Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Jenkin of Roding (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend will recollect that I raised this point at Second Reading on 18 June at col. 856. I will not repeat what I said on that occasion, or indeed on the very important points that my noble friend Lord Tope has just made.

The Minister was as good as her word and replied to the points that she did not have time for when she responded at Second Reading. She wrote to me on 1 July about the points I had raised, including this one, which she headed “Mayoral Powers”:

“Government officials and the Greater London Authority are in ongoing dialogue to agree suitable ways to transfer public sector land in London. If amendment of legislation is required, we will explore this at an appropriate opportunity in the future”.

It is a long time since I have felt that I was pushing at a door that is not only half open but almost entirely open. I hope my noble friend will be able to give us a little more information this afternoon.

The need for housing, particularly affordable housing, in London is acute. There can be very few couples —potential homeowners—under the age of 35 or thereabouts who feel that without significant parental help, or whatever else might be available, they will ever be able to buy a house. Part of the reason for that is the shortage of building land within the Greater London area and in the area immediately surrounding it. The disposal of surplus public land has become a matter of huge urgency. I believe, as my noble friend has said—and he quoted the noble Lord, Lord Best—that the Greater London Authority has this whole issue very much in mind and on its whole agenda for the development of London. The case for it to be the body to initiate, promote and encourage this is very strong indeed and I hope my noble friend the Minister will be able to give us an encouraging answer this afternoon. I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Tope.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on her extended role during the course of this Bill and indirectly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tope—for the GLA to perform the role of disposal agency in London—on the face of it makes very good sense. As the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Jenkin, said, the HCA’s objects simply do not run in Greater London as a result of the Localism Act 2011, and without a change you would have to retain the arrangements where transfers are made indirectly.

I took the opportunity to raise the matter with the Bill team, who have sent me a helpful note, which, if I may, I will just read from:

“I have been advised that under the Localism Act 2011, the GLA has responsibility for the HCA functions in London and the HCA does not have a remit to operate. The HCA has powers to operate in London but to do so would require delegated authority from the mayor. Under existing legislation, central Governments can transfer their land directly to the GLA; arm’s length bodies can also presently do so but would have to transfer the land to the parent department first”.

That is the inefficiency we are trying to tackle with this provision. The note goes on:

“DCLG are working with the GLA to determine what offer the GLA would be able to make to departments regarding land transfer. This will include whether statutory transfer is the most appropriate mechanism or whether an alternative approach is preferable”.

Could the noble Baroness just unpick that expression a little? Whatever arrangements are to be entered into, it does not seem to me to preclude supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tope.

We have had a helpful briefing from the Mayor of London, which raised a number of points. The point about the GLA having to hold its land in a taxable subsidiary company would appear to have been addressed by government amendments, but there was also a point about transfers of land from the GLA, a mayoral development corporation or the HCA hitherto not having been able to pass on the override of third-party easements. This means that such owner-developers could be pursued for remedies by the previous owners and beneficiaries of such rights. Given that Clause 22(10) is to operate only where land is disposed of after the provision comes into force, how does the Minister see this point being addressed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I think that I am happy with this. Do I understand that it relates just to dealing with the GLA problem and its need to operate through a taxable subsidiary?

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, while my noble friend is contemplating the answer to that, she wrote to me about this in her letter of 1 July. She said:

“The intention is for the HCA to dispose of its freehold interest on the open market”.

I completely understand that. She said that,

“the HCA retains a strong policy interest in what happens on its land once it is sold to market”.

I think that that picks up the point I raised earlier about the need to ensure that the land is in fact used for purposes consistent with public policy. She continued:

“Where public land can be put to better use—say in supporting the delivery of much-needed new homes—it will transfer to the HCA. The HCA will then typically seek to set the parameters for future development on the land, by obtaining planning consent with the local authority prior to sale, and selling its land with certain conditions attached”—

that is the point that I think the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, was asking about—

“to ensure that the building carried out on its land is done so in line with public policy (say by specifying the number of affordable homes to be built)”.

That all seems extremely sensible. This is not just bringing land in and then saying that anyone can do anything they like with it. If it is public land already, the question is to get it into use for public purposes as quickly and efficiently as possible, but for purposes consistent with public policy. That seems to be quite right. Can the Minister confirm that her amendment is indeed intended to achieve that?

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Thursday 10th July 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Jenkin of Roding (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Best, has made a very interesting and compelling speech. I am more than ever pleased that I was one of his supporters when he took his seat in the House. I have greatly admired what he has been able to do over the years since then, and this is not the least of his achievements. He made a strong case, and I entirely recognise that. The question that I ask is who would initiate these big schemes? I entirely agree with him that these are desirable measures, if we are going to try to reach our housing target, and I entirely agree with him that planning should not be an obstacle to that. The Planning Inspectorate, which, as the noble Lord said, would have to be the body to decide on whether to allow or disallow the investment for something of more than 1,500 houses, is not an initiating body. It does not propose schemes and is not a body like, for instance, the development corporations that now exist in some parts of the country. Its powers are not like those which the Greater London Authority and the Mayor of London have to initiate large schemes of housing, or indeed anything else.

On the point that the noble Lord made about the speed at which it has to approve applications made, of course that starts from the point when it is considering the application. One thing about the inspectorate—and indeed its predecessor, which was proposed by the former Government of the Labour Party—was that it insisted that all consultation of local opinion should be achieved and established before it started to consider the application. I think that everybody approves of that. It is a very good way of approaching this, so that when looking at the application and its impact you do not waste a lot of time on questioning whether local communities or other local interests were consulted.

I am interested as the noble Lord, like me, is of course a champion of localism. At Second Reading, I criticised the Local Government Association’s statement that it did not see planning as an obstacle to growth and development. I quoted some statements that have been made regarding the interests of those who see this from another perspective. I felt, as I argued, that that was a rather unrealistic statement. Of course, it has to be speeded up, but I had a long brief from the Local Government Association, as we have all done from time to time on various Bills. I am a vice-president of the LGA, but it is interesting that it has not offered any comment on this amendment, neither for nor against. It has argued—this is perhaps my central point—that what is needed is organisations which will promote the kind of development that the noble Lord, Lord Best, has been describing. It has argued that there ought to be development corporations along the lines that now exist in certain areas.

I am a huge supporter of the various efforts that have been made to encourage local authorities to join together, perhaps over quite a wide area. One has seen that first in the city deals that have been made, which are proving quite extraordinarily effective. They are a very interesting new instrument of localism, which will surely produce substantial benefits for the future. However, it goes wider than that as it is not just city deals but local authorities which can get together to plan and initiate projects, for which they can then find investors and so deal with them. To my mind, that is the way that it should be done. If you then have local authorities or, as I think it would have to be, development corporations formed by local authorities, that is the way in which they can have what I certainly support: that the decisions should be made locally.

The difficulty with this amendment, although I understood clearly and listened with great interest to the arguments, is that it goes contrary to the whole thrust of policy in many of these related areas: seeking to devolve authority from the centre down to the locality.

Of course, the noble Lord is quite right that there are always nimbys, and that is a problem that has to be addressed. When I was Environment Secretary, my very splendid chief planning adviser John Delafons— who is sadly no longer with us—after asking me, “Secretary of State, have you heard of NIMBYs?”, to which I said yes, he asked, “Have you heard of NOTE?”, to which I said no, so he explained: “Not over there either”. He also had another story that I liked: “The man who occupies the end house in a new housing estate on the edge of a town promptly becomes the secretary of the local conservation society—‘I’m all right, Jack, and I don’t want any more!’”. Those are the kinds of very human, but really rather damaging, impacts that these influences can have.

