Localism Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, as a cyclist in London, I have come to know the London Pedicabs Operators Association quite well. Yes, pedicabs irritate taxi drivers—and they irritate me because they are wider than my bicycle and I cannot always get past them. However, taxis, cars and white vans irritate people. At some stage, we all have to live together and hope that it all works well for the benefit of the community and for people who want to go somewhere late at night. Of course, tourists love pedicabs.

However, I agree with the noble Baroness that there is something wrong with the current situation. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, mentioned the private Bill debated here in, I think, 2009. My understanding is that there was a voluntary registration scheme that the pedicab association was prepared to sign, given that Westminster City Council apparently made specific undertakings in Committee to provide pedicab ranks around Westminster. That has not happened and the whole idea seems to have evaporated.

Perhaps I may move on to early this year, when a new plan came from the mayor’s office, Transport for London, the Metropolitan Police, Westminster City Council and the London Pedicabs Operators Association. They were asked to draw up a framework mechanism, documentation and software to satisfy the requirements of a formal licensing scheme that would include a partnership agreement, and to write a code of conduct—which is important—and a memorandum of understanding between those parties. However, again, nothing seems to have happened on this.

The pedicab association says that many of the issues listed in the noble Baroness’s amendment would in fact be in some of the agreements that it was setting out to achieve. The one thing that it says would be very difficult—and I agree—is to have, as suggested in the amendment, a separate agreement for each borough in and outside London. Most pedicabs operate in Westminster but I live in Camden during the week and they certainly move into Camden. Therefore, I believe that any such registration has to be London-wide and I am not sure why Transport for London is not picking this up and running with it, so to speak.

There is an issue here but I believe that licensing by TfL on a reasonable basis would work well. I know that taxi drivers do not like pedicabs because they see them taking away business, but we are not really here to preserve the monopoly of taxis in taking people around London. There is also the TfL cycle hire scheme, which seems to be doing quite well.

I believe that some of the issues that the noble Baroness lists in her amendment should be in some kind of agreement, but someone has to take that forward and I think that it should be TfL with everyone else’s agreement. However, every time there seems to be a step forward, something stops it. Perhaps, as the noble Baroness has suggested, people do not want a registration system because that would legalise pedicabs.

I think that pedicabs are here to stay. They are good fun. If they are registered, there will be some control over them, and I hope that that will get rid of those who do not comply with the regulations and that it will allow a good service to be properly enforced, with vehicles that have back red lights and front white lights, which are important. The noble Baroness makes a very good point with this amendment but it is probably not the right way to go forward at this stage.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, first, I think I should make it clear to the House that my father was a licensed London taxi driver and that both my brothers are licensed London taxi drivers. In fact, one or two noble Lords have mentioned to me that they have been picked up by them and taken home after a busy day in your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

If the noble Lord would give way, I have suddenly realised that my eldest grandson was for a time a pedicab driver and I should have declared that.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

As far as it goes, I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. Pedicabs, and the way in which they operate, can be a nuisance, and it is only by licensing them that we can get some control over them. It would therefore be good if local authorities could establish local by-laws for the licensing of pedicabs in their area. If people are going to travel in them, we should make sure that they are roadworthy, that there is proper insurance cover for passengers, that there are rules about where they can stand when waiting for business, that the people peddling them comply with traffic legislation and that, where breaches occur, there is provision to get them off the road.

