of the advisers who have been helping me with this, and that we can talk to the departmental officials. It really has to be dealt with so that the position is clear. As I say, we are talking about large sums of investment money. If you are going to have investment, there has to be certainty so that people know where they stand. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, it may be helpful if I make the point that it is very much the Government’s hope and expectation to publish the forthcoming business early tomorrow. It will set out the programme for next week and, indeed, for the two weeks in September. It has not been possible to be absolutely certain about this because at least one of the participants, particularly as far as September is concerned, has been taking part in the debate, and a little more consultation has to take place. However, it is expected that the forthcoming business can be produced by tomorrow.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Does that mean that we will be taking the Localism Bill next Tuesday?
Electricity Market Reform
Lord Jenkin of Roding Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Marland
My noble friend Lord Teverson has always asked the apposite question. First, we want to get away from the language of a “dash for gas”. Gas will be fundamentally important. We are not dashing for it. We have to make sure that we separate the price of oil and gas. Gas is now a very competitive energy product, as we have noticed in the USA where shale gas has been discovered. We do not want to call it a dash for gas. It is long-term support for gas.
As to the market mechanism, Ofgem will be tasked with bringing liquidity into the market as the regulator. It has got to show some teeth in generating regulation. You get there by people generating their own electricity and feeding into the market on the one hand, and on the other requiring less from the electricity providers by having energy-saving products such as the Green Deal and smart meters—part of the programme that we have been pretty unified in wanting to adopt.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I will be quite short but can my noble friend answer one or two questions? First, we have waited a long time for this Statement. As I understand it, the reforms will require legislation. When are we likely to see the Bill? Secondly, he referred to the various forms of energy generation but I am a bit disappointed that we have in this White Paper a framework for renewables when we also need a framework for nuclear—my noble friend will realise that the Select Committee is currently looking at this. While I welcome the regular statement that is put out by Ministers on the importance of nuclear, there is huge doubt at the moment about what is going to happen after what they call the interim date of 2025. This is certainly affecting the idea of any investment for the future.
Finally, my noble friend referred to the need for new institutions to administer the FIT with contracts for difference, and also the new capacity payments. Can he give us a little more indication of what form those institutions might take? They are clearly going to perform a very important role in the new market structure that the White Paper foreshadows.
Lord Marland
As ever, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, knows the subject. I am slightly disappointed that he does not believe that there is a nuclear framework. We announced that there are to be six new nuclear power stations and reaffirmed that announcement two weeks ago and the sites where they will be located. Realistically, there are a number of issues in terms of the balance sheets of some of the companies wanting to invest—as we have seen from the fall-out in Germany. Having spoken with EDF, Iberdrola and others this week, I know that they are very committed to the cause of the nuclear framework.
As to when the legislation will happen, we are obviously hoping that it will start at the end of this year. There are some timing issues, even with getting the first Energy Bill back to this House—as we all know. The legislation issue will be difficult because there is a certain logjam in the other place.
On who will operate and regulate the supply, this will largely be Ofgem, which will have greater teeth. As we are running a little bit out of time, I am happy to discuss at a later time with the noble Lord the various component parts of that rather than going into it now—if he is happy for me to do so.
Localism Bill
Lord Jenkin of Roding Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jenkin of Roding
“(6) Before determining whether it is appropriate to hold a local referendum under subsection (2), the principal local authority must notify—
(a) any person who is named in the petition or request,(b) any person who is the owner or occupier of any land to which the petition or request relates, and(c) any other person whom the authority considers to have an interest which is likely to be affected by any steps that the authority may take to give effect to the result of the referendum.”
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I am happy we should also discuss my Amendments 128EA and 129CA. So far in this discussion of referendums we have tended to see it almost in a bilateral way between the public, who might petition and support a referendum, and the local authority, which might be disposed to agree to hold a referendum and have to deal with the results. These amendments are concerned with the third party: a person or company whose activities may have been the cause of suggesting that there should be a referendum. Putting it briefly, they should be involved in some way in the process, being consulted at the different stages and having the opportunity to have their say. This is what these three amendments are about.
When we come to it later, the Bill is perfectly clear on how and why a referendum might be held. It is also clear that it would not be binding on the local authority, but the processes are not as clear as they should be. I will take the example of an airport. I have had the advantage of consulting the company that runs Gatwick Airport, but the issue could apply to similar projects and institutions around the country. Of course, if the proposal is of the major kind that comes within the purview of the Infrastructure Planning Commission, or the MIPU that will take its place under the Bill, there is a separate procedure: I will not touch on that.
In the case of airports, the level for application of the processes of the IPC is if a development would involve more than 10 million passengers a year. That is a pretty big hurdle. A great deal of what goes on—this may apply to power stations or even reservoirs, but will certainly encompass airports—including a great deal of the ongoing development that falls below that limit, will therefore have to be considered by the local authority.
I am not referring now to the question of planning, which we will deal with later when we debate the next clause. The question is whether a project may be put forward that has aroused opposition and may therefore provoke a referendum. Gatwick Airport is a good example because it exemplifies exactly what might be expected. Gatwick is the UK's second largest airport. As I have learnt in the course of my discussions, it has the busiest single runway in the world. That is an astonishing fact, but it is what I am told. The airport serves 200 destinations in 90 countries, with around 33 million passengers a year. The airport recently had a change of ownership. The new owners are very busy developing the airport so that its potential can be properly utilised for the benefit not only of the local economy but of the country as a whole. The airport provides around 25,000 jobs on campus and another 13,000 across the region. It generates a very large amount of wealth, as noble Lords may imagine.
The airport does not operate in a vacuum. It is surrounded by local communities and is close to a number of towns. The owners are very conscious of the need to be responsible developers and to take account of local opinion. They have always done that and I suspect that the new management are doing it rather better than their predecessors. Therefore, we are talking about how to achieve a balance between the very desirable objective in the Bill of giving local residents a bigger say in what happens in the areas in which they live, and giving investors the confidence that is necessary if they are going to develop their business. That is the issue. Hitherto we have been talking about the first aspect: the question of how local communities can have a say. The second, of course, is what these amendments are intended to address.
One should remember that a commercial institution like Gatwick Airport often has to work to extremely tight timetables. It has to raise finance and have regard to its regulator. An economically regulated airport such as Gatwick can face severe financial penalties if the targets set by the regulator are not met. Investors need the certainty that there will be no potential obstacles to meeting those timetables so they can be reasonably sure of avoiding the penalties.
How is this new system going to be applied to them? How are you going to deal with this? The purpose of my amendments, as I said at the beginning, is to provide the clarity which the Bill does not have at the moment. They would provide for a transparent consultation between a local authority and an affected third party—in this case the company running the airport—which might be named in a local referendum as to whether it is appropriate that a referendum should be held at all. Further, if a referendum is to be called that relates to it, it should be notified.
Finally, Amendment 129CA would ensure that a named third party—in this case the manager of the airport or it might be any of the other investors with ongoing development requirements—should be consulted before the local authority chooses whether to give effect to the result at all. We have already discussed that the referendum is not binding: it is a decision the local authority would have to take. All the clause asks is that the affected third party should have an opportunity to have a say and that the local authority should have regard to any representations.
It might be said that these things are so automatic they ought to happen already. I am sure that is not always the case. People can sometimes plough ahead. It may be an unpopular development. I have not been told, but I suspect that around major airports there are communities deeply hostile to what goes on there; it would not surprise me in the least. I used to live near Stansted Airport and, as we have all seen, the opposition to the expansion has been immense. There has been intense opposition. Every airport will have that but they need to be reasonably sure that the managers and the developers can have a proper opportunity to have their say and for their views to be taken into account.