Would centralising the decisions into the hands of the local Planning Inspectorate make any difference? It might, but surely the right answer is for local developers—or perhaps development corporations supported by a consortium of local authorities, as might be necessary—to win the argument. Some of them are very good at it; others need to match their skills. However, I have some doubts about whether centralising the decision into the hands of the Planning Inspectorate, which is what the amendment calls for, is the right way forward. It might help, but it would also do other things that may be less helpful. Indeed, I think that there are better ways of doing this. It is interesting that local authorities have been arguing for the right to set up development corporations as the Mayor of London can do, but they have not actually put any amendments to me about how that might be properly achieved. Perhaps that is an issue to which we can return on Report, which might be a better peg on which to hang this.

I end on the note with which the noble Lord, Lord Best, began, which is that nobody doubts the acute seriousness of the housing problem in this country. In part, the problem is about overcoming environmental resistance, although one can understand some of that; in part, it is caused by the difficulty of getting developers interested in brownfield sites. I was very struck by the statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for DCLG, Eric Pickles, which was repeated by noble friend Lady Stowell on 16 June, about what is being done to encourage more development on brownfield sites. There will be extra help for London, but more important is that the success of London in getting ahead of this is now to be emulated in other parts of the country. It seems to me that these are the ways in which one ought to try to deal with this.

I will therefore listen with great interest to my noble friend’s response to the amendment, which has a very considerable appeal, but I have to say that I am not wholly convinced that it is the right answer.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Best, got us off to a good start in our deliberations on Part 3 of the Bill. He touched upon a fundamental issue facing the country—and, indeed, as other noble Lords said, all political parties at this time—which is the housing crisis. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will forgive me for quoting a few statistics in a little while, but this crisis is characterised by an acute housing shortage, with housebuilding falling to its lowest levels in peacetime since the 1920s, home ownership being unaffordable for many low to middle-income families, a falling programme of homes for social rent, an unaffordable “affordable rent” model and a burgeoning private rented sector in which rents are rising—all accompanied by insecurity and uncertainty in the marketplace.

The Government will claim that they have built some 445,000 houses since 2010, but this represents just over 110,000 a year—way short of what we need, the 243,000 figure quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Best. This is less than half of what the country needs. Figures from the House of Commons Library show that since 2010 the gap between housing supply and demand has increased by more than half a million homes, with London bearing the brunt of the increasing shortfall. It has been reported that DCLG Ministers have been advised of the prospect of the number of housing starts falling in 2014, with just 16,000 affordable home starts. Perhaps I can ask the Minister whether that is correct.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, indicated, we have added our names to this amendment and we support it. It took me back to a debate during the course of the Growth and Infrastructure Act when identical amendments were moved and rejected by the Government. The Government’s defence then was that the Article 4 direction would be a route that local authorities could use if they were not happy with what central government was doing. At that point, there was disagreement between the LGA and the Government about how user-friendly that route actually was. The Government were going to talk to the LGA to see whether those matters could be clarified, so it would be very helpful to know whether any clarification was forthcoming. In particular, there was an issue about how the Secretary of State should approach the use of Article 4. I refer to the debate on the Growth and Infrastructure Bill:

“Is it still the position that the Secretary of State’s general approach to making an Article 4 direction, as set out in paragraph 4.23 of planning policy guidance note 15—”

here I asked whether that policy guidance still existed—

“is that, ‘permitted development rights should not be withdrawn without clear justification’?”.—[Official Report, 12/3/2013; col. 195.]

It would be helpful to know whether that interpretation is still imposed upon the Secretary of State in dealing with any Article 4 direction.

Having said that and raised those inquiries, I thoroughly support the position of the noble Lord, Lord Tope.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, this will be considerably shorter than the last intervention I made. I assure my noble friend Lord Tope that I think this is a good point. It will certainly have my support, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am grateful to the TCPA for its enthusiastic counsel in drafting this amendment and for advising me on it.

Overall, we consider that the planning sections of the Infrastructure Bill are a lost opportunity to lay the foundations of a planning system that can help deliver the homes and places the nation deserves. This very much builds on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. The Bill continues in the long line of measures which reduce the powers of local authorities in ways which in turn risk creating real impacts for individuals and communities. We will discuss Clause 20 shortly. Given the negative nature of the Bill, we propose to use this amendment as a vehicle for a much more positive debate about how planning could be made fit for purpose. We do this by seeking to insert a new clause which would amend the objectives of the new town development corporations. This allows for a more comprehensive debate on the principles and positive purpose that might drive the delivery of quality growth and new homes which is so vital to our nations. Both coalition parties, we understand, support new towns and garden cities—as, indeed, do we. We should be able to find common cause on these issues.

The proposed new clause flows out of the detailed research that the TCPA carried out on the measures necessary to make the existing new town legislation fit for purpose. The legislation, in the form of the New Towns Act 1981, is still in force and provides for the setting up of powerful new town development corporations which can drive delivery. The development corporation was the engine that drove the rapid deployment of the new town programme and had the following core powers: compulsory purchase of land where it could not be bought by voluntary agreement; the preparation of a master plan which, after public inquiry and approval by the Minister, would be the statutory development plan; the power to apply to the Minister for the equivalent of outlying planning permission for comprehensive tracts of the new town to control development—that is, to process planning applications; to deliver key utilities in partnership with the relevant agencies; to procure housing subsidised by government grant and other means; to act as a housing association in the management of housing; and to carry out any other activity necessary for the development of the town.

Although strong on delivery, therefore, the outcomes of new towns did not always reflect the highest design and quality standards. In addition, there is now a need to modernise the objectives of NTDCs to ensure that they have the visionary purpose to effect change while creating new opportunities for partnership and participation and a low-carbon future. Due partly to the nature of the new towns legislation, little of the high social ambition which drove the originators of the 1946 Act was reflected in the legal objectives of the development corporations. These were quite brief and mechanistic, referring only to the laying out and development of the new town.

There is therefore a risk that development corporations might see themselves as engineering departments rather than organisations engaged in the wider social enterprise of place-making. Over the past 30 years there has also been a wide recognition that planning has few, if any, outcome duties. This has in turn led to much criticism that planning has become a process without a purpose. New legal processes have been introduced to focus the system on sustainable development, climate change and good design, but they do not apply to development corporations because they are not local planning authorities.

The suggested new clause is designed to extend and modernise the list of objectives and duties of new town development corporations. In order to modernise the objectives, the first proposed new clause draws on the outcome duties in both the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the Planning Act 2008, as well as the legislation that created the Homes and Communities Agency, which has statutory objectives that include people’s well-being, good design and sustainable development. The redrafted clause also introduces new and important obligations on the social and cultural as well as physical and economic development of the new town, through strengthening requirements for public participation. It also includes a new definition of “sustainable development” based on the successful wording of the New Zealand Act. I beg to move.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, there is a lot to be said for the amendment. Indeed, it follows from what I said earlier this afternoon about the need for more local authority development corporations. I will not repeat that, but it was in the context of local housing estates, which the amendment is not specifically addressing.

My point in a sense supports the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. This country has learnt a great deal about planning of new towns. I lived for some years not far from Harlow and, even 20 or 25 years after it was founded, there was still talk of what had become known as “new town blues”. I am looking at the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, who knows much more about this than I do. However, the new town blues were caused not just by the separation of families, when they went from crowded urban areas to rural areas outside the cities, but because those rural areas were designed with enormous spaces between different little bits of housing. Harlow was a very good example of that. There really could be almost no interaction between little local communities, which felt themselves very much cut off. No one had cars in those days; they relied on foot and bicycle, and whatever public transport might be provided. We have learnt an enormous amount since then. The design of more recent developments is, if I may put it this way, very much more user-friendly. I hope that we shall see that very much at Ebbsfleet. That helps local committees to gel and to develop a local identity. They left that behind when they moved from the cities and, often, city communities were divided as some went to some new towns and some to others.