I accept that at present they seem to operate only in central London, so Westminster council faces the biggest problem. However, like my noble friend Lord Berkeley, I would have preferred to see London-wide licensing of pedicabs. They will no doubt move elsewhere, with Camden, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Southwark and Lambeth all likely to have them in parts of their boroughs. By-laws that differ from borough to borough just risk confusion and it would be better to have a London-wide option. However, as I said, the Opposition support the thrust of the amendment and I hope that the Government can indicate what they will do to deal with this problem.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I can understand why my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has moved this amendment. She has explained the problem and other noble Lords have made sensible and balanced contributions. However, Transport for London and ultimately the mayor are responsible for pedicabs in London. The Government take the view that issues surrounding pedicabs in London should be dealt with at a local level, which this amendment would provide for. After all, this issue only really affects London. However, the mayor, Transport for London and the London local authorities are already taking the initiative to address the matter with straightforward measures that avoid the trap of overregulation. Noble Lords will be aware that Westminster City Council is currently working up a voluntary—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, I am slightly concerned by this amendment as I think there is an international problem occurring of people buying things online to such an extent—I heard this in Australia while I was there and I believe it is the same everywhere—that people are closing up small shops because there is simply no way they can afford to compete with online purchases. I do not know what will happen in these instances. What will local authorities do? Will the people who own the shops be encouraged to convert them into residential accommodation or would it be considered very damaging to the whole high street suddenly to find that instead of shops in continuity in a row suddenly two or three were houses? In the past there were lots of little shops that were once houses. Would we be prepared to see the reverse of that happening?

I think it is a very complicated issue, and, if the landlord simply cannot get a tenant now, what does he do? Does he allow the property to fall down? I do not know what the answer is, particularly with the shop premises.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raises a significant issue. I can clearly see the point that he is making. If the Government are not minded to accept it, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us some insight into the Government’s thinking on how they intend to deal with this problem. My noble friend Lord Beecham raised a significant point about residential property, which is probably just as important as the point about commercial property.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who moved it. The amendment would give authorities the power to reduce the liability for empty property rates. Our ability to take action on empty property rates needs to be balanced against the costs involved, the targeted support that we already provide on business rates and the overriding need to reduce public expenditure and support the economy generally by reducing the deficit. This Government have already doubled small business rate relief for two years, which will benefit about half a million rate payers, with about one-third of a million paying no rates at all for that period. We are also taking powers through this Bill to waive £175 million of backdated business rates demands levied on businesses, including some in ports.

Unfortunately, in taking these matters into consideration, support for empty property rate measures is currently simply unaffordable. While the Government have no immediate plans for reform, we are certainly keeping this matter under review. However, the Bill does give local authorities powers to provide discounts on business rates bills as they see fit, provided they fund the relief themselves. So authorities will be able to reduce bills in the way suggested by the amendment.

I hope that the noble Lord is willing to withdraw the amendment, but I assure him that the matter is under review. It is quite interesting, because I have within the papers here a note about the reliefs. In 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, changes were made.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord has made those comments. I think that the officials had difficulties with this, and quite frankly so did I. I sought out the Local Government Finance Act 1998, but I am afraid that it has been amended, because the reference that he makes is not there. Immediately before speaking, I tried to check this myself, because I had some doubt about this. The whole area is under review, as it seems to have been for four years on the trot, because Chancellors and local government people have changed the position. So it is still the fact that the area is under review, but it is one that does impact on the economy. Having heard what the noble Lord said in his latter remarks, clearly, we will need to reflect further. But I cannot make any commitments at this stage. Perhaps a few tender words here and there might help us to understand exactly what he is about.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Can the Minister give the House an indication that he will come back before Third Reading? I would not want the noble Lord, Lucas, to have to come back again on Third Reading on this matter.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

I will certainly use my best endeavours to see that we can write to the noble Lord and that copies are placed in the Library so that other noble Lords with an interest can see the results of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I have Amendments 197FA and 197FAA in this group, and I am well aware that my noble friend at the Dispatch Box will tell me that what I am proposing is not lawful. What I am proposing is that a local authority can apply its own criteria essentially in assessing the expressions of interest, and include whatever restrictions and requirements it thinks appropriate—to very much the same aim, the same end, as my noble friend. I have no expectation about the amendments being accepted but, like him, I am looking for reassurances.

My noble friend the Minister said in response to the previous group of amendments that an expression of interest by two or more employees would not be a proxy for a commercial organisation, and referred to that in terms of abuse. I wrote down what he said about that but confess that, having printed off the policy statement to which he referred some weeks ago, I have completely forgotten about it, and it is probably somewhere in a pile of papers on my desk at the moment. What he said was that those expressing an interest would have to show that they are capable of providing a service, that they had engaged with the staff, and that what they were doing was not vexatious or frivolous. I have to say that I would have thought that any commercial organisation will very easily satisfy those criteria.