That is what these three amendments do. They provide a level of safeguard against what one might call the unintended consequences of what is otherwise a desirable development. It is people having more of a say about what happens in their own areas. When I questioned the people from the airport they told me firmly, “We agree it is right and proper that local people should be able to express their views on issues specific to their area”. I come back to the point that it is a question of holding the balance. My amendments simply intend to provide reasonable procedures which would enable a better chance with the local authority holding the balance as it should. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, the first amendment is an unnecessary addition to the responsibilities of local authorities. On the kind of issue the noble Lord has addressed, such as a very controversial issue like an airport or major development, it is inconceivable that a prospective developer would be unaware of a petition doing the rounds. On the other hand paragraph (b) of Amendment 126ZA says,
“any person who is the owner or occupier of any land to which the petition or request relates”.
I can think immediately of situations in my own ward where we have empty properties about which there is considerable concern. There might well be petitions coming to the local authority to do something about them but very often it is impossible to know who the owner of the property is or how to contact the owner. Again, that would create a significant burden and, with the best possible motive, it is overegging the responsibilities of the authority.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am most grateful. I take on board what the noble Baroness said but noble Lords opposite and my noble friend Lord Newton have made it clear that this process should not be so burdensome that it kills off the very expression of local opinion that we want to generate.
As regards the amendments tabled by my noble friend, I share his concerns that no person should find himself featuring in a referendum without an opportunity to make representations on the matter. But that I am sure is in the nature of these things and the dialogue within local communities. I understand that my noble friend is using the word “person” in the strictly legal sense of meaning company and corporate activity. In my estimation, it would be a rare case, as I have said, that a referendum will in practice concern a situation where people are totally unaware of the issues that are subject to a referendum.
Similarly, in deciding whether to give effect to a referendum result, the local authority will have regard to the need to balance the views of all interested groups. It will have regard to the economic interests of the area as perceived by it as a local authority and as elected representatives. To take such decisions is what local government has to do all the time. If there was any doubt that it would be appropriate for authorities to consult people directly affected by referendums, I hope that what I have said will dispel that. We believe that the amendments are unnecessary burdens on authorities and I hope that my noble friend will not press them.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I am grateful to all those who have expressed their views so frankly on this group of amendments. Of course, this is intended primarily to raise the issue and there have been a number of quite forceful responses. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for their support. Nevertheless, in response to my noble friend on the Front Bench, I feel myself in a sense wanting to say touché. Of course, I am not seeking to impose centrally or to tell local authorities the details of how they should do this. But it is part of the function of central government to protect local communities and ratepayers against possible abuse of processes by local government. One would always say that. But it does not need the great mass of legislation in this Bill.
Having said that, I am sure that those who have advised me on this will study the issue carefully and will decide whether it will be necessary to come back to this on Report. We will have quite a lot and it may be that this will not achieve enough support at that stage but we will look at it. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Localism Bill
Lord Jenkin of Roding Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
My Lords, like many other noble Lords I share the concerns expressed about these provisions. I want to start by asking the Government to give us an absolute assurance that they are confident that legally an EU fine levied on a member state can then be passed on to a local authority. I am not entirely sure that that is the case and would appreciate being given some comfort that it is true. My personal preference would be to see these clauses deleted, because I am not sure that the Government entirely realise what a can of worms they are opening. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, talked about where it is clear who is to blame, but EU fines would be levied only for a huge infraction—for example, in connection with air quality. It is almost inconceivable that it would be easy to point a finger and say that a particular person or organisation was responsible.
In fact, a large number of organisations would be responsible. Seeing the noble Lord, Lord Berkley, reminds me of the situation within the rail industry, where there are hundreds of people employed to do nothing but allocate blame. Every time a train is late, they go into a little huddle and work out whether it was the fault of Network Rail or the operator. When I am stuck on a train, I do not much care. This Bill is supposed to connect people with local politicians. We could have a situation where legal arguments drag on for years and cost millions of pounds while arbitrators try to sort out exactly who is responsible for the air quality of London. In that case, who will pay the fine? The public will look with bemusement while this goes on and they will rightly ask, “Why on earth did you not spend that money trying to deal with air quality rather than have this huge legal battle?”. I hope that the Government will think carefully about exactly what they are trying to do here.
Finally, it is a great pity that the whole dialogue and ethos of fining goes against everything we should be trying to do in terms of relationships between central and local government. It should be about looking at the best ways of resolving problems, not about allocating blame in this way and certainly not about allocating fines.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, a number of us mentioned this matter at Second Reading. One of the longest lists of noble Lords spoke in that debate and addressed the problem of these EU fines. I do not want to repeat what has already been said, but the most important factor we are dealing with is that the Secretary of State is an interested party, whether he or she likes it or not. Therefore, it cannot rest with the Secretary of State to decide how to deal with this EU fine if it emerges. It has never happened yet, but it may one day. It was my noble friend Lord Teverson, I think, who said the Secretary of State was not just judge and jury, but prosecutor and executioner. That puts it extremely well.
I have put my name to the amendments moved and spoken to most eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and to the longer amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Gardner. Both recognise, first, that there can be no allocation until there is responsibility, and, secondly, that it cannot be the Minister who does that; there has to be a process of arbitration. We are in the middle of a negotiation outside this House between local authorities, led to some extent by the Greater London Authority and the London boroughs and the department. What we hope to hear from my noble friend on the Front Bench is exactly what is happening there; what stage have these negotiations reached? Are we in the process of getting some sort of reasonable settlement? Clearly in Committee like this we do not take a final decision when we are, as the Romans said, “in medias res”. We are in the middle of the affair, so we need to know what the Government have in mind and what negotiations have been going on, where they have got to and when they expect to reach a reasonable conclusion.
I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, that the solution is not to delete the whole part of the Bill. I heard what my noble friend Lord Tope said on this, but the fact is, bluntly, if there is a serious infraction of a European directive, whether on air quality, water quality or whatever else, is it to fall solely upon taxpayers in general, even if it is perfectly possible to point the finger at the individual authority? At Second Reading, I quoted the example of a directive on waste and the position if a particular local authority was consistently failing to comply. Is it really being seriously suggested that the general body of taxpayers should contribute to the fine?
Of course, the purpose of all these things, as my noble friend Lady Scott said, is to encourage authorities and everybody else to comply with the regulations. That is what is intended but, as I asked in my Second Reading speech, as regards the problem of Heathrow, who is responsible for the air pollution? Noble Lords will have seen reports in the press today of the increase in stacking over Heathrow in the four stacking areas, which is materially adding to air pollution in London. They said it is because Heathrow has been forbidden to expand. I and I think most noble Lords actually support that. Successive Governments and parties have taken that decision, but who is going to pay if it leads to an EU fine? It seems unfair that the whole body of taxpayers should pay.
There has to be some reasonable, fair, proportionate solution and it is my understanding that that is what the discussions are trying to find. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench is going to be able to help us. I am sure I am not the only one who received a paper from the Greater London Authority with a document saying “possible policy statement text” with a summary and a number of key principles. It says:
“The use of these provisions must be fair, reasonable and proportionate. There will be an Independent Review Panel. There will be no surprises, and authorities will have opportunities to make representations. Decisions must be evidence-based and transparent”.
It goes on:
“Authorities will not be held responsible for breaches that were not within their power to avert and will only be fined if they have demonstrably caused or contributed to the fine and can afford to pay”.
I find it rather a difficult document to absorb but it sets out a substantial flow chart, which I am sure other noble Lords have seen, that shows the number of stages—opportunities for appeal, occasions when notice must be given and so on—whereby an authority might become liable. We need to know more about this. However, I am inclined to agree with those who say that it is not sufficient simply to send it all away. We must recognise that if there is a fine, there must be some mechanism for dealing with the matter.