I saw this a bit in Liverpool, where a lot of the Liverpool council development was in large, out-of-town housing estates that were often quite hideous, with a lot of huge, tall concrete blocks. I hope that I was instrumental in securing something for a group that was eventually called the Eldonians, a tight-knit community of people who were absolutely determined that that was not going to happen to them. Yes, there needed to be redevelopment, but we were able to secure that in a single site, fairly close to where they were already living. I was helped by the fact that the Tate and Lyle sugar factory had closed and that we therefore had a readily available site. To the fury of the Militant Tendency, as it then was, within the leadership of the Liverpool City Council, I was able to insist that that site went to the Eldonians. They have been very kind in their recognition of that ever since, and that community is still going strong.

This is what one has to do: to try to preserve communities, so that they can retain and build their identities to become what one would like to see—a really flourishing social unit. This country has learnt a lot about that. Regarding the development corporations in new towns to which this amendment speaks, I was urging earlier the inclusion of development corporations with the power to initiate substantial housing estates, with the necessary accompanying infrastructure. We are now much better at understanding this, and the planners and other people who have been involved with this deserve great credit. I hope that the Bill will lead to more of the same.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My noble friend Lord Shipley has raised an interesting issue, which has been raised at earlier stages, as to why only affordable housing is able to be renegotiated. He has also added to his amendment the question of the community infrastructure levy. Bearing in the mind the main purpose of the CIL, I would question whether that would be an appropriate reduction to seek. The CIL is after all intended to provide local authorities with the resources to pay for some of the infrastructure that would be necessary to support the housing requirements. It is true that affordable housing does not attract the CIL, but the rest of the housing development would. If one is going to have a community infrastructure levy, I would be very reluctant to see that negotiated down on the grounds of the developer saying that their scheme is not viable.

We have not had a full explanation of why only affordable housing is able to be renegotiated, because there may well be other obligations. I, too, read the sentence in the guidance about the other “off-site” obligations and I was not quite sure what that meant. When I first read it, I thought that it meant off-site affordable housing, but affordable housing is often not immediately on the same site as the rest of the development; it can be on a different site, so I do not think that that is what it means. I would welcome an explanation from my noble friend on the Front Bench as to what is involved. Hitherto, I have wholly supported the idea of renegotiation. Indeed, it has been the main burden of complaint of developers that they have agreed in different circumstances to affordable housing obligations and that it is that which makes their development unviable. That is why there has been, as was referred to earlier, a lot of negotiation going on with local authorities anyway. However, I am not aware of any local authorities which have negotiated reductions in other planning requirements that may have been necessary.

The draft affordable housing requirements guidance states:

“Timing and level of off-site contributions may also be considered”.

What does that refer to? I think that I took the guidance off my computer this morning, so it has come just in time. I would be very much against seeking to renegotiate downwards the community infrastructure levy.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we received the draft viability guidance late last night, which was not particularly helpful for discussions that we were going to have this evening. I just put it on record that if, when we have had chance to study the guidance, we found particular issues relating to the Bill, we would reserve the right to pick them up at Third Reading. That should not be precluded given the lateness of the availability of that quite important information.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has raised an important question as to why affordable housing should take all the strain to deal with viability. The amendment does not seem necessarily to preclude an appeal to the Secretary of State and what the Secretary of State would do in those circumstances, but that is a drafting point perhaps for another occasion.

Perhaps the Minister might cover in her response the relationship between the Bill and the updated regulations, which I think come into effect tomorrow and deal generally with the right to renegotiate Section 106 obligations, affordable housing and the rest. That would now be done within a three-year period, which I think is the thrust of those regulations. It would be helpful if that could be put in context.

I have been concerned throughout consideration of this Bill that affordable housing is asked to take the strain if a site is not viable. There are broader considerations which should come into play.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Wednesday 30th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

With the agreement of my noble friend Lord Tope, in whose name the amendment has been tabled, I wish to move Amendment 60. The amendment is also in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie.

The amendment returns us, as I am sure the Minister recognises, to localism. She will remember that when we were debating the Localism Bill, as it then was, two years ago, we made considerable progress in persuading the Government to go for a greater degree of localism than had originally been in that Bill. At the same time, I did not seek to conceal my disappointment that it had not gone further. There is huge scope for increasing the decentralisation of power and decision-making from central government to local areas and local people.

Since then, there have been a number of developments. I start with the remarkable report prepared by my noble friend Lord Heseltine, No Stone Unturned in Pursuit of Growth. I told my noble friend that I did not agree with everything in that report, but I applauded the emphasis which he laid—indeed, in an entire chapter—on the need for achieving greater localism.

That chapter is Chapter 2, Building on our Strengths. I cannot begin to quote the whole of that chapter, and the Committee, I think, would become singularly impatient if I did, but I want to quote just two sentences. Paragraph 2.14 states:

“For the UK to face up to the challenge of increasing international competition, we must reverse the long trend to centralism. Every place is unique. Local leaders are best placed to understand the opportunities and obstacles to growth in their own communities”.

That is highly relevant to the Bill.

In paragraph 2.22, after reciting a considerable number of measures that the Government have taken—they cover two pages of the report—my noble friend goes on to say:

“We need to go further and faster to achieve an essential rebalancing of central and local power and resources, extending not just to cities, but to local areas right across England”.

I thoroughly endorse that. As my noble friend will recognise, that is what the amendment is all about.

Another development is that in December 2011, the Government announced their intention,

“to develop tailored deals with our core cities, devolving powers and supporting projects which will boost growth and jobs for the long term”.

That was widely applauded. It has been followed up vigorously by the relatively small number of cities to which it extends. The question is: why should it stop with the cities? The new city deals recognise that local leaders, rather than Whitehall departments, are best placed to understand the economic opportunities and challenges that they face and that they have a key role to play in shaping incentives and conditions for private sector success.

There is also a case for mainstreaming the devolved powers achieved in the early city deals as part of a general mainstreaming programme making those powers available to all councils to help them to boost growth. The wave 2 cities will receive a core package of devolved powers as part of their deal. I submit that the case for extending that more widely is becoming very strong.

I am told by the Local Government Association, which of course has followed that up with much enthusiasm, and has conducted seminars and conferences to seek the views of its members on it, including a seminar with the Centre for Cities on 19 December last year, that it is now receiving many expressions of interest from other cities, towns—and, indeed, not only single local authorities but groups of local authorities—which would like encouragement to develop similar negotiated deals with central Government to give them the additional powers and resources necessary for them to develop the economy in their area.

Another aspect is that when we were passing the Localism Act, the local enterprise partnerships were still very rudimentary. They had only recently been announced; they did not at that stage cover the whole country; some of them were taking longer than others to get off the ground; and they did not have significant financial resources behind them. Those are partnerships led by employers. I have always been firmly of the view that the most effective encouragement to employment, growth, and all the rest of it comes from employers rather than from central government. The Government can facilitate, encourage and provide a framework but, in the end, it is local authorities, individuals and businesses which can make it happen on the ground.

We have not only the strong recommendations of the report of my noble friend Lord Heseltine; we now have the growing experience of the city deals, which are proving very satisfactory and popular and are producing results, and the now well established local enterprise partnerships set up over the greater part of the country, which are beginning to work well. The Government have recognised that by allocating more finance to them. I very much welcome that.

The missing link is that local authorities, apart from the big cities, do not have the same power to negotiate deals with central government that would allow them to have the same opportunities and encouragement to develop their economies and provide jobs and growth in their areas. They know their areas best. We should be prepared to do that; I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench agree.

We are not seeking by the amendment an immediate commitment for that to happen. Clearly, there needs to be study and further consideration of how, where and when that would best be done. Our amendment would add a new clause to the Localism Act entitled:

“Duty to report on proposals for the extension of devolved economic development powers to all local councils”.

The first subsection states:

“Within one year of second round of bespoke ‘city deals’ being completed”—

that is very wise, because it gives a chance to assess the experience of city deals without charging ahead too rapidly—

“the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out the government proposals, policies and timescales for the extension of devolved economic development powers to all local councils”.