A concern to which my noble friend Lord Greaves has not referred is that having set up the arrangement—and this of course is not just something that would apply to the two employees; it could apply to a community body as well—it could then sell the business or dispose of the shares in the company which it had formed to run the service. I have not seen any way in which this could be prevented. I suspect that I would be told that it would be improper to prevent it. But it concerns me that it is taking this proposal a good deal further than appears on the face of the Bill.

I turn to subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 71, the first dealing with an expression of interest, the second dealing with a procurement exercise. Both talk of the authority considering—and I will come back to that term—whether the activity would,

“promote or improve the social, economic or environmental well-being of the authority’s area”.

Well indeed, and well and good. But consider: it is not bound to apply those factors. It needs to consider them. I dare say that means that it must be able to show how it has considered them.

Turning to subsection (7), we are told that this,

“applies only so far as is consistent with the law”.

There is no particular assurance at all here, if I may say so. Subsection (7) refers to the procurement exercise but I am worried that an authority may well read this as applying to the expressions of interest as well. In general, I suspect that local authorities will need quite a lot of reassurance over how they apply these provisions.

I speak only for myself in this. I am finding it difficult to articulate some of the unease that is almost more instinctive than technical. However, general expressions of reassurance and consolation may not go quite so far, technically, as to amount to real reassurance. I have rambled enough. I hope that the House has a sense of my unease.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I shall be brief. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, raises important concerns. The other amendments in the group seek a process to deal with these concerns. Without these amendments or something else, it is all rather open to interpretation, which is not a good place for us to be. I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the sense of unease.

The amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Tope, and my noble friend Lord Beecham, are absolutely right. They make provision for a consultation process with the users of a service, their representatives and residents of the area. If the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, is unable to accept these amendments, will he tell the House when he responds how he squares that with his previous remarks about localism? I genuinely feel that the Bill is confused. In some cases it gives power to the local community, in some cases it takes it back. There is a lot of regulation. It is all a bit confused here. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could address that point in particular.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

I thank the noble Lords who have spoken to this set of amendments. I have notes on these amendments and will do my best to deal with them. Frankly, I am not certain that there is an absolute assurance, but let us see how we go with these amendments.

Amendment 197EZA would give the Secretary of State a power to specify in regulations a service value threshold above which an expression of interest may be rejected. It further provides that this threshold will be set at or above the level at which a full, open tendering process is required to take place by any Act or regulations. I understand that the intention here is to focus the right on those contracts where it is perceived that community groups might have a greater advantage in the procurement process. However, it is worth being clear that while only contracts valued at more than £156,000 must currently comply fully with processes set out in the public procurement regulations, procurement below this level will still be subject to requirements of openness, transparency, freedom to provide services and non-discrimination.

Furthermore, it is not right to limit the range of services open to challenge in this way. It is not true that the voluntary sector delivers only small-value services. The right ensures that good ideas for improving any services get a fair hearing and gives those groups the opportunity to go for it. A threshold that prevents consideration of ideas for better or more innovative delivery of higher-cost service contracts seems unnecessary, given the safeguards that I have already mentioned, and a shame.

This amendment also risks discouraging growth and partnership. For example, a consortium of Holy Cross Centre Trust, Mind and Camden Volunteer Centre won a £2 million contract to deliver mental health daycare services. Would this consortium not be able to challenge? Or take the example of Hackney Community Trust, which started off as a small social enterprise delivering local community transport and has expanded into a highly successful social enterprise. At what point would we say “Sorry, you have grown too much, so your ideas no longer deserve a fair hearing”?

Finally, it could also limit opportunities for larger charities and communities of interest to challenge for higher value services. Nobody would argue, for example, that Age UK does not represent the interests of older people. Yet if Age UK wanted to challenge to deliver the meals on wheels service alongside other services in a large authority area, this amendment could prevent it from doing so. It would be inflexible to set a threshold for service value above which an expression of interest could be rejected, and we would not want to reduce the scope of services that could be challenged.