I refer briefly to Amendment 117A in my name, which was suggested to me by one of the big water authorities. These are now private undertakings and have expressed concerns as to whether Clause 36 applies to them. It is a question of whether a water authority that was found, for instance, to have breached the urban waste water treatment directive—possibly as a result of the discharge of sewage into the Thames—would be liable to having a fine imposed on it. I understand that the Government are quite sympathetic to this and that it is not the intention that private undertakings should bear any part of this. Part of the reason for this, which was explained to me by the water companies, is that they are already subject to stringent regulatory controls by the Government. If they comply with those controls, they should be within the law. If they fail to comply, it is open to the regulators to take proceedings against them to make them comply.
Thames Water, for example, has long been concerned about the amount of sewage that can periodically overflow and run into the Thames, with discharges the whole way along. As a result, Thames Water is now planning—work is well under way—to establish a long sewage pipeline under the Thames, for most of its length, which will eventually discharge into the sewage treatment plant at Beckton. This is a huge project, which involves lengthy tunnelling and must avoid all the other tunnels that pass under the Thames. Thames Water is doing what it feels is justified. Therefore, it feels it would be a monstrous infraction to have to pay an EU fine because of a breach of the water directive. I hope my noble friend will be able to give me some comfort on that.
Lord Best
My Lords, I support the two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton. She has to be at the LGA conference today, which will miss its usual presidential address because I am here. I was much convinced by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who said that we should avoid this whole issue. It will get us into an awful lot of trouble and legal hot water. However, I suspect that that will not prove an acceptable course of action and there will have to be an apportionment of blame to decide who the polluter is when the polluter must pay. That leads us to worry that that apportionment of blame cannot be undertaken by the Secretary of State at the Department for Communities and Local Government or Defra. They would be parties to the case and it would offend natural justice if they were the ones to decide how blame should be apportioned.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I believe that that is the intention of my noble friend’s amendment; the meter would run only from when the directive was designated.
The process must be fair, reasonable and proportionate. I therefore warmly welcome the draft policy statement from the Greater London Authority, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Jenkin, arising from discussions with the Government. A copy has been placed in the Library and I would welcome any comments on it. I was also very interested to see the amendments of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I am sorry; my noble friend is clearly doing his best, but the draft statement was obviously drawn up after the discussions had got so far with the department. Are those discussions still going on?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I will be delighted to deal with the noble Lord’s point later in my speech.
I was very interested to see the amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. In considering the merits of these, we would need to be certain that any panel would provide additional value on top of the existing availability of judicial review. Amendment 114A, tabled by my noble friends Lady Eaton and Lord Tope and the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord McKenzie, would take this a step further. I do not feel, however, that arbitration is appropriate. This is not just about deciding between disputing parties on a breach of contract; it is a complex matter that involves myriad decisions, including on the apportionment of resources and most importantly on the ability to pay. It is not appropriate for a single unelected individual to make such decisions, any more than it would be for them to decide the local government finance settlement.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, made a point about the revenue support grant. I go back to my point that it is not about raising money; it is about avoiding the fines in the first place.
Localism Bill
Lord Jenkin of Roding Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I have discussed with the Local Government Association and London Councils the central point which my noble friend Lord Greaves has referred to. This is a huge Bill and, as my noble friend has said, it is full of all sorts of prescriptive powers which tell local authorities what to do and how to behave.
I do not think that those who drew up most of the provisions of the Bill have taken on board what is meant by the general power of competence. We discussed this at the previous sitting of the Committee and a number of points were made. Local government bodies find themselves almost powerless to decide what should be excluded from the Bill or be written in far simpler terms to acknowledge that, with the general power of competence, they are perfectly capable of making up their minds as to how they wish to run their affairs.
I am not going to dwell on this subject—I certainly do not wish to take up a great deal of time—but I say to my noble friend that I find it disappointing that the opportunity has not been taken to accompany the general power of competence with a radical relook at how far central government has to prescribe so many detailed rules—either through taking powers by regulations or by spelling them out in the Bill—telling local authorities how to behave. In my discussions with, particularly, London Councils, it has simply said that it would be an entirely different kind of Bill if that were to happen. I have the greatest sympathy with its view that it is impossible to think how one might amend the Bill in order to achieve the inevitable consequence of giving local authorities a general power of competence. It is what the authorities have been clamouring for for a long time—and here it is. But what are the consequences? Whitehall is still going to tell them what to do and how to behave in very great detail. With all the additional regulations to which the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and my noble friend Lord Greaves have referred, it will get ever more complex in giving directions.
It is very disappointing that we still have this mass of detailed, prescriptive legislation for local authorities which has entirely failed to take account of what is intended to be a genuine new start for them with a general power of competence. I do not think there is anything we can do about it in Parliament. We could say, “Take this Bill away, rewrite it and recognise the general power of competence”, but that option is not open to this House when the Bill has already been through another place.
I hope the Government will recognise that there is a deep sense of dismay. The more one looks at the details in the Bill, the more one has to ask oneself the question: where is the general power of competence? What was the Bill supposed to achieve if it was not to achieve the aim of letting local authorities use their position, their power and their accountability to their own electorates to make their own decisions on a great many matters?
I recognise that there may be cases—my noble friend Lord True made this point—where there is a need to protect one tier against another and where there needs to be some kind of protection for council tax payers and so on. However, as I plough through the Bill, look at the amendments and have meetings with a number of representative bodies, I am dismayed by the thought that we have to deal with a local government Bill—although it is called the Localism Bill—which bears such a close resemblance to everything that Parliament has had to consider before.
I shall not repeat this on every occasion—it would be a waste of the Committee’s time—but I feel quite strongly that a great opportunity has been missed.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market, perhaps I may give a very short introduction to this group of amendments. I say at once that my noble friend has been as good as her word and put her name to the main amendment in the group, Amendment 57. She will no longer press the case for mayors and chief executives to combine their role. With this having been virtually outlawed in public companies, and with the idea of an independent chairman and a chief executive being quite separate, having become very nearly standard in major quoted companies, it would seem very odd that local authorities should be moving in the other direction. I am delighted that the Government have seen that that is not a very sensible way to go. I have the same difficulty as my noble friend Lord Tope in trying to find out exactly where we have got to. In moving this amendment, I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to make all things clear. I beg to move.
Lord Tope
My Lords, my name, too, is on this amendment like that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market. Unfortunately my noble friend is unable to be here today—which I think she particularly regrets given the other names that have now been added to the amendment. I echo all that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has said, and I am relieved to know that even with all his experience, he is possibly nearly as confused as I am about exactly where we are left with this, except that it is certainly in a much better place than it was a few days ago, which is welcome.
I understand now—in the proper spirit of localism, I suppose—that those mayors who are minded also to become chief executives, as I think is intended in Leicester, are at liberty to do so. I said at Second Reading that localism must mean the right to make the wrong decision. Therefore, I have to defend the right to make the wrong decision. There should be a clear difference between the role of an elected political leader and the role of a chief executive—I realise that we still have a head of paid service. A chief executive is usually, in theory, apolitical. There is a clear distinction and I regret the extent to which that is becoming blurred.