Then the amendment suggests what should be in the report. Subsection (3) states:

“Where the Secretary of State has determined it not appropriate to extend devolutionary powers to all local councils … The report must, in particular, fully set out—

(a) why this has been determined as not appropriate;

(b) include a resolution that sets out how the government intends to review this determination”.

Then the review of the determination must be laid before Parliament within a year.

That is asking the Government to take this forward positively as a further means of spreading the localism—which is the Government’s policy and has been declared to be and has rightly been at the centre of their attitude to local government—but gives them time to ensure that it would really work if extended across the country.

The amendment is reasonable. It builds on what is there already. It reflects the important chapter in my noble friend’s report, No Stone Unturned, and it fits well with the general thrust of the Government’s policy of increasing localism. I hope that my noble friends will feel able to smile on the amendment. I do not say for one moment that the wording is right, but I hope for some encouragement. Then we can return either with a government amendment or something that takes account of what Ministers have said. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment, which we enthusiastically support. We should thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for moving it so comprehensively in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Too often, we hear the mantra of devolving power but see the reverse: power and decision-making moving to the centre, from schools policy to planning.

We should acknowledge the progress being made on devolving powers to some areas, building on the achievements of multi-area agreements. Following the deal on the first eight cities, the Government are encouraging bids from a further 20, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said.

Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of what was involved for some in the first tranche. Nottingham City Council would be given powers to create a venture capital fund to invest in high-tech business, start-ups and growth businesses. I think that for Newcastle, Sheffield and Nottingham the deal has been backed by tax increment finance schemes. A control over part of central government’s skills budgets will be given to Sheffield, while Bristol, Leeds, Newcastle and Nottingham will join Manchester in creating apprenticeship hubs. That is just a flavour of what has been achieved from those first few city deals.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Monday 28th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I am very pleased to be here to support my noble friend Lord Tope. It is about six hours since I was moving amendments in Grand Committee about copyright so it is pleasurable to come back to a rather more familiar scene. I do not think that I can add very much to what my noble friend has said. He has put the case extremely well. The centre of the case is that the mayor is there and has these powers accorded to him by Parliament. It seems very strange that he should have no function in relation to this important matter. Affordable housing in London is enormously important, as I think my noble friend on the Front Bench will acknowledge. From his own knowledge, he will be well aware of the need to find proper housing for people who cannot afford to go out into the market. The mayor has this overall responsibility. Why should he not be entitled to have this role rather than it going to the inspectorate in Bristol? I very much support the amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I am not unsympathetic to the thrust of the amendment that has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. However, it does not seem to be quite right to say that the Bill makes no reference to the Mayor of London, because new Section 106BB(18) states:

“In the application of Schedule 6 to an appeal under this section in a case where the authority mentioned in subsection(1) is the Mayor of London, references in that Schedule to the local planning authority are references to the Mayor of London”.

I was not quite sure whether the noble Lord was proposing that the Mayor of London’s role in this should be as the local planning authority—in which case the question is what happens if the Mayor of London does not support the applicant’s appeal—or whether the Mayor of London sits in substitution for the Secretary of State. When the noble Lord replies, it would be helpful if he could clarify and unpick that issue.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, due to procrastination, I did not ask for my name to be added to those of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, until the weekend, by which time the first Marshalled List was already with the printers. However, I warmly support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and I do not need to add very much to it.

The point I would make is that the Mayor of London—I am talking about the office and not the individual—already has very substantial strategic planning functions in London. As to the question of designation and the right of an applicant to apply under the rest of the Bill to the Secretary of State, it seems obvious that in London the application should be referred to the mayor because, by definition, we are talking about major applications. As I think my noble friend said, the mayor has extraordinarily good planning relationships not only with the boroughs but with a range of other interests, such as developers, other stakeholders and so on, who are very much concerned with planning. That has been developed to a considerable degree of expertise and skill. That is the right body to exercise the function if, as has been said, any London borough suffers the misfortune of being designated. I very much support this.

I hope that by the time we come to debate Amendment 80, my name will have been added to it. It is a very useful and important addition. The Mayor of London, with his overall economic functions, has a very considerable interest in ensuring that there is sufficient energy to supply London, particularly when one is dealing with decentralised energy—what might be local wind-power turbines and things of that sort. It would be entirely appropriate in those circumstances that he should have the right to call in applications that refer to such functions. Like my noble friend Lord Tope, I warmly support the amendment and hope that the Government may see their way to accepting it. Amendments 39 and 80 were drafted to follow the pattern of the earlier part—Clause 1—of the Bill, so I hope that the Government may feel able to accept them. It would be very much welcomed in London, and also by the London boroughs. I have already declared my interest as a joint president of London Councils. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend says from the Front Bench.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who moved the amendment, and to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, who set out his support for it. A very good case was made. I am attracted in particular to the democratic principles underpinning this. One does not necessarily always like how the democratic process works, but we should always see the principle as sacrosanct.

I was unclear about whether, if an authority is designated, it is only in respect of strategic issues that the mayor will step in, or whether he could do so in respect of all major applications. Clearly the two are not necessarily the same. However, the proposition is worthy of very serious thought.

I was a little confused about Amendment 80. On the one hand, the proposition is that the mayor should have more powers and things to do; on the other, that he will have the right to delegate because he will not have the time to deal with some of the representative meetings involved. However, I will not dwell on that point. A decent case has been made this evening and I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s reply.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

This is what consultation is about. I am sure the noble Lord has read the consultation paper. The consultation closed on 17 January and I have already made the point that I hope, and ask my noble friend to confirm, that the Government’s response to the consultation will be available by the time we come to deal with the clause on Report. They have spelled out quite clearly their thinking on the criteria for designation and that it is unlikely to apply to more than a very few local authorities. Indeed, Ministers have said that they hope there will not be any. But if there is a wide variation in the planning performance of different local authorities are the Government simply to sit back and to do nothing?

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

The noble Lord raises an important question in asking whether the Government should sit back and do nothing. The answer is clearly no, but is not the right approach to try to put some resources into understanding what is happening to differential performance and why the metrics have declined in recent times? Those issues should be addressed rather than make the assumption that authorities that fail the test—it is all to do with the speed of dealing with applications and nothing much to do with the quality of decisions being taken—are somehow failing.

Does the noble Lord not think that the upheaval in the planning system in recent months may have had an impact? We have had the Localism Act, the NPPF, the demise of regional spatial strategies and all that goes with that. Those are very considerable changes, and of course local authorities are facing the horrendous cuts to their budgets, the worst that have been experienced for generations. Perhaps these factors are having an impact on what is happening. Is it not better to address them rather than make a spurious judgment that it is all to do with the speed of application? Is it not also right that, when there is non-determination within six months of an application, the Secretary of State has the power to call it in and deal with it anyway?

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I understand the points being made by the noble Lord. The question of the pressures on local authority finances and therefore on local authority staffing is important, but of course authorities do charge. My noble friend Lord Tope made the point that some local authorities could improve by hiring better quality staff. These are the kind of things where, if there is some form of longstop provision of the sort that is in Clause 1, minds will be concentrated. I am not saying that the clause needs no amendment and I have already made the point that I have put my name to several amendments that we will come to, but I would not be happy to join forces with those who would prefer to see it removed altogether. I thought it right to make my views pretty clear at this stage of the Bill.