Amendments 197EA and 197EB would enable relevant authorities to carry out a service review instead of a procurement exercise following the acceptance of an expression of interest. Amendments 197EC and 197ED would require relevant authorities to consult widely in carrying out such a review. We have introduced the community right to challenge to ensure relevant bodies with good ideas for how they can deliver services differently or better get a fair hearing and a chance to compete to run the service. These amendments would put at risk both of these aims.

It is unclear what a service review would constitute under these amendments, and the authority would not be compelled to take any action as a result. Many of you will have received the briefing from 10 leading voluntary and community sector groups, including ACEVO, NCVO, NAVCA and Locality, which states:

“Giving local authorities the choice whether or not to respond to an Expression of Interest with a procurement exercise would negate the right to challenge entirely, by effectively allowing local authorities to ignore Expressions of Interest”.

We are supportive of authorities reviewing their services and consulting widely as part of that activity. This is what good authorities will be doing regularly anyway. But that should not detract from or obstruct these important new rights for communities and I do not agree that they should be watered down in this way.

Having said that, if a local authority and any groups that had submitted an expression of interest can agree together that a service review is the most appropriate course of action, there is nothing to stop those groups withdrawing their formal interest and working with the authority to conduct such an exercise. Leaving the power in the hands of the community group ensures that the right is protected but gives the flexibility—where there is a good and proactive local authority—that noble Lords are requesting.

Amendments 197EC and 197ED impose an onerous duty and go beyond, for example, the best value duty consultation requirement, where the duty is to consult representatives of people who may be affected. Contacting every individual resident and service user would constitute a significant new burden. Again, good authorities already engage a wide range of service users and their representative groups as part of the commissioning and engagement process, and should be designing and commissioning services that best meet the needs of their communities.

Amendment 197FA seeks to enable relevant authorities, when assessing bids in a procurement exercise, to apply any criteria they consider appropriate relating to how they might promote or improve the social, economic or environmental well-being of their area as a result of the procurement. This amendment is unnecessary as it is already possible for relevant authorities to apply such criteria within the limits of procurement law. Any criteria applied beyond these limitations could be unlawful and subject to legal challenge.

Amendment 197FAA would require relevant authorities carrying out a procurement exercise following the acceptance of an expression of interest to consider,

“whether it would be appropriate to include particular restrictions on or requirements of persons bidding in response to the exercise”.

I can reassure noble Lords that this amendment is not necessary to ensure that a local authority can control the identity of the service contractor to which it lets the contract during the life of that contract. It is already standard practice for public contracts to contain a term that any purported transfer by the service contractor of its performance of the contract to another person will lead to termination of the contract.

Local authorities will want to retain control over the identity of the person providing services and will already do that in their service contracts. Even if that were not the case, EU procurement law is strict about a change of identity of the contractor. The substitution of a new contractual partner for the one to which the contracting authority initially awarded the contract could be regarded as a change to an essential term of the public contract in question. This could trigger a new procurement exercise.

We have not sought in these provisions to tell relevant authorities how they should design contracts, and nor should we. We have heard many times in these debates that we should be less prescriptive in what we ask of authorities, while ensuring power is really pushed down to communities. A local authority may already impose restrictions or conditions that apply to all persons bidding, as long as such restrictions or conditions are lawful and do not discriminate between bidders. Any attempt by a local authority commissioning a service to impose conditions or restrictions on some but not all persons bidding in the procurement exercise would risk being unlawful as being discriminatory.

I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments. Yet, I understand the concerns that many noble Lords have about the Trojan horse issue—whether employees, a charity or someone else is challenging just with the idea of someone else coming in on the exercise. Clearly, all that has been proposed is a community right, and it is all about communities. The question comes when the community has challenged—I suspect that the community will have done that because of dissatisfaction—and the authority then says, “Well, we had better have a procurement exercise”. Certainly, if that exercise is beyond the EU figures there is no question that the exercise will be open. People will have put work in, as will have the community bodies and so forth. However, I do not see circumstances in which that procurement exercise can somehow be limited, because that would be outside the law of the land because of our involvement with the European Community. We must be careful not to kid ourselves about that.