Once again I thank the Minister not only for her support for the amendment but for being willing and able to come out and say so at an early stage in the Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, I look forward to a clear exposition of exactly where we are, and what is and is not in the Bill, as we go forward.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I am not sure that I can accept her reasoning for rejecting Amendment 58, which is also in my name—not least because I have been nice to her and about her for at least 21 years; she should be very well used to it by now. That is not a reason for being unable to give the reasons for rejecting the amendment. However, as I am moving Amendment 57 in this group, I beg leave to withdraw that amendment. No, I am sorry. I am so unused to this. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I have already moved Amendment 57. I had originally hoped that my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market would be here to move the amendment. We have had an exchange of e-mails and I am sorry to see that she is not. In those circumstances, I moved the amendment. I repeat, this is not so much a love fest as a return of common sense, and we are all delighted with that.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is one that certainly deserves some study. It is clear that he has put a lot of thought into it and he spelt out the case very clearly. I have had a slightly chequered experience of the mayor in London, having been the Minister responsible for the legislation that abolished the GLC and leaving it, I have to say, in a pretty unsatisfactory arrangement afterwards. The previous Government picked it up and took through Parliament the Bill that established the Mayor of London. After Mr Livingstone’s election, we bumped into each other—where else?—in a television studio. I said to him, “Ken, I should congratulate you on a remarkable victory”. “Oh, Patrick”, he said, “you were responsible for it”. In a sense I was, since I had created the situation where the position of a mayor for Greater London was possible, particularly a mayor who in his earlier capacity as leader of the GLC I had had a considerable passage of arms with. He was therefore perfectly entitled to make that remark.
Having said that, the fact is that it has worked in London; it has been a very considerable success. I did not agree with most of the things that Mr Livingstone did as mayor, and I am much more supportive of his successor. But the fact is that Parliament set up a structure that works, and that is something of which London can be proud. Furthermore, it works alongside the far more ancient post of the lord mayor of London, which is a tribute to the wisdom of those who have held the two posts over the years. No one confuses the two, except perhaps some foreigners. But the fact is that no one in London is confused about the role of the Mayor of London and that of the lord mayor. Indeed, Londoners turn out in large numbers for the lord mayor’s procession because it is a tradition of which Londoners are very proud. The difficulty lies in pointing to examples of where it has worked elsewhere.
I have come to the conclusion that there is a temptation for us to imitate the continental pattern, where mayors of major cities have risen to considerable prominence—indeed, some of them have become Prime Ministers. On one occasion, I was a member of a consultative body with Raymond Barre, who made his great reputation as the mayor of Lyon. There are plenty of other examples: Mr Chirac was the mayor of Paris. I do not know whether Boris Johnson has any ambitions in that direction, but at the moment he is seeking to defend his seat in London as the mayor. However, we have not had that tradition. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, mentioned Joseph Chamberlain and Neville Chamberlain. In earlier decades, being a mayor may have been seen as a pathway to the highest post in government but, on the whole, we have not followed the continental example.
I said at Second Reading that I supported the proposal to encourage the election of more mayors. I made it very clear that I was totally against the proposition for shadow mayors and my noble friend Lady Hanham has already conceded that provisions for that are being removed—she has been as good as her word and signed the amendments on it. Curiously enough, the other point on which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is that, despite our best endeavours and those of the excellent lady in the Government Whips Office who does the groupings, the groupings list is still not quite right, because my Amendment 82 is in this group, whereas it might well have been in the group following. It would be sensible for the moment just to discuss both groups together.
The Government have conceded that the proposals for shadow mayors have gone, but have proposed instead Amendment 81A, which my noble friends Lady Hanham and Lord Attlee have both signed. It leaves out the provisions for shadow mayors, but then goes on to insert:
“9N Referendum on change to mayor and cabinet executive … The Secretary of State may by order require a specified local authority to hold a referendum”.
I share some of the anxieties about that and cite only one example. It was a referendum not on a mayor but on an elected regional assembly in the north-east. It was where, apparently, the then Government thought they had the best chance of securing an elected regional assembly. In fact, despite their enormous efforts—virtually all the big guns from Westminster went to make the case in Newcastle and all around—they got, if I may put it crudely, a bloody nose. It was electorally for the then Government a disaster, and no further attempt has been made to establish by referendum an elected regional assembly. I do not want to put too fine a point on it, but the great majority of people do not have any allegiance to a region. They have county allegiances and they have a national allegiance, and they may have an allegiance to a town or a city, but a region is something which they do not relate to.
The other factor—I have to say that I have had family involvement here, which, to spare them embarrassment, I will not mention—is that the referendum’s having been imposed by the Government was a very good reason why the good people of the north-east said that they were not going to have anything to do with it. It was the imposition of a referendum which partially ensured its defeat. I am glad to see the Front Bench opposite nod on that.
That leads me to question, as did my noble friend Lord True, the wisdom of imposing referendums on a city for a mayor. I am not quite sure what is sought to be gained by this. I know that my noble friends have pointed to some of the very successful mayors—Barcelona is frequently mentioned—but I just question whether one can translate some of those continental examples to our big cities here in this country.
The city with which I had the most connection during my period of office as Environment Secretary was, of course, Liverpool. I inherited from my noble friends the rather unwelcome title of the Minister for Merseyside. It was the same election when the Militant tendency gained its supremacy in Liverpool and I had two extremely difficult years. My Prime Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, came up to see how I was getting on. She met some of the characters of Liverpool Council—and there was no meeting of minds. To my great relief she said, “Well, Patrick, I see what you are up against and we shall back you. But get on with it”. In the end, of course, it was a Labour leader who defeated the Militant tendency—it had to be. I had always said that only the Labour Party could do that; the Conservative Government could not. Liverpool is now becoming one of the most successful cities in the country. It has had a huge resurgence as the European City of Culture and a great deal else. I am not sure that it would have gained much by having a mayor—I do not know. When it was asked to, it did not elect a mayor, as has already been mentioned.
It has been an interesting discussion and I look forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say. I share the doubts about the wisdom of imposing a referendum on a city. The precedents are not encouraging —I have cited a couple of them—but my noble friend may well be able to persuade me. However, I sit down on a happier note: at least we are not going to have shadow mayors—and for that I am truly grateful.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the amendment has excited a deal of interest. I wish to make it absolutely clear that we are not talking about imposing mayors on cities; we are talking about imposing a referendum. It is crucial that we do not get too exercised about the imposition of a certain form of government. We are saying that it is the coalition Government’s view that cities would benefit enormously from having a mayor; they would benefit democratically and from all the interests that a mayor brings and all the influence that a mayor can exert. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, who is obviously not totally behind us on this, has pointed to the success of the London Mayor. When we first saw that starting, I do not think any of us thought that it would be very effective. In fact, it has been under two separate Governments; it has raised the profile of London.
We are trying to give a similar profile to other cities or to give local people the opportunity to say whether they think that would be an appropriate form of government for their city. The only imposition will come from the requirement to hold a referendum, and that requirement will be introduced under this legislation.
We believe that the economic growth and prosperity of our larger cities is absolutely essential to the economic recovery of the country as a whole. If we do not have good economic situations in the cities, things will look very dismal. We believe that a mayor would promote extra economic growth.
The Institute of Governance and the Centre for Cities have highlighted in their recent joint report that cities are the heartbeat of the United Kingdom’s economy. I think we would all support that. Although they occupy less than 10 per cent of the United Kingdom’s land, they contribute 60 per cent to its economic output.
The Government believe that it is clear that mayors are right for every major city. We remain true to our localist credentials, and it is absolutely up to the citizens to decide whether their city will have an elected mayor or not. We think they should, and we will be doing our utmost to ensure that everyone has all the facts about how a mayor can benefit the city and do a good sales job for its businesses and the people who live and work there. But finally and ultimately, the decision will be theirs.
We are committed to this in the coalition agreement. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was going to go seriously off-message and he may indeed seriously be still off-message. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, is not off-message, or all the other people who have signed up to this amendment. This is part and parcel of the coalition agreement that we should give local people in the larger cities in England a direct say on whether they want their city to have an elected mayor.
I know that local people can already petition for such a referendum. They can do it under previous legislation, and their elected representatives can decide, as they did in Leicester, where they have gone ahead of the game. There the council decided that the city should have a mayor, with the first mayor being elected there in May. We are convinced that the issue is now of pressing importance for the cities and for the country as a whole, and that people in the major cities should have a simpler, more immediate means for addressing the question. In short, as soon as practicable, people in each of the largest cities should have an opportunity of deciding whether they want an elected mayor. Some see this as central government imposition and “anti-localist”. We disagree completely with that. It will be for the local people to decide.
We have listed the cities, but the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, tabled Amendment 81B, where he wants specifically to have the cities named in the Bill. We will not agree to this, as it would have the effect of making the Bill hybrid, which would be a terrible mistake. Apart from that, even if that was not the situation, it would provide uncertainty, and I think that the House feels that that should be avoided. Given that the House will be asked to approve any order under Section 9, which is the order-making power, and we will have an opportunity to debate the merits of each city holding a referendum, I do not believe that it is necessary to set that out in primary legislation. I will certainly resist Amendment 81B.
I will be resisting the other amendments, including that on raising the threshold from 5 per cent to 10 per cent. In the cities, 5 per cent would be a very substantial proportion, and we should not make the hurdle any higher than that. As it is cities that we are talking about, we would not want to change that percentage.
I am not going to address each amendment. I have given an indication of why we believe that the mayoral referendum proposal should first of all come to this House and, if agreed, should go on to the cities to be carried out as soon as possible so we can have a decision and get on with having elections in the next year or the next 18 months. I thank noble Lords for their contributions but regret to say that I will not be accepting any of the amendments. I ask the noble Lord who moved the amendment to withdraw it.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, which was almost precisely in the terms that I expected. I shall refer briefly to the interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, who talked about the success of the mayoral system in London. Arguably, that is the case, but there were successful leaders of London before the mayoral system—Herbert Morrison has been cited but one could also cite Horace Cutler as a Conservative leader or indeed Ken Livingstone in his original incarnation.
I am not sure whether it was the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, or the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, that Ken Livingstone was referring to on one occasion when, on emerging from Marsham Street, as it then was, having had one of a series of meetings in the dark days of the 1980s when the GLC was at loggerheads with the Government, he was asked, “Why are you going to see him again?” and he replied, “I think he likes me for my body”. Whether it was the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, or the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, who said that, I am not entirely sure.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I assure the noble Lord that it was not me. I would also question whether or not it was my noble friend Lord Heseltine. It may be a bit apocryphal.
Lord Beecham
I recall seeing it on television at the time. At all events, the noble Lord refers to a continental pattern, but the continental pattern is actually very varied. He mentioned Barcelona but, as I pointed out, in Barcelona there is no direct election for mayor. There are direct elections or indirect elections in different places and, as I also indicated, there are places where the mayor or burgermeister is a Crown or state appointment. The proposition here is more American in its origins, rather like the unfortunate police commissioner proposal —and equally tainted, in the view of some of us.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, also referred to Liverpool. I well remember those days, and I remember the noble Lord going out of his way to be helpful to a very difficult group of people who, having managed to persuade him to make some concessions, then went extremely triumphalist at his expense and indeed may have caused him to move on from his job, an ill reward for a Minister who was doing his level best to help a difficult situation, but not one that surprised those of us who knew those with whom he was dealing. I recall a Sunday Times “Life in the Day” when Mr Hatton was talking about his family and how his daughter was very keen on horses. The article ended by saying that she liked nothing better than “to have a little trot around”, which seemed to me entirely appropriate. The noble Lord was extremely patient and forbearing, and those of us who remember him at that time acquired then and have since retained great respect for him and his style of politics.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
The noble Lord is being more than generous. I should point out that that most demanding of bodies, the 1922 Committee, had absolutely no doubt that I had been suborned by the leaders of Liverpool, and I had overwhelming support from that committee.
Lord Beecham
The noble Lord certainly deserved it.
The Minister talked about Amendment 81B as being out of place because it would provide uncertainty. On the contrary: the point of that amendment is to limit the operation of the imposed referendum—I accept entirely that an imposed referendum is what we are discussing, not an imposed mayoral system—to these 11 cases. If there is a technical problem with what is in effect a sunset clause dealing with that group of authorities, perhaps on Report we will have to recast it. I think that it is fair to say that it will be our intention to test the opinion of the House at that stage about whether it is right to press on with imposing referendums in the way that the Bill provides. We do not think that it is right to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has raised a legitimate question about the cost, which will no doubt feature in any campaigns which have to take place.
One further point is something of a puzzle. The expression regarding the definition of these authorities was that they were the “11 largest cities”. Well, that is not the case. Assuming, for the moment, that some of them are in fact cities, there are others: the city of Sunderland has a larger population than Newcastle; Kirklees, a collection of Yorkshire towns, is also substantially larger than Newcastle; and there is Hull. I do not quite know the basis on which the 11 have been chosen. However, these are the lucky 11 that remain in the frame. We on this side of the House will do our best to see that the overall principle is rejected by the House and then, if not, that the mandatory exercise is confined to these 11 authorities.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, as I spoke at length to the earlier amendment, I can deal with this extremely briefly. This amendment and Amendment 79, which are in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, are intended to be paving amendments to the substantive amendment which we discussed in the previous group, Amendment 82. My noble friend may wish to refer to some of the amendments to which she has put her name in this group. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
I just want to confirm that the effect of the amendment is to remove the possibility of an authority being required to hold a referendum again within 10 years once a first referendum has rejected the idea of a mayor. I understand that to be the position, but having worked quite long and late on these matters, I was not entirely sure that my mind was sufficiently clear to appreciate that point. The Minister seems to be confirming that situation, which is eminently satisfactory.
Lord Best
I send the Minister on her way with further congratulations on the changes that have withdrawn the offending passages about shadow mayors. The top three in the Local Government Association’s long list of hopeful amendments include removal of the references to the combination of elected mayor and chief executive and removal of the issues around shadow mayors. That just leaves in our top three the question of EU fines, which will come up later. However, two out of three so far is extremely satisfactory and we are extremely grateful to the Minister for that.
Localism Bill
Lord Jenkin of Roding Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I look forward to addressing the questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, has just raised when we come to the neighbourhood section of the Bill. It is important that for such people, and indeed for Gypsies and others who have traditionally been made unwelcome, we have a system whereby localism does not become exclusion.
I welcome the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. My noble friend Lady Hanham may remember that in 2006 my brother, Tim Palmer, published a pamphlet with Policy Exchange called No More Tears. If she has read that, she will realise that I am a considerable radical when it comes to localism—I share his views—and I regard the Bill as a small step on the way. In her reply to the amendment, I hope that at this stage of the Bill we shall have a good exposition of where the Government stand on localism at the moment, which will give us a good context for the rest of these debates.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, there was much in my noble friend’s speech in moving the amendment with which one could not but agree. I particularly liked his point that there may be too many provisions in the Bill where it appears that the Government are trying to tell local authorities how to exercise their newly granted general power of competence. I look forward to identifying particular points in the Bill and saying, “Look, this is not necessary”.
Where I have had difficulty with my noble friend’s new clause is that it is not going to achieve anything in the direction that some of us would like to see. You have to look at the individual provisions of the Bill if you actually want to reduce the degree of central control or direction of a locally exercisable power. If my noble friend is seeking to oblige the House to look at the Bill with that in mind then his speech will have made a useful contribution, but I am not sure that the provision that he seeks to put in would add anything. The way that one deals with legislation is that one looks at the provisions in the Bill itself and that is what we will spend a large part of the next four weeks doing.
On the interpretation of the Bill, I remind the House that the courts decided long ago, in the case of Pepper v Hart, that if the provisions of a Bill are unclear, the courts are entitled to see what Ministers said in introducing and debating it. I had to downsize my own household when we moved back to London, and I offered around my bound Hansards, which covered well over 40 years, to see whether anyone wanted them. They are all now in the Supreme Court on the other side of Parliament Square. I have not been to look at them but I am told that that is where they are. They did not cost me or the court anything. That is in order that the Supreme Court judges can have in front of them the Hansard reports of what was said by Ministers to be the purpose of the Bill.
Looking at what Ministers can say about this Bill and what is actually in it, one wonders what the purpose of the proposed new clause is. My noble friend made an interesting exposition of a number of points, but it would not be appropriate to add a new clause of this sort when we have eight days of debate in which we will be dealing with the details. I have to say that if my noble friend sought to press his new clause to a Division, I would have some difficulty in supporting him. I hope that he will forgive me.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and I have known each other for a great many years, but perhaps I may establish at the outset of this Committee stage that there is no “s” on the end of my name. I hope that he will forgive my interruption.
Lord Beecham
I sincerely apologise to the noble Lord. I sometimes felt closer to him than to the former noble Lord who does have an “s” at the end of his name. He and other noble Lords referred to the implications of incorporating this amendment into legislation. There are difficulties in that respect. To refer for one moment to my previous argument about the integration of government, that will not be made any easier by the abolition of government offices, which were a very useful mechanism for two-way information flow between central and local government.
I return to the form of the amendment in a constructive spirit and ever willing to help cement relations on the government Benches between the two partners to this coalition. Bearing in mind, of course, that one of the great localists was Joseph Chamberlain—who started life as a municipal socialist and Liberal and became a Liberal Unionist and very much part of a significant coalition which did great damage to the Liberal Party—it is surely possible to bring the two views together. Without necessarily incorporating the terms of this amendment into the Bill, it would be possible to follow the alternative method implied by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins—Lord Jenkin—which was for the Minister to make a statement.
If the Minister were to make a statement saying that these are acceptable propositions about localism and, taken together, broadly constitute a reasonable definition of localism, surely that would suffice to meet the test of legality referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord Elystan-Morgan. It would reinforce the import of these propositions as criteria against which, if necessary, the legislation and Acts under it might be interpreted—if necessary, in the last resort—by the courts.
I hope and anticipate that the noble Lord will not press his amendment to the vote, but it would be helpful if the Minister at least indicated support for the principles about which there has been very little difference in today’s debate.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply in general but, more particularly, for the last part of it. I think there was widespread support for the denouement to the protracted debate over many months about these two—if the noble Baroness will forgive me for saying it—rather absurd propositions, of which, I think in all fairness, Ministers were not necessarily the authors. There has been a remarkable story around whether the proposal for shadow mayors was on or off, with various statements being made by Ministers and then countermanded, but the final outcome will be warmly received. It augurs well, I trust, for the way in which debate on this Bill will be taken forward. We look forward to even more changes in the direction of good sense and local democracy.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Without wishing to prolong the debate, I should like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has said and to thank my noble friend for the swift acceptance of two of the substantial amendments to which I have put my name on the Marshalled List.
When I had the opportunity to discuss matters very briefly with the Minister’s right honourable friend the Secretary of State, he said that he thought that we were going to be able to reach accommodation on some of the points that had been made at Second Reading. My noble friend has done exactly that, and I express my gratitude.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, the Minister’s last two announcements are extremely welcome and I am quite prepared to trade my amendment for them. It is good news all round. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has just said, it bodes well for future debate.
It is only in the House of Lords that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, or anyone else, would raise in evidence events that took place more than 100 years ago. While the short-term effects of Joe Chamberlain’s and the other Liberal Unionists’ defection was extremely damaging to the Liberal Party, the slightly longer-term result of it was that the Liberals gained their greatest ever victory in the 1906 election, in which Joe Chamberlain and his allies in the Conservative Party were roundly trounced. If we are looking for historical precedents, there is one.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I did not give notice of my intention to ask a question about Clause 4, but I have listened to the discussion on the previous group of amendments with some interest. Clause 4(1) gives me a certain amount of anxiety. The provision describes,
“power on a local authority to do things for a commercial purpose only if they are things which the authority may, in exercise of the general power, do otherwise than for a commercial purpose”.
Does that really just mean that if it is illegal to do it otherwise, they may not do it for a commercial purpose, or is there some inwardness here which perhaps I have not appreciated? It sounds almost tautologous. If a local authority cannot do something, presumably it cannot do it whether for a commercial purpose or otherwise, in which case why put it in the Bill? If there are differences or some distinction is being drawn here, I would be most grateful if my noble friend could explain it to me.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
My Lords, I want to join this brief exchange because I am developing an increasing sense of Alice in Wonderland. It feels as though we are operating in two worlds: the old world in which local authorities were only allowed to do things that were in statute, and the new world in which they are free to do anything unless they are barred. It is beginning to feel, in the context of this debate and future debates, that there is a real problem about being caught in the middle where local authorities will be stopped from doing a lot of the things that previous legislation allowed them to do. I am sorry, but I find it difficult to express the point, but I am sure that noble Lords are beginning to get a sense of what I mean. The question of how significant the general power really is, if local authorities are continually hampered by previous legislation, will become very important. It is an issue to which we will keep coming back.
Lord Greaves
I apologise. I shall explain it all again, because there is a mess-up in the groupings and it is best to discuss the questions under the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, rather than under mine that come later. I keep referring to mine because my notes obviously refer to them.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
If my noble friend objected to the grouping and thought that the amendments should have been put together differently, he had plenty of opportunity over the weekend to put that to the Government Whips. As it is, surely to goodness he must debate those amendments in the group in which they are listed on the amendment paper—otherwise it becomes extremely confusing.
Lord Greaves
I agree entirely, except that I did make changes to the grouping. As a result of this, we are where we are. I attempted to make sense of it, but in the end it did not come out that way. Let me be absolutely clear: I am talking to the two amendments in the group that starts with Amendment 12 as moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I apologise for the confusion in the numbers, which is entirely in my head and in my notes. I shall attempt to be much clearer.
I am talking now about Amendment 22, which is in the group that we are debating. The amendment, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and which I entirely support, reflects the analogous condition in Section 3(2)(a) of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. This additional safeguard is needed and is not covered by the other conditions—for example, the requirement for proportionality. The reason is that Clause 6(2)(a) refers to the proportionality of the “effect of the provision”, while Amendment 22 relates to the means of achieving that objective. The Secretary of State would have to be satisfied that the particular amendment or repeal proposed is the only way of satisfactorily securing the objective; it would require him to consider whether there were other possibilities—for example, by issuing guidance to local authorities or by amending or repealing a less significant provision. This is an extremely complicated matter. I do not know whether the Minister will be able to give us an answer that can satisfy us all, but again perhaps further discussion, either by letter or in person, can take place.
Amendment 23, which relates to the Human Rights Act and similar Acts, would add a further condition to Clause 6(2). Section 8 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 makes a specific exception for the Human Rights Act. The Minister in the House of Commons stated that Clause 6(2)(e) would preclude the making of an order repealing the Human Rights Act or any part of it, but that paragraph relates to the provision—in other words, what the order proposes to do. This is different from whether the statutory provision itself, which is the subject of the order, is of “constitutional significance”. The point is that the 2006 Act recognises that distinction. The Bill as it stands does not recognise it and the question is why not. Why the change? The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, would restore the distinction, which would be a very sensible thing to do.
Lord Best
I have not spoken in the Committee stage, so I declare my interest as president of the Local Government Association. In that capacity, let me say that the earlier remarks from the Minister on shadow mayors and mayors acting as chief executives will be extremely well received at the LGA this evening.
I wanted to say one or two things in support of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Newton. The underlying intention is honourable—that if the general power of competence is inhibited by any other legislation, the Secretary of State has what could be rather draconian powers to overrule other legislation. But that clearly needs to be hedged around with some safeguards. A number of us have received representations from an alliance of disability groups, which are particularly concerned that some of the legislation that relates to their rights and entitlements might be diminished. That came to us from Age UK, Scope, which is involved with people with cerebral palsy, the National Autistic Society, the RNIB and Mencap. All these organisations are deeply concerned that some of the protective legislation that surrounds the world of disability might be done away with for the possibly good reason that it got in the way of the power of general competence —but that would seem a lesser priority. So we need reassurances here, and I support this bunch of amendments.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I wish to add something to what my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree and the noble Lord, Lord Best, have said. The anxiety is not so much that any Government would be so stupid as to try to repeal essential provisions on welfare of the sort that have aroused some alarm but that this Government might be succeeded by another who are not so keen on the whole process of localism, devolution and subsidiarity and might therefore use the powers in a way that would restrict the general power, which might go contrary to the purposes of this legislation. I declare once again that I am joint president of the London Boroughs Association, which is certainly concerned about this possibility. The chances of any Government wanting to make material inroads into the welfare legislation to which reference has been made, and much of which is in the list in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, are a little unreal. No doubt, however, reassurance will be necessary, and I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to reassure those who have expressed anxieties that that is not the intention.
As I understand it, the purpose of this clause—the whole of the purpose of the power that is given—is simply to enable a local authority to exercise its general power of competence. If there are obstacles in previous legislation that prevent that, or if there is overlap, then to that extent the order may then remove the obstacle. It cannot just sweep away whole legislation; as I understand it, the provision in question has to be specifically related to the general power. I have had a lot of representations as well, and it is right that these fears should be aired on the Floor of the House so that reassurances can be given. However, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, made the point that there is a distinction between the clauses as to whether the resolution is affirmative or negative.
I have two things to say. The first is that if the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments makes a recommendation—I, too, read the wording that the committee recommends strongly that it should all be affirmative—it would be very unusual indeed for a Minister not to accept it. I have been through a number of Bills, most recently the Energy Bill, where that has been accepted. The whole range of recommendations was accepted, and government amendments were put down to achieve that. The second point is that if you have sufficient parliamentary supervision, that should be a sufficient assurance of protection. The power is necessary if you are going to make a reality of the general power of competence but it has to be defined, as I think it is intended to be, and it has to be subject to affirmative resolutions as recommended by the Joint Committee.
Lord Dixon-Smith
My Lords, I had not intended to intervene but I am tempted because I need to ask the Minister one question: could this subsection not be used by some other Secretary of State at some point in future to amend this legislation because it has a power in it to which he or she objects?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, in reply to that last question, the powers to amend legislation are relative to the use of the general power. Under Clause 1 the Secretary of State will be empowered to sweep away any legislation that is standing in the way of the power of competence—that is what that clause is about. The answer to my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith is that I do not think that that would be possible. The provision does not get rid of any legislation at all; it is only any legislation that stands in the way of the general power of competence.
I hear the concerns that have been raised regarding this clause and I hope that I will be able to reassure noble Lords on some of it. I say at the outset that the power is normally subject to the affirmative procedure, as set out in Clause 209. There are limited exceptions to that, but we are taking on board and considering the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee as we have on other matters. We will come on to that in due course, but noble Lords may feel reassured that the general view that the Delegated Powers Committee is not overridden will probably be maintained.
Unlike Clause 1, where the Secretary of State can take away legislation, Clause 5(3) and (4) provide reserve powers to allow the Secretary of State to restrict what a local authority may do under the general power or to set conditions around it. We believe that these powers are a necessary safeguard, given the breadth of the new power, to ensure, for example, that risks to both local government finances and the Exchequer are properly managed.
The powers will be of the most limited use. The Government have no plans to use the powers in subsections (3) and (4) and expect them to be used extremely rarely, if at all. However, they might be used to deal with, for instance, any risks that might arise from authorities’ use of the new general power to engage in novel financial transactions. They are therefore a tug back if local authorities seem to be going well beyond their brief under the general powers.
On Amendment 14, the general power of competence is designed to give local authorities real freedom to innovate and act in the interests of their communities, although not to be too innovative in financial terms, as I have just said. However, there is continuing misunderstanding about the scope of Clause 5(1). This provides the Secretary of State with powers to remove or change statutory provisions that prevent or restrict use of the general power—that is, restrictions or limitations that bite on the general power by virtue of Clause 2, the clause where the Delegated Powers Committee considers that there should be an affirmative order. The whole clause is about removing barriers to the legal capacity of authorities to act, so that they may act innovatively and in the best interests of the community. It is not aimed at removing duties, nor is it a general purpose tool to remove any legislation that places burdens on local authorities.
Until now, there has been no comprehensive list of the legal duties placed on councils. To remedy this, the Government agreed with the Local Government Association that we should compile such a list—the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to this—so that everyone is clear what legal obligations local councils have and to check whether the duties are relevant.
The review is ongoing. Once it is completed, it will be decided whether any changes are necessary to the statutory duties, but neither the review nor the barrier-buster power that is in Clause 5(1) is aimed at removing statutory duties protecting vital front-line services, so there is no link between these processes.
The Clause 5(2) power can be used only to remove English authorities’ powers that are obsolete because they are overlapped by the new power. Its purpose is to tidy up the statute book and simplify the law, but there will be no practical effect on the scope of local authority powers or duties.
Amendments 15, 16, and 17 are unnecessary; they attempt to gold-plate the consultation arrangements already in this clause. The existing wording in the clause does exactly what it says it does—it will ensure that anyone who needs to be consulted will be consulted—so no further elaboration is needed. The consultation must be carried out properly and in accordance with general public law principles. This means that the Secretary of State must act reasonably in deciding whom to consult and must act in accordance with equality duties, which were also mentioned, and he can be challenged if he does not.
We believe that the more specific a list becomes, the more likely it will inadvertently exclude people who need to be included. We have seen this many times in legislation. I well remember trying to get more and more people put on to the face of a Bill, but that is not always helpful. We believe that it is better that these matters are left to be judged in the particular circumstances, as quite often the consultation list will change, depending on what is being proposed. We believe that the consultation requirements are comprehensive and we do not think that these amendments are necessary.
On Amendment 22, the power is a power to remove statutory restrictions. If the same thing can be achieved in a different way, it is hard to see how they can be statutory restrictions in the first place. I am sure that, if an order is unnecessary, that will be brought to attention of the Secretary of State during consultation.
Amendment 23 raises a concern about the Human Rights Act. We want to make it very clear that an order under Clause 5(1) cannot be used to repeal the Human Rights Act. It is unlikely that the power is wide enough, as it is a power to remove restrictions and limitations that prevent a local authority from acting as a natural person and a natural person could not get rid of the Human Rights Act. It is not a general purpose tool to remove any obligation placed on local authorities. Furthermore, the third condition requires that the provision made by the order does not remove any necessary protection, which means protection afforded by measures such as the Human Rights Act. The fourth condition requires that the provision made by the order will not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he might reasonably expect to continue to exercise. Any right conferred or protected by the European Convention on Human Rights is a right that a person must reasonably expect to keep. Finally, and most significantly, the fifth condition is that the provision made by the order is not constitutionally significant. I think that we can agree that repealing the Human Rights Act would be constitutionally significant. The DPRRC has signified that it is content with the safeguards on this power. In addition, we have provided for a stringent parliamentary procedure. Therefore, we do not think that anything further is necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Newton, and others have raised concerns about the conditions on the use of the power. It may be useful at this stage to say that Clause 6, which limits the power under Clause 5(1), was introduced in the other place as a result of the concerns expressed. We believe that a list would need constant updating. If something was inadvertently left off the list, that would not mean that it could be amended. We believe that Parliament, when considering orders made under these powers, will be able to judge whether the use of the power is appropriate.
I hope that I have covered all the amendments, although I think that one or two got muddled into the next group—certainly, Amendment 22 appears in my notes twice. I hope that I have responded to noble Lords’ questions satisfactorily and that they will not press their amendments.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Before my noble friend sits down, will she confirm that she has repeated the explanation that was given in the memorandum to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments about the difference between subsections (1) and (2), which the Joint Committee expressly and firmly said that it did not accept? Is she now firmly saying that she will nevertheless insist on the difference—an affirmative resolution for an order under subsection (1) but a negative resolution for an order under subsection (2)? If so, I would find that difficult to accept.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I hope that I said in my remarks that I understood what the recommendation was and that we would look at it further. It is almost inconceivable that a recommendation from that committee would be ignored.
Postal Services Bill
Lord Jenkin of Roding Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, it was interesting to hear how the opposition Front Bench justifies the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, has not disappointed us. It took him 18 minutes to do it, but he has done it and he has made the case that he said. However, I think he is wrong and I shall explain briefly why.
During the debate on the previous amendment there was a question about what the objective was, for instance, of the privatisation of British Telecom, which I mentioned briefly at Second Reading because I was the Secretary of State who published the White Paper and put the Bill before Parliament. The objective there was absolutely clear: the chairman of British Telecom, Sir George Jefferson, came to me early on after I had become the industry’s Secretary and said, “We are not going to be able to develop this business without access to a great deal more capital investment”—and he mentioned very large figures indeed. I had previously been the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I said, “You do not think you are going to get it from the Treasury, do you?”. He said, “We need it”. I said, “The only way you are going to get it is for 51 per cent, at least, of shares in the BT company to be in the private sector”. He was quickly persuaded that that was an overwhelming argument for privatisation and we moved ahead from that.
It is exactly the same with Royal Mail—it needs capital for investment. I have discussed this with Moya Greene, the chief executive of Royal Mail, and she is very clear that we cannot develop this business unless we have a greater introduction of new capital. She is very clear, too, that this has got to come from the private sector. The amendment requires that a Royal Mail company shall at all times be in the public sector. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Young, recognises that, if it is, it cannot then borrow without the borrowing going on to the public sector borrowing requirement—and that, in the present circumstances, would be totally impossible. British Telecom, by becoming 51 per cent privately owned in its initial stages, was immediately able to go to the market and borrow money without having to bother the Treasury at all. For that reason, the majority of shares being in the private sector was an integral part of the process of getting new capital into British Telecom.
Exactly the same applies to Royal Mail. If the majority of Royal Mail is going to remain in the public sector, as the amendment requires, then the Government can say farewell to any suggestion that they will be able to raise substantial capital sums from the market. It will be difficult enough to sell the company anyway, but to require that a majority of shares should remain in the public sector is a complete nonsense. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Young, said. He marshalled his arguments, as he always does, with considerable skill but they were totally unconvincing. If he decides to call a Division on the amendment, I hope my noble friend will advise the House that we should vote against it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, this is a similar amendment to one that I tabled in Committee. I was not convinced by the Minister’s response then and said I would bring it back. I hope that the Minister has had time to reflect on this. As I said before, people do silly things all the time and doing nothing is, in my opinion, unwise. This amendment would only require the Secretary of State to report on how the name “Royal Mail” will be protected. If the noble Baroness is not minded to accept the amendment, can she explain how we avert another Consignia debacle? Saying that this is such a well-known and recognisable brand name that no new owner would ever consider getting rid of it just does not stack up—Consignia proved that. Future owners may decide to change the name to some other well-known name and Royal Mail as a brand would be lost. That, I contend, would be a matter of much regret. I beg to move.
Lord Boswell of Aynho
My Lords, perhaps I may comment first on the amendment which has just been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark. We all have an interest in the continuation of the proud name “Royal Mail”, which honours those who have worked in that service over 300 years. All of us here should respect that, not only those who are historians or antiquarians. At this point, perhaps I had better declare my interest in archives and my involvement with the all-party group, of which the House may be aware. However, if the noble Lord looks forward to the proposed new clause in government Amendment 54, which has been grouped with this amendment for convenience, we might have a more substantive discussion. I look forward to the Minister's comments on that amendment, on which I shall speak in a moment.
I make no apology for wanting to see that this is got right because it is not necessary to be a fan of TS Eliot’s poetry—although I am one—to understand that the past is very much part of the present and the future and that it should not be possible, in a mechanistic way as it were, to unpick them or to take no notice of them. It is really important that the heritage and pride which have gone with that name and its tradition are celebrated and maintained, not least because it is a matter of obvious sensitivity in relation to the monarchy. We do not need to speak about that in detail but the monarch’s head appears on our postage stamps and her title attaches to our postal service. We hope that will continue.
However, as I said in Committee, any of us who have been to see the Royal Mail’s museum and archive, which is the subject of the government’s proposed new clause tabled in Amendment 54, will know the richness of what is there. There is complexity and fascination in how designs were considered, modified and put into circulation and that is all part of the tradition which should go with this. It is important that we make these commercial changes—I am not resiling from that—and that we do not spend unreasonable money on resourcing the past, however important it is. I said in Committee that there were some concerns about the resources available for the existing archive.
I thoroughly welcome the proposed new clause in Amendment 54 which is really, if I may say so, a considerable tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, to his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Christopher, to my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville and, modestly, I hope, to the little contribution that I made on a warm early April afternoon when we first discussed this in Committee. We raised it with the Minister, who said that she would go and think about it. She has clearly done so and we should give her a good measure of credit for that.
The proposed new clause which the Minister intends to bring forward in the Government's name is promising. For a start, it is prescriptive as to duty in that the Royal Mail company will have to send a report, which she will have to consider. That report will have to come to Parliament and anyone who has been here for any length of time is aware that that provides a channel for questions, an opportunity for expressions of dissatisfaction and so forth. Yet it does not inhibit the company in the nature and form of what it does, which is the right approach. If we sat there saying, “This is what we will do with the archive and this is the precise specification of the new and successor arrangements”, we might live to regret that and not be able to deliver it, so flexibility is desirable.
However, because these things tend to be forgotten—unless I am under a misconception; if so, my noble friend the Minister will no doubt disabuse me—it is also probably right to record that in creating this new duty, which goes beyond the existing obligation of Royal Mail, there will be obligations in relation to the archive and what we call the state process of the business. The opportunity to retain postal material and the obligation to report on what is being done is a new and welcome duty. However, we are substantially talking about a concern, which we should never forget when the ownership of public assets is moving from the public to the private sector either in whole or in part, to impose the right kind of traditions and conditions to ensure that the element of public service is not overlooked and that a great archive’s future is adequately secured.
Finally, the Government have been wise in not being too precise on the nature of this by providing, in effect, an ongoing and if necessary contingent liability on successor organisations. I do not particularly mind who owns the archive, provided that it is available publicly as a jewel in the crown and an asset that is on display, that it is adequately resourced and that we may long continue to celebrate it despite the ownership changes which are taking place under the Bill.