The Bill is a miscellaneous set of measures rather than a large and comprehensive Act like the Localism Act that we have passed. It contains a number of disparate and separate measures that are aimed at meeting the increasingly vocal call for the Government to do something to improve the growth of the economy. None of the provisions is a golden one, likely by itself to make a huge difference, but taken together they are a brave attempt to try to find out what the obstacles are. Many noble Lords will have seen that there is plenty of evidence about the barriers, and I want to make it clear that in the interests of growth and of improving the planning system, the broad thrust of this Bill is right, as indeed is Clause 1. If it is put to a vote, I shall certainly support the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

The fact of the matter is that this table is about decisions, not applications. The decisions may well have been refusals. Indeed, in many of the national parks, that is what happens. These are major applications, over so many hectares and so on. The national parks are planning authorities in their own right, as are bodies such as the London Docklands Development Corporation. They should be subject to the same sort of discipline as anybody else.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, when Amendment 6 —which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Tope— was debated in the other place, my colleagues tabled a similar amendment and it was pointed out by the Minister that only one authority in the land had not had a local plan for 20 years. I am not sure how it got away with it for that long.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I entirely recognise that they were both approved and not approved. They were decisions.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I think we have debated this group sufficiently. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I shall speak also to Amendment 106. I was caught by surprise when the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, did not move his amendment, or I would have spoken to all three of my amendments together.

Amendment 105 is very straightforward. I do not understand the need for the sub-paragraph that I want to take out. It gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations about the procedure for preparing a local scheme for council tax reliefs. The Government seem determined to get right down into minute detail controlling local authorities. I wonder why this is necessary. When rereading the Hansard report of when I moved this in Committee, I found that my noble friend said that the amendment would,

“remove the default scheme from the Bill altogether”.—[Official Report, 19/7/12; col. GC 176.]

None of us can begin to understand why that should be so. This is nothing whatever to do with the default scheme. It is simply a question of the Government wanting to have regulations to tell local authorities the procedure for introducing a scheme or an amendment. I do not understand that.

Amendment 106 is slightly more complex and may take me a moment or two longer. The sub-paragraphs on page 62 of the Bill require local authorities wanting to make revisions to the local scheme or to replace it to do so by 31 January in the preceding year. This is another amendment that I moved in Grand Committee. We were trying to understand whether the Government had considered the impact of the proposed legislation on the local authority budget and council tax setting process, particularly when there is a procedure under the Localism Act whereby an excessive increase in council tax can be the subject of a referendum.

In response, at col. GC 171 of the Official Report on 19 July, my noble friend suggested that the authorities will need to take their funding levels into account when designing local schemes. Those advising on this believe that this response simply does not reflect fully the conflict of timing between the two requirements and the impact on local authority financial freedom. By putting in a limit of 31 January, the current provisions would prevent an authority revising its local scheme after that date, even though it was necessary to reflect potential new financial realities on the outcome of a local referendum. Again, this seems to be a further and rather undesirable way of controlling local authority decisions.

I am sure that my noble friend will take the point that if you have a power in the Localism Act for the referendum, and the referendum overturns the council’s original proposal, the local authority would have to make a fresh assessment of levying council tax. I do not see how they can do that by 31 January because it would take two or three months for the referendum to come to fruition and for the result to be known. Perhaps between now and Third Reading my noble friend might look at that again in the light of the combination of having to revise the scheme and then being faced with the consequences of a referendum.

If the referendum is lost, there would be nothing to worry about and the original budget and council tax would stand. But if the referendum is successful, as I understand it, the council would have to renew it and make a new one that complies with the requirements that will follow from the referendum. I hope that my noble friend may be able to offer some comfort on that. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, as regards Amendment 106, we have a deal of sympathy with the point raised by the noble Lord. My noble friend Lord Beecham thought that the referendum date was May, which in a sense just reinforces the point made by the noble Lord. I am aware that when we discussed it in Committee, the Minister said that the Government were not keen on in-year adjustments, which one can see as a general principle. However, it seems to me that a major point is being raised.

We are less comforted by Amendment 105. It depends on what is encompassed within the concept of procedure for preparing a CT scheme. One of the things that presumably needs to be addressed is the cut-off point between the existing council tax benefit arrangements and the new arrangements, particularly when people, if they are able, are making backdated claims. At the moment, someone can make a claim and it can be backdated. If you make a claim after 1 April and seek to get it backdated, you need something in place to settle those cut-off points. I do not know whether that is a procedure but you can certainly see the Secretary of State having some interest in those sorts of arrangements.

Certainly, Amendment 106 seems to make quite a powerful point. I might add that if the discovery of this £100 million and the transitional fund had happened a couple of months later than it has, that would be good cause for needing this flexibility as well.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Wednesday 10th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I have three amendments in this group and I can put them swiftly to the House. Amendments 57 and 58 deal with what is to happen if there is a surplus, or what the Bill calls “the remaining balance”, left over after the tariffs and levies have been made. The Bill, as it stands, says:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the basis (‘the basis of distribution’) on which an amount … is to be distributed”.

It seems to me that it should be a matter not for the Secretary of State but for the local authority. Therefore, Amendment 57 sets out a slightly longer procedure which involves a consultation with the local authority about what is to happen to that remaining balance—whether it should be retained or distributed—and the basis on which it should be distributed.

Secondly, it requires that to be dealt with through the local government finance report. That is what gives Parliament a say on this. Essentially, this seeks to provide, first, an opportunity for local authorities to express their views through consultation and then for Parliament to have the final say. It is not the end of the world, but I think that this is going in the direction in which we would want to move. If you are to have these elaborate procedures, it seems to me that parliamentary control is important.

Amendment 78 proposes a new clause, which again requires consultation. The clause states:

“The Secretary of State may not make any changes to national business rate policy which impact on local business rate yields without first consulting with all interested parties”.

For the life of me, I cannot foresee circumstances in which a Government would want to do this without consulting. It seems that this is a perfectly sensible procedure to put in. If you are going to change the basis on which business rates are collected, it should be a matter for consultation.

We had a brief discussion when debating the previous amendment in which the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, referred to the nationalisation of the business rates. I was responsible for that policy. When they were going to denationalise and decentralise, the main point was that businesses were charged rates by local authorities and had no vote. Therefore, business rates have been set nationally ever since. However, if the national rate is to be changed, there should be a process of consultation. I hope that the Government will be able to accept that.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we tabled Amendments 79 and 81 in this group. Amendment 79 revisits a debate we had in Committee concerning resetting—indeed, it revisits a debate we had earlier today. It requires arrangements whereby the Secretary of State must formally report on representations received from local government about resetting the system, and the outcome of the Secretary of State’s deliberations on such representations. As we have discovered, resetting is a contentious issue. The Government have made their position clear: not before 2020. However, the fear is that the system introduced will not remain robust over that period and that many councils will find themselves in difficulties.

As the Minister asserted in Committee, it is accepted that receiving and considering representations is a fundamental part of government work. The amendment seeks some transparency in the process. It seeks the formal detailing of representations so that the scale and scope of any concerns are clear. It also requires exposition of the Government’s position and reasoning in response to such representations. The Minister will doubtless say that such an amendment is unnecessary if there is an undertaking to deliver what we seek. Perhaps I would agree, but I will make it clear that we seek a process that spells out for Parliament the representations that have been received and the Government’s decisions thereon.

Amendment 81 is more specific and requires a reset every three years, to coincide with each spending review. This will entail an assessment of relative resources and of the needs of local authorities. The exclusion of the specific issues that need to be assessed—deprivation, unemployment, child poverty, the number of looked-after children, adult social care and so on—emphasises not only the important role that local government can play, but what is at stake under these proposals. I offer that amendment in particular for noble Lords who expressed themselves in favour of resetting but did not feel able to sign up to a formal review process. It might be more palatable to some noble Lords; I will be interested to know whether it is.

We thoroughly support Amendment 18, moved by my noble friend Lord Smith. We have added our names to Amendments 57 and 58, and support the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in tabling them.