However, having said that, everything in these proposals is about the community’s right. In my view, the community would be exercising that right because it thinks that it can do things better and that the service that it is getting would be better in the future than it received in the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I am pleased that the noble Lord understood the concerns raised on this important group of amendments, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Is there nothing that the Minister can offer us in terms of looking at this further? Perhaps he may agree to consult with colleagues and come back at Third Reading.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

What I will say is this: I have been giving some thoughts regarding guidance, to which there has been reference all along. Guidance will be given and notes will be available from the department, but there may be circumstances where that guidance will be, “This is something on which you make your own mind up”. I am sure that the department will cull the debate and look at where offers ought to be made. Certainly, if guidance is required, guidance will be given. However, there will be instances where, because we are talking about localism, local people and people on local authorities will be making their own minds up.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before the noble Lord sits down, can I ask whether there is any possibility of guidance being available by Third Reading, even in draft?

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

It is extremely unlikely that the noble Lord will get it as quickly as that, but I believe that it will be available before 31 March.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I thank the Government for listening to the debate on this matter in Committee and for coming forward with amendments which, by and large, are very sensible. I particularly appreciate their picking up the ancillary use point that I raised in an amendment, a great deal of which makes sense. Furthermore, I think that we all owe a debt to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, for the hard work that he put into this part of the Bill—not least because it meant that we could leave it to him and concentrate on other parts of the Bill.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, we have had an interesting debate at this late hour on this group of amendments. I can offer the Government some measure of support tonight, as there is lots to welcome in their proposals here, and they have clearly listened to the concerns expressed in the House.

The origin of some of the proposals can, of course, be found in the previous Administration. Amendment 201A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, is not an amendment that we on these Benches can support, although his Amendment 202A , requiring the Secretary of State to publish criteria by which an asset must be assessed in order to be defined as being of community value, could be of some merit, as is the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the more or less general support for what we have done, and, in my turn, I thank all those who have diligently attended meetings—not only the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, but my noble friends Lord Gardiner, Lord Cathcart and Lord Howard of Rising. I fear that I may have forgotten someone but there have been great consultations, mostly over the summer, and I am very grateful for the time that noble Lords have put in to ensure that these provisions do not have the unintended consequences that were anticipated.

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, was the only person to pose questions and perhaps I may turn to those. His amendment would give landowners 60 days to request the local authority to carry out an internal review of its decision to list an asset. We are now going to move from 28 days to six weeks, which is a bit longer, but we think that that will give a landowner time to decide whether he needs to appeal the decision. The details of the procedures for carrying out an internal review, including who can do it, will, I am afraid, be in regulations. I am sure that we will have an opportunity to talk about this further before then, but it is anticipated that that is what will happen.

The process will be that the landowner will first be contacted by the local authority if the land has been nominated by a community group. Therefore, in practice, landowners will have been aware of the process well before they receive the formal notice of the local authority’s decision. Once a review has been requested, it is proposed that the local authority will have six weeks to conduct the review. We also intend to provide in the regulations that, if a local authority and the landowner agree, this period can be extended. Therefore, I think that flexibility is built into that system.

I was also asked who can nominate an asset and about the voluntary and community body. Conditions will be set out in the regulations to demonstrate a local connection. The intention is to ensure that such groups are genuinely concerned with the social well-being benefit of their community and that they are based in the relevant community or neighbourhood. This may include unincorporated groups, so as to allow groups that have recently been set up to help save an asset. There are many examples that have already taken place where people have set up a group to try to save their pub or an asset. We know that that can and has happened. We do not feel that we ought to stand in the way of such groups. However, we will look to see whether we need to place stricter requirements on them as to whether they need to be incorporated or recognised, very much as the noble Lord has said. I will come back to him on that as we make those regulations.

I am extremely grateful to all those who have given their time to do this. I hope that we have more or less answered their concerns. I know you can never be 100 per cent sure—there is bound to be somebody round about who does not think we have quite gone far enough—but I think we have addressed all of the concerns that were raised.