Amendment 73, tabled by my noble friend Lord Smith, calls for the Secretary of State to compile each year and for each authority in England a raft of information about resources, including estimates for subsequent years. As ever, it seems an entirely reasonable proposition. We also support Amendment 78, to which we added our names. This is about changes to national business rate policy that impact on local business rate yields, and the requirement for consultation. It is absolutely essential that it takes place because the ground has shifted on this. Local authorities are at risk; they are not just collectors of the business rate now. They are at risk from the consequences of how much is collected, how the system operates, and any policy changes that central government may feel inclined to make. That is a particularly important issue.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Thursday 19th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

The whole Committee will be grateful to my noble friend for her careful answer to the points made in the debate. We shall want to read carefully what she has said and, if so advised, to return to the matter later. Before I withdraw the amendment, perhaps I may say that I am about to withdraw myself. I have to make preparations to get off to celebrate my diamond wedding in Scotland. I hope that I may be forgiven. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment—I would not wish to keep him from his celebration and we pass on our best wishes to him for it—I note that, again, the Government refuse to give any practical help to local authorities on the issue of vulnerable people. We know why that is, as they are leaving local authorities high and dry to make those difficult decisions, not wanting to take any responsibility themselves. That will be a continuing theme of the Bill, and I am sure that we will return to it.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

In a sense, the noble Baroness is saying that the Government are imposing on local authorities the judgment on whether to help vulnerable people at the expense of slightly less vulnerable people. If the Government are imposing such decisions, they should take responsibility for making those judgments.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Monday 16th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I was explaining that to have to do this in short order at a time of considerable turbulence—when staffing levels are under pressure, budgets are being cut, and systemic and organisational changes due to housing benefit being rolled into universal credit are being contemplated—is simply unreasonable. At this point, perhaps I should refer to the report of the Local Government Chronicle from 16 February this year. It says:

“More suppliers have joined in the criticism of the government’s welfare reform timetable that risks leaving councils to foot the entire bill for a £480m gap in council tax benefit funding. With Capita having already labelled next year’s deadline ‘impossible’, other suppliers have confirmed they have raised the issue with the Department for Communities and Local Government. As previously reported by LGC, Capita wrote to more than 150 customers in January telling them: ‘It will not be possible to put new systems in place by March 2013, when councils are due to set up their own council tax benefit schemes incorporating a 10% cut in funding’”.

If local authorities are to fulfil the task of taking account of local factors, and in particular to deliver positive work incentives in drawing up a draft scheme, they must know the detail of the universal credit, which will come into existence in 2013. This is especially so given the need for consultation. The statement of intent requires a billing authority to consult any major precepting authority that has the power to issue a precept to it, then to publish a draft scheme, and then to consult such other persons as are likely to have an interest in the operation of the scheme.

What is the latest time at which the Government think that consultation can proceed under these provisions? As for major precepting authorities, it has yet to be determined how funding is to be allocated between the tiers. Although the final say is with the billing authorities, any disagreement on the draft at this point might have considerable impact on the timing of the publication of a draft scheme. Those others who are likely to have an interest in the operation of the scheme could be a very wide group of people.

We discussed last week that it should certainly include local precepting authorities, which will bear part of the cost. When the Government have felt fit to remind local authorities of their responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010, making it clear that they will have to consider how a scheme might affect people who share a relevant protective characteristic, they will certainly need to consider the impact of their scheme on disabled people.

Local authorities have a specific duty under the Child Poverty Act to work with local partners to reduce and mitigate the effects of child poverty. They will be required to take into account their local child poverty needs assessment in designing and developing localised schemes. They will also need to have regard to the position of those at risk of becoming homeless. The statement of intent makes it abundantly clear that inadequate consultation could lead to judicial review, a matter to which we will return shortly.

The Government know that they are putting local government in an extremely difficult position by this timetable. That is why they are validating consultation commenced before the passing of the Act and why they are implicitly encouraging a consultation period of less than the 12 weeks encouraged by the code. This simply will not do. The statement is clear about the prescribed pension credit age scheme, and the Government have been clear that, in developing local council tax reduction schemes, vulnerable groups should be protected. They declined to define further “vulnerable groups”, but we will press them on that later.

Vulnerable groups should be protected and are clearly entitled to be consulted in a meaningful way. The Government are offering or insisting on one they made earlier, in the form of a default scheme. This is designed to be equivalent to existing arrangements. Of course, for those tempted to take this up or who are left with no practical option but to do so, that comes at a cost, because they will have to find the 10% cut in funding. Those who cannot live with the default system are encouraged to adopt a system using the same factors as present, as that would reduce the amount of time and expense in changing the IT systems. That is hardly a principled base on which to build a council tax benefit system.

If local authorities are to play the part required of them, whether we agree with it or not, it must surely be right for them to be given time to do the job properly. We are well aware that councils are working hard to meet the exceptional challenges that this legislation brings. Local government has a strong history of delivering the near impossible, but the timetable must be judged not by the pace of the quickest and the best resourced—those who have a ready pool of extra resources from second homes and empty properties—but surely by the least well resourced, who run the risk of having the default scheme imposed with the 10%-plus hit on services.

We are aware that there is a view that if there is to be a year’s deferral, the Government will extract their 10% by some other means. The Government seem to be adept at finding money here or there for a waste collection scheme or change in fuel duty. However, this is fundamentally about fairness; the Government are asking a lot of local authorities. A chance to do the job properly in the interests of the poorest and most disadvantaged is not unreasonable. I beg to move.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I added my name to some of these amendments. I do not need to go quite as far back as 16 February, which was the date of the Local Government Chronicle article from which the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, quoted. I go back to a meeting held on 28 May for London Councils, which that body asked me to chair and which was attended by a number of your Lordships. It was addressed by senior officials of London Councils and it aroused in me considerable apprehensions about the timetable to which the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, referred. At that time, it was clear to those officials that a number of councils in London would have difficulty in adhering to the timetable. That caused me some alarm. My noble friend Lady Hanham will remember that I came to see her and expressed some of the anxieties that had been voiced on that occasion. My noble friend undertook to take account of them and asked that the bodies write to her directly because she had not had quite the same message from the officials in her department, and they did.

However, since then it has become apparent that quite a lot of councils have taken the bit between their teeth. They have realised where they are, and that they will have to devise and adopt schemes for council tax support, as required by the Bill. I am sure that many of them have no wish to be involved in a default scheme, although that is always a fall-back. They have got on with it.

Indeed, when I consulted the Local Government Association—I do not think I need to declare my interest again—its members’ view was made clear to me. Given, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said, that £500 million savings have to be found in any event, and one remembers that actually the commitment for that goes back to the initial statement in 2010, the dangers of postponement exceed the dangers of trying to keep to the timetable. In putting my name to the amendment, I wanted primarily to raise the anxieties that had been expressed by London Councils, recognising, as does the noble Lord, that this is not a universal view of local authorities.

The main problem that London Councils saw in implementing the date in the Bill is that it would be nearly impossible for councils to be able to achieve what they wanted to achieve by the due date, given the administrative problems with which they would be faced. More particularly, they would be faced with IT problems. Councils, as everyone knows, use a great deal of IT in drawing up their budgets, devising policies and administering the results of their decisions. Much of that is quite properly outsourced to expert providers. At that time, back in May, London Councils saw that there would be some difficulty in getting those providers to come up with the necessary changes.

However, as I said, it now becomes clear that a good many councils are getting on with it. It is to the credit of local government that they are not sitting back, holding up their hands in horror and saying that they cannot deal with it. They do not wish to be where they are, but they have to accept that the Government have set the timetable and they are jolly well going to do their best, as the representatives of the people in the area for which they are councillors, to go ahead and get on with it.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I am delighted that what we have come to call the enlarged coalition is supporting the amendment.

It addresses a simple point. Under the existing system whereby business rates are pooled and go to central government, a change in the system of relief from business rates is entirely a matter for central government and has no implications for local authorities. However, once the retained business rate scheme is working, then local authorities will of course have a direct interest in such changes. Indeed, there could be circumstances where a change in the way in which business rates and relief from them are assessed could give rise to some considerable difficulties for local authorities in their budgeting and managing their expenditure.

Of course, this is inherent in the change. The Government are indeed transferring some of the risk to local authorities because that seems to be an inevitable consequence. What we are asking for here—it is a simple point—is that the Government should consult local authorities and the local authority organisations before any such changes are made, so that they can at least have a say and perhaps do their best to persuade the Government when a particular change is not appropriate. Those local authorities and organisations will have an argument because the change may well affect their funding. The least we can therefore ask, and it is a modest request, is that the Government accept this new clause and accept that local authorities should be consulted before there are changes in the business rate. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I am happy to confirm that the broad alliance remains intact. We are very happy to support the amendment. The key points have been made. We are in a changed environment where what happens to business rates can have a direct impact on local government and this request is straightforward and honest, as the noble Lord described.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Thursday 5th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 41, I shall also speak to our other amendments in this group, Amendments 42, 44, 45 and 45A. Amendment 41 is a probing amendment. It concerns regulations about the levy payment calculations. These can be made,

“by reference to such other factors as may be specified in the regulations”.

Will the Minister indicate the type of other factors that it is envisaged might feature?

Amendment 42 would require the Secretary of State to allow 28 days for representations to be made on the basis of the calculation and to implement a process for receiving representations. I am sure that there will be informal arrangements but there should be some formal process by which local authorities can challenge the calculation.

Amendment 44 requires a report to Parliament after three years. The Government have yet to conclude on the safety net but it could be something like a 7.5% to 10% reduction from baseline funding, which, as time goes by, other than being uprated by RPI, would become an increasingly distant figure. Can we have an update on the thinking and on what evidence will be used? A significant diminution in base funding for an authority could be cumulative and we would be very concerned about that. We have debated before a significant loss of the business rate base: we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, last week. Some of it might be involuntary because of major closures; some of it might be voluntary, such as the discouragement of major regeneration projects. We need a clear path to review how it is working, so we believe that a report to Parliament at three years to see how that safety net is operating is very important.

In similar vein, Amendment 45 seeks to put down some criteria and the need for an evidence base. I apologise for the late tabling of Amendment 45A; it just got stuck in the system. It is a probing amendment intended to focus on the cumulative impact of the safety net, particularly when local authority reserves are being depleted and, in any event, the Government are focusing on levels of reserves.

I have put my name to Amendment 46, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, who will perhaps talk to it if necessary. There is something of a hotchpotch of issues there but it is intended to be probing in order to understand issues concerning the levy concept. I beg to move.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, this group includes Amendment 46 in my name, to which I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has added his name. We come to this in a splendid example of a total coalition, if I may put it like that to my noble friend the Minister.

I will say a word about a special point that affects the City of London in a moment, but the point about Amendment 46 is that it is asking that volatility in local authority income due to rating appeals is formally recognised and “fully compensated”. The justice of this is self-evident. Under the current proposals for business rate retention, local authorities will be unable to benefit from business rate yield growth due to rental increases after revaluation. However, when it comes to reductions, local authorities are expected to manage and absorb funding volatility caused by rating appeals after revaluation, subject to the provisions of the safety net. Of course, volatility in funding will fall entirely on the local authority.

Just as with other matters of this kind, it is not within the control of local authorities because the rating revaluations are all done by the Valuation Office Agency, which is outwith local authority control, and yet the Bill is providing that local authorities must bear the risk. This seems unbalanced and unfair. If it is right one way, it must surely have the converse effect of being right the other way. I should be grateful to hear my noble friend’s answer to that.

Under the current proposals there is what London Councils describes as asymmetry—a view that I entirely endorse. It seems to me that they are wholly asymmetrical and that, in these circumstances, there must be some form of indemnity from the Government against significant VOA errors. Without this, local authorities will simply have to bear the whole risk, which could be quite substantial.

I give notice that the City corporation has raised with me a separate point on which it may wish somebody to table an amendment on Report. It is a slightly different point but it comes up under the same general issue. It is technically distinct from our proposal, which I have just described under Amendment 46; nevertheless, it seems to be in some way similar. Our Amendment 46 deals with appeals founded on some error by the VOA. The City’s difficulty concerns appeals or alterations founded on a subsequent change of circumstances—namely, for instance, a movement in the local property market that produces an oversupply of commercial property. They have had experience of this in the City. Of course, it does not affect just one office or one set of business premises; it affects them all at much the same time. Therefore, it could have quite a serious impact on the City and on other areas where there are high concentrations of high-yield commercial property.

Even after the dispute has been resolved, the refunds can be backdated for several years, which means that the local authority has to wait for them. Here again the argument should be that local authorities should not be exposed to this kind of risk, because the Government have already accepted that they are not to be exposed to bearing the risk of general movements in the local property market. If it is right there, why is the same argument not applied to movements due to appeals from the valuation office? I understand that it would be appropriate to raise a separate amendment if one was going to try to incorporate something in the Bill, so at this point I am just giving notice of this issue to my noble friend. However, I think that there is a point on which she may wish to comment—she probably knows about this—as well as on what I would call the enlarged coalition proposal under Amendment 46 that the volatility of the ordinary valuation process should be borne by the Government and not by local authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

We now turn to the issue of the distribution of the remaining balance of the levy fund, which comes on page 36 of the Bill. As the Bill currently stands, it is entirely up to the Secretary of State to decide how that is going to be done: whether it is going to be rolled over or distributed to local authorities. Amendments 47 and 48 propose that this should be a matter of consultation between the local authorities and the Government, and then be subject to approval by Parliament via the local government finance report. Without that, there is no way for Parliament to exercise any control over the distribution of the levy, which could be quite a significant sum at the end of the period to which it applies.

The logic of the system that the Government are introducing is that it is local government money. It should therefore be returned to the local authorities and not be the subject of a further centralisation of control by the department. It is the old question and the department seems to want to retain overall control over the decision as to whether the balance should be rolled over or distributed, whereas in accordance with any sort of localism agenda it should be recognised that it is local government money and it is for local government to decide what should happen. At least it should be the subject of consultation, as the amendment provides, and then be dealt with subsequently in the local government finance report and so be within the control of Parliament. I hope that my noble friend will be able to see the sense of that and how it is in accordance with the Government’s overall policy of localism. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 47 and 48 and wholeheartedly support the proposition that has been argued by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. There is nothing more to say on that matter.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and I also have Amendment 49 in this group, which is a bit of a failsafe proposal. It says:

“Should any part of a balance on a levy account for any year remain undistributed after 3 years from the end of that year, the Secretary of State shall report to Parliament on the reasons therefore”.

If it is accumulating over that period, there is real cause for concern. This is an added protection and certainly does not displace the propositions in the earlier two amendments.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, before the Minister replies, perhaps I might return to the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, to London Councils. I accept entirely that London Councils has changed its position on deferment of the business rate component of this Bill—the briefing that we had a month ago certainly put us in a different slot—and I was not seeking to suggest otherwise. However, I was seeking to relay what is still its current view, as I understand it, which is that the scheme needs to be urgently revamped if it is to produce the radical shift in the structure of local government funding that the Bill proposes. I do not know what process the noble Lord might feel there is to achieve that if there is no deferment of the Bill. Are we going to follow up with an amendment Bill next year? How is it actually to come about? What is there within the Bill that would enable that radical restructuring that is apparently wanted? I do not know whether that is what the noble Lord supports.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me an opportunity to explain. I referred a few moments ago to the number of amendments tabled on the first part of the Bill that would make quite substantial changes, particularly about the division between the central and local shares of business rates revenue. That would be a change that, if my noble friend Lady Hanham could persuade her colleagues that it might be accepted, would go a long way towards meeting the concerns not only of London Councils but of the Local Government Association and local authorities generally, which are anxious to see a faster process of the localisation of business rates revenue. I will no doubt have an opportunity to talk about this a little later, but I do not think that the questions of timing and of the changes that we are proposing are in any way inconsistent. As my noble friend Lord Tope said, there would be some regret if this were to be delayed. I think that both he and I were making that point. Perhaps that is a way of explaining to and satisfying the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that there is no inconsistency in what we were arguing.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to produce and keep up to date,

“a National Planning Policy Framework, which will establish policies to achieve sustainable development … including mitigation of, and adaption to, climate change”.

This also requires a consultation process and a parliamentary process.

I am aware that some would argue against this proposition and that it opens the door to giving parliamentary sanction to a framework that they may consider to be flawed. However, given the potentially profound effect an NPPF can have, we consider that the better argument is for Parliament to be able to have its say. Obviously we welcome the opportunity for upcoming debates in your Lordships’ House—even two of them—but this is not a substitute for a proper parliamentary process.

I remind noble Lords that the coalition agreement said:

“We will publish and present to Parliament a simple and consolidated national planning framework covering all forms of development and setting out national economic, environmental and social priorities”.

As I said in Committee, if that commitment can be enshrined in the coalition agreement, why not in the Bill? To be clear, the amendment does not seek to put the NPPF in the Bill; it simply seeks the obligation for one to be produced and updated and to be subject to a consultation and parliamentary process, which can be determined by the Secretary of State.

When we debated this issue in Committee, we did so in the absence of an official draft of the NPPF. This of course we now have, although it did not see the light of day until we were embarking on the Summer Recess. Indeed, the announcement of the planning framework while Parliament was not sitting increased fears that Ministers were trying to steamroller through important changes without proper scrutiny or debate. An assurance of a proper consultation and parliamentary process could have lessened these fears and potentially obviated some of the more unpleasant exchanges that ensued via the national press.

This amendment does not seek to spark a debate on the merits or otherwise of the NPPF, but there can be no doubt about its significance, whatever its final form and interpretation.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

The noble Lord has accused the Government of trying to sneak through the framework document because it was published during the recess. I am quite sure that he will have had, as I have, a letter from my noble friend that says:

“We are keen to take every opportunity to consult on and improve the text of the draft framework. We are inviting the Communities and Local Government Select Committee to comment … and are seeking to secure time for both Houses to consider the draft framework in the autumn”.

Did he have that letter?

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Monday 12th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I would like to respond to that briefly. London Councils has made it very clear from the beginning of this Bill that it has been unhappy with the extent to which the regional authority in London—namely, the mayor and the London Assembly—seems to have been more successful in securing powers and opportunities than have London boroughs. Maybe that is their fault, but the fact of the matter is that the point made by my noble friend Lord True is shared by London boroughs as a whole. There needs to be a better balance between the mayor and the boroughs on these sorts of matters. As I have said before, the boroughs are responsible elected authorities and deserve to have a proper consideration on these matters. I hope that the Minister will feel able to give further consideration to this point. Here is another case where the mayor’s lobbying seems to have been more effective than that of the London boroughs. I am not sure whether that is right or justified, but that seems to be what has happened.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, as we have heard, the government amendment requires consultation before there is any delegation or variation of a delegation of ministerial powers to the Mayor of London. This consultation must take place with each London borough, the Common Council of the City of London, and the Assembly. The noble Lord, Lord True, requires consultation on whether the function could be more appropriately conducted at borough level and, if a majority thinks so, an explanation has to be given to Parliament. We obviously support the consultation and the government amendment, but there is no specific guidance in the amendment as to what might result from such consultation. There is no specific requirement to publish the results, produce a response or indeed report to Parliament. Could the Minister give us some more details about these matters? If, for example, the consultation were to be overwhelmingly hostile to the concept, would it still proceed? Can he give us an idea of the type of eligible functions likely to be involved in the sort of delegation contemplated?

The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord True, with which, like my noble friend Lord Beecham, I have some sympathy, raises an interesting point about the role of London boroughs and their equivalents under the so-called Core Cities amendments, which we will shortly come to. Should it be accepted at any stage that the boroughs—one or all of them—would be a better destination for such delegation, and what powers in the Bill would allow that to happen?

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[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

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, perhaps I should have explained it with one extra sentence. Anyway, it is kilovolts. Rather interestingly, the Public Bill Office printed it as kilowatts at the beginning and we had to put that right. The point is that the voltage for these distribution lines is 132, and therefore we wanted 132 “and below”, and not the ones that would have to go to the IPC, to be above. It is simply a matter of getting the wording right as originally intended in the 2008 planning Act.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. That helps me. These amendments relate to the decision to abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission, with the ink not yet dry on the 2008 Act, which was passed under the previous Government. The House would not expect me to welcome that change with unbridled enthusiasm, but now is not the time to revisit old arguments in detail. We would agree that infrastructure investment is vital to the UK economy and jobs and the commitment to retain the fast-track regime is to be welcomed. In particular, we support the retention of the existing timetable for decision-making, as clarified by the government amendment. The Bill includes provision for national policy statements to be scrutinised and approved by Parliament before designation. There seems to be no reason why this role should be limited to the House of Commons and, accordingly, we support the amendments of my noble friend Lord Berkeley. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is on the same page. I have no doubt that the collective wisdom of noble Lords covering the policy areas concerned would supplement the expertise of another place. Perhaps the Minister will say why the Government consider this to be a role just for the House of Commons. Section 9 of the Planning Act 2008 includes a role for both Houses.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Monday 20th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I have a question on this which arises from the extremely helpful statement that my noble friend made this afternoon. This part of the Bill contains the provisions about the roles of mayors and chief executives being combined. My noble friend has indicated that that in fact is not going to happen. I have just revisited the amendments that were down to deal with that, and they would have taken out large parts of the clauses that we are now discussing. If they had been taken in a different order, I suspect that the Chairman would have had to say that, if the amendment was carried and all these parts taken out, the amendments moved and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, would have fallen with them. As it is, that has not happened yet.

Of course, what we do not know—and I hope my noble friend at some stage will be able to tell us—is how the Government intend to implement the concession that she announced earlier today, to my great delight, that the part of the Bill dealing with mayors and chief executives was going to be dropped. I hope my noble friend sees the difficulties we are in: we are discussing a clause, much of which may disappear. I do not want to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, because he has made two or three very valid and interesting points, but it is because of the order in which these have been taken that he is able to discuss those things at all, because otherwise they might have fallen with the amendment to take out the combined roles.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

No doubt the Minister will clarify this for us. I have not had a chance to go through all of the amendments that will be affected by the earlier announcement but I did not think that this was one of them. If it were, I would be very content.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for clarifying that, but in fact there are some amendments, that take several pages right out, that were intended to remove this whole part of the Bill.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

If I may express a view, I have to say that I think that that is the right course because it may well be that when the amendments to reflect the change announced this afternoon have been made, this whole passage of the Bill, several pages of it, may look very different. It would then be necessary to consider which of the remaining parts of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, might still like to amend. At the moment I do not see how we can do that.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her brief reply. Clearly, we need to get back to these serious issues on Report. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that, from reading the Bill, I understand that this issue is not linked to how someone becomes a mayor; it is focused on a mayor and executive arrangements, however they are created. I do not think that what we discussed earlier would strike those down. If it did, the amendments would become otiose.

Notwithstanding that point, I say to the noble Baroness that there were a series of questions which deserve a serious answer about why this power is limited to mayors and executives, and does not apply to executive and cabinet arrangements. Why is it only that one model that can be the recipient of the Secretary of State’s powers? More particularly, the protections and the fettering of that very wide power that needs to be undertaken is not just my worry—the Delegated Powers Committee is very clear on it. We will certainly wish to return to that.

The noble Lord, Lord True, made reference to an each-way transfer. My main point was that, if it is to apply at all and if sufficient safeguards can be put in, it should be when there are leader and executive arrangements, and when there are mayor and executive arrangements, as well as the supplementary point about what happens if you go from one to the other.

I do not know whether the noble Baroness has any further information as a result of the missive. If not, I will withdraw the amendment and leave the issue until Report but this is most certainly a matter to which we will return, if we have to, on the basis of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin.