Swing Bridges

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the need to secure the urgent repair of swing bridges that block the passage of boats, which risk harming economic growth and domestic tourism.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)]

My Lords, assessments on the repair status of swing bridges would most likely fall to the relevant local authority and/or the bridge owner with responsibility for that infrastructure, which may differ from bridge to bridge. Similarly, we would expect the wider impacts of bridge condition to be assessed by those bodies, or by other local parties with a relevant interest. As such, my department would not generally undertake such assessments unless it had responsibility for a specific infrastructure asset.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

I thank the Minister. I declare my interest as a resident of Faversham in Kent. Six years ago, a new swing bridge was promised to the people of Faversham. Money was raised for this purpose. Peel Ports, the sort of organisation that the Minister referred to, has responsibility for providing an opening bridge and sluice gates. Can the Minister confirm that, despite what she says, the Secretary of State has a legal power to issue an abatement notice and order repair by Peel Ports? Further requested documentation was sent to the Secretary of State on 2 March. Can the Minister report on this overdue work, which will greatly assist business and tourism in this heritage town? The Government do have a responsibility.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

We might go back and forth on this. I have looked into this matter. I spoke to the Member of Parliament for Faversham over the weekend. She too has raised it with me. We have yet not received sufficient information for responsibility to be determined, and in any event, it is not the Department for Transport’s job to determine responsibility. Local parties must work together to agree who is responsible for the bridge now and who will be responsible for it in the future should there be a change in ownership. I am taking an interest in the Faversham swing bridge. However, there does not appear at the moment to be a commercial reason to re-open it and dredge the waterway. That may change in the future, but a vessel has not gone through that area for some decades.

Spain: Travel

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 28th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton [V]]

The noble Lord is right that there are enforcement measures in place for people returning from Spain or elsewhere, where a self-isolation period of 14 days is required. PHE is undertaking spot checks as part of the enforcement approach and there is a possibility of a £1,000 fixed penalty notice for those people who are not self-isolating.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD) [V]]

My Lords, have the Government thought through what happens when someone returns from Spain to go back to work the next day? The Minister talks glibly of financial support, but if travellers are required to self-isolate, will they actually have a job to go back to? The Minister’s letter says that travellers who are there can continue their trip, so that does not seem to be too urgent. Would not the correct procedure be to give two weeks’ notice of the restriction to allow travellers, including the sun-tanned Transport Secretary, time to return without quarantine?

Covid-19: Transport

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in paying tribute to everybody in the transport sector who has worked so tirelessly over the recent weeks and months to make sure that those who must travel are able to do so. They have done a superb job in keeping things going. It is a great tribute to their hard work that we are in the position we are in today. I also offer my sincere condolences to the families and friends of all those, particularly in the transport sector, who have lost their lives.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made a number of points. He started by not being wholly supportive of the transport operator guidance, in that it was not directive and is not practical. This is not the feedback that I have had from the transport operators—and I speak to them a lot. They are perfectly capable of taking this guidance and translating and transposing it into the appropriate measures that they need to take according to the needs of their workers and passengers. It is not the case that a bus operator is the same as a tram operator or a PHV operator. There is a huge variety of transport operators, which is why the guidance is set out as it is. I have not had feedback that transport operators feel that they are missing direction. Certainly, I have had feedback that they are working incredibly well together in developing guidance, then adjusting it for their own needs and for their own staff.

I will accept that, in certain circumstances, social distancing on public transport will be a challenge, and that is recognised in the guidance. For example, the passenger guidance refers to 2-metre social distancing “where possible”, and states that this is probably sometimes not possible—at busier times, on busier routes and at certain points in the journey. That guidance goes on to talk about other mitigations that can be put in place to help the passenger—for example, avoiding physical contact with other passengers and not standing or sitting face to face. Spending minimal time with other passengers, such as passing in the corridor, is not thought to be too much of a risk. The guidance says that face coverings are advised in enclosed spaces, which is what the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, wanted it to say. We have set out exactly what should happen and what passengers’ expectations of social distancing should be.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about operationalising social distancing and explained many of the things that operators are considering. Each operator is preparing its own plan for its particular transport type and circumstances, operationalising social distancing, and other elements within the guidance, and putting it in the plan. The Department for Transport is reviewing many of those plans, to make sure that we too are content that the right measures are put in place.

Crowd management will be one of the important things. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked what would happen if a certain number of people got on a platform. This has, of course, been thought through. Every Transport for London station has an operational plan to make sure that certain things will happen and that passengers are managed and advised in the right way so that we do not get too much bunching. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked whether we had been able to maintain social distance this week. I am delighted to report that there have been very few problems, and I think that all those that did occur were reported on the news. When I spoke to Transport for London last night, the picture it was able to give me of its operations was pretty positive. It had not seen persistent levels of lack of social distancing. For the time being—fingers crossed —everything is going to plan.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned the devolved nature of the country. The consequence of devolution is that it is up to other countries to have their own guidance, should they wish to do so. However, the transport operators are doing a very good job at communicating that to passengers. Our guidance for people travelling between the devolved nations is: just check with the transport operator. There will be posters everywhere; it will be impossible to miss them.

Cycling and walking also featured in the noble Baroness’s remarks. I am delighted about the £250 million that is coming out of the traps in order that we can get local authorities to make changes quickly. She asked whether we were involved with the local authorities in that. Yes, we are. We have published road space allocation guidance which helps them to understand the sort of things they need to consider when introducing, for example, wider pavements for pedestrians or temporary cycle lanes to encourage more people to get on their bikes.

I cannot offer further details on e-scooters at the moment, as I believe they are still being finalised. If the noble Baroness could be a tiny bit patient, I think an announcement will come very shortly. This is a good opportunity for us to trial this new form of transport, to see if it works for cities and other places in our country.

Finally, the noble Baroness mentioned the bus operators and whether there should be a national forum. I speak to the bus operators very regularly. They fall into two associations: the CPT and ALBUM, which covers the smaller players. Those two associations are doing great work in encouraging the bus operators to share best practice and to help them develop risk assessments for their particular circumstances. I do not think there is a need for a national forum because that is all happening.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Palmer of Childs Hill) (LD)]

We now come to the 30 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I would ask that both questions and answers are kept brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers. In each case, the Minister will answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

Workplace testing already exists. Anybody within the transport system who needs a test because they have symptoms of coronavirus can get one. Either they can sign up themselves or their employer can do it for them. That means that the individual concerned can find out whether they have coronavirus and, if not, and if they feel well, they can get back to work.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Lord Liddle. No? The noble Lord’s microphone has not been unmuted and he has missed his chance.

The time allotted for the Statement is now up. I am delighted to say that we virtually got everybody in to speak.

Laser Misuse (Vehicles) Bill [HL]

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group all tackle the need to include aircraft control towers within the ambit of the Bill. This is something that I raised at Second Reading. Control towers obviously play a vital part in ensuring the safety of planes, and I am glad that when I and other noble Lords raised this at Second Reading the Minister appeared to take our concerns to heart.

This issue is of serious concern to BALPA, and with good reason: since May 2013, 13 laser attacks on control towers in Britain have been recorded under the mandatory occurrence reporting scheme. In the year 2013 alone there were eight incidents. These attacks are widespread: two in Liverpool, one in Coventry, two in Manchester, two in Luton, one in Jersey, one at Heathrow, one in Bristol, one in Cardiff, one in Edinburgh and one in Birmingham. It is worth noting that one case, at East Midlands Airport, was so severe that it led to the air traffic controller concerned having to take an unplanned break. Noble Lords familiar with rostering in control towers will realise that that is disruptive and could undermine safety, as controllers have carefully timed breaks to ensure that they are always fully attentive and alert. Someone having to cover an extra unexpected shift might already be tired.

Your Lordships will note from the list that I read out that, unlike drone incidents, laser incidents are not concentrated largely in London. Smaller airports are equally affected, maybe because control towers are more easily visible and accessible than that, for example, at Heathrow.

Amendments 2, 6 and 8 widen the Bill to include a building to control vehicle traffic, and Amendment 2 removes from the Bill the stipulation that the laser must dazzle or distract, or be likely to dazzle or distract. This may still be difficult to prove. I have taken on board information from the police, who have found it difficult to enforce the current legislation, and sought to widen the provision as much as possible. I notice that the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Monks, cover much the same issues.

I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give us a positive response on both these issues: the inclusion of control towers and simplifying and broadening the offence so that shining the beam at a control tower is sufficient to be considered an offence. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Palmer of Childs Hill) (LD)]

I need at this stage to mention that I cannot call Amendments 3 or 4 because of pre-emption if this amendment is agreed.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, this group of amendments falls under two issues: one is control towers and control buildings, the other is what I call “to dazzle or not to dazzle”. Amendments 2, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 refer to the former—I accept that they also refer in part to dazzling or not dazzling—and I tabled Amendment 3, which is directly on the dazzle issue.

I think everybody involved with the Bill supports the central idea that we should prohibit the shining of lasers at aircraft because of the associated risk. Beyond that, there has been a degree of mission creep. The Government’s piece of mission creep has been to want to apply this to all vehicles—fair enough. The aviation lobby’s mission creep has been to want to apply it to control towers—fair enough. When you have had those pieces of mission creep, it is reasonable to apply it to control buildings, although I would be more supportive if there were concrete examples.

We in general support the thrust of the amendments, but I am slightly uncomfortable, because they start to nudge up against the concept of lasers as weapons. The Government must take on board the concept of the use of lasers as weapons in society in general and study this worrying development. That relates to matters such as importation, the crime of carrying such a weapon, and so on. But we do not want to confuse the Bill by going into that territory. I hope that the Minister will take that concern back to her colleagues. I believe that there is already work in BEIS taking place.

To dazzle or not to dazzle is all about gaining a successful prosecution. Our amendment increases the probability of successful prosecution, because it does not require the court to have, completely misquoting Elizabeth I, a window into men’s minds. In other words, the court does not have to prove what people were thinking when they did it. I know that there is general discomfort about strict liability offences, but the issue here is about balance. It boils down to: for what other purpose, having regard to the defence in Clause 1(2), would anyone shine a laser at a vehicle other than to dazzle and distract? That simplicity pushes one towards taking away the dazzle and distract requirement for successful prosecution. I shall deal with my amendment at the appropriate time.

Local Government Finance Bill

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Thursday 19th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

My Lords, this particular amendment finds me echoing the words of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, that the Secretary of State is being required to get involved in minutiae. If one looks at the five regulations in paragraph 3(5), one almost finds that local authorities are being required to photocopy both sides of every piece of paper, put first-class stamps on everything and so on, and this is mollycoddling of the greatest degree. If we are talking about localism, the idea that the Secretary of State can suggest to any local authority that they should do things in this manner tends to assume that it is made up of idiots who cannot run anything. That really is the opposite of localism.

This is little more than a probing amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, said, but one that goes very much to the heart of localism and the Secretary of State’s tendency to get involved to a completely unnecessary degree.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, Amendments 84 and 87 stand in my name, but I shall first address the issues in Amendment 83ZA, which has just been spoken to. It goes without saying that I support Amendment 88 in the name of my noble friend Lady Sherlock.

As far as Amendment 83ZA is concerned, we are not enamoured of the Secretary of State having a raft of central powers, but we have to balance this against our concerns about a fragmented system. With the prospect of hundreds of different authorities adopting hundreds of different schemes, all with different criteria, some standardisation of approach has merit. For example, the form and content of documents to be produced raises the question of what distributional analysis should be included and what the requirements should be for a general impact assessment and indeed an equality impact assessment. Having some central guidance on these matters may help to head off problems of potential judicial review for some councils.

Amendments 84 and 87 continue the theme of the default scheme which, as we have discussed, has now been produced in all its glory—all 155 pages of it. Despite its lateness, it has moved us on. It has been difficult in the time available comprehensively to absorb its content and to read across the existing council tax benefit provisions, and we have an outstanding question to the Minister from our earlier amendment about where the default scheme has not been able to replicate existing arrangements. However, given that Amendment 84 is just a probing amendment, I am content to proceed on the basis that any discrepancies or differences are minimal, and that the first part of the amendment has been addressed.

That being so, we are seeking from the Government their view of the protection that their scheme provides to vulnerable people. What, on the basis of 155 pages of regulations, is included in the default scheme for vulnerable people and how does the default scheme address their needs? In this age of austerity, we presume that the Government would not sanction any scheme that provides superfluous or excessive relief, so we are simply asking them to spell out how they are providing for vulnerable people in the default scheme and which aspects of the scheme provide particular support for which groups. Given that the Government have made judgments about who should be protected by the default scheme, they should have a view about who should be considered under local schemes. The amendment does not require any local authority to follow the Government’s view on this; they can exercise their own judgments, but should be able to do so armed with the knowledge of why the Government have made certain decisions.

Local Government Finance Bill

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

I do not have to take my name off the top of this amendment because it was never there. However, I share the natural anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, whose name is to one of these amendments.

The argument put forward in these amendments is to put off till tomorrow what should be done today. There is never a good time to do this. Putting it off will not solve this or help in any way. The argument put forward by noble Lords is that we need a greater lead-in time. The Olympics had a great lead-in time for security but there was still a mess at the end. There may be a mess at the end of this and there may be a mess at the end of the Olympics, but greater lead-in times do not necessarily solve problems.

As other noble Lords have said, local authorities have put in a lot of work. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, says, some are further advanced than others. A district council is, by nature, a smaller authority than a London borough, so size should make it easier to deal with IT, benefits and the like. However, you still need a scheme, although the amount of money involved may be vastly different. I worked with a district council and I am still a London borough councillor, and it is different. The answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who makes a very valid point, must be that we need to find a way in which those district councils and other councils that are not that far advanced can be assisted. That is why the Local Government Association, London Councils, neighbouring councils such as Norfolk council, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, described, and the regional authorities have to help those councils through the experience of others. A small district authority should not have to reinvent the wheel.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

The problem is that in a district council—a billing authority—you have two rounds of consultation to go through. There is the precepting authority. Then you amend your scheme. Then you go out to the public for three months. Then you amend your scheme again before it is accepted. That, as much as the software, is the problem. I entirely take the noble Lord’s point about co-operation.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that there have to be different consultations. An authority may have a £500 million revenue expenditure, as Barnet authority has, but you have to focus your mind within that authority and, even if there are two or three levels of consultation, it has to be done. There is a short time in which to do it, but there is time.

The noble Lord, Lord Tope, talked about there being a difficult time over the next few months. I agree. Central government and local government, the Olympics and all sorts of organisations are having a difficult time, but local authorities have a history of rising to the occasion. I believe that they are doing that and that they will continue to do so. Therefore, I am against postponement.

[Lord Beecham]

The difference between this round of change and a general round of changes is that hitherto we have had to cope with a national scheme. There has been the shift of national and domestic rates, the introduction of the poll tax, and the introduction of the council tax—and they were national schemes. One factor in the present round is that consultation has been meaningful and that people will naturally want to see what is happening in their adjoining authority. The authorities may well consult, but as the whole purpose of this misguided legislation in my view is to create variety across the whole country, and no doubt even within county areas, presumably people will want to know how their scheme, as a resident, compares with the scheme in the adjoining district or in another district at the other end of the county.

These decisions will be very difficult for councils to make and, I would have thought, equally difficult for their residents to understand. They will certainly be concerned—it is the intention of the Bill—if they come up with a wide range of options that will then be exercised. In this very tight timescale, how will the citizen or the organisations that will act as advocates for groups of citizens—we shall come on to some of those in more detail later—be able to contribute meaningfully to this consultation process? There will not be time to weigh the implications of one scheme against another. This is a third dimension to the problems that my noble friends have outlined, and I do not think that they have been taken into account in the way in which the Bill has been drafted and the way in which the Government are proceeding.

Local Government Finance Bill

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Grand Committee

[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.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

I rise to make the coalition complete and show that it is indeed a multi-coalition point. My name appears on this amendment, as does that of my noble friend Lord Tope. Most of what I wanted to say has been covered by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. I just emphasise that the Valuation Office Agency is another separate body and that it will make decisions on appeals. It will decide whether there is any liability but local authorities will have to pick up the pieces. It seems that there is central government on one side and local authorities on the other. To my shame, I am not sure whether the Valuation Office Agency is still a part of HMRC but it certainly was as a valuation office. Local authorities will be caught between a rock and a hard place because things will happen that neither government nor local authorities will be involved with, and local authorities will then just pick up any compensation that might be needed. Although my noble friend Lord Jenkin widened it in many ways, so far as I can see, all the amendment is seeking is to ensure that losses due to appeals are fully compensated from the safety net. We believe that this would be fair and equitable for local authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has covered most of this but I wish to add a few words on Amendment 47. This ensures that the Secretary of State must consult on whether the remaining balance on the levy account is redistributed to local government or rolled over to the following year. I really feel that this amendment is trying to prevent this legislation from resembling the National Lottery, where if someone does not win a prize it is rolled over to the next round. Here, instead of there being a balance that is distributed to the people whence it came, we are suggesting that it is rolled over to the next lot of recipients in some lottery-type arrangement. All this amendment is trying to do is to limit the levy to the period to which it relates and to those who have contributed to the levy within that period.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, we are in danger of amending the amended. These clauses were amended in the other place as a result of some of the concerns there. These amendments would reverse changes to the way that the Government distributes surplus levy income that were made in the other place. I recognise the noble Lord’s intentions in tabling these amendments—indeed they reflect much of the Government’s proposed process for distributing the levy surplus when we first introduced the Bill in the other place. However, as the Bill was amended to meet concerns raised there, I cannot accept these amendments. We have said that any surplus levy income that is not needed to fund the safety net will be distributed back to local authorities. We will not simply hold larger and larger surpluses.

Amendments 47 and 48 propose that the Secretary of State should consult with relevant authorities in advance of determining how much levy surplus should be distributed back to local authorities and set out the basis of distribution of levy surplus in the annual local government finance report. Although I sympathise with the intentions behind these amendments, setting out the distribution of any levy surplus through the local government finance report rather than through regulations is not the best approach. In fact, there are unintended consequences of this approach, in particular for the timings of payments to distribute the levy surplus.

When the Bill was discussed in Committee in the other place, concern was raised that the proposed process for distributing surplus levy was a bit long-winded. Setting out the basis of distribution through the local government finance report would mean that even when the Government had taken a decision to distribute some or all of any surplus back to local government, authorities would have to wait six months to a year before they saw the money. As a result of that, the Government agreed to look into speeding up the distribution and therefore amended the Bill—which is how it stands now—so that the process for distributing levy surplus, and the basis of that distribution, could be set out in regulations, ensuring that the payments can be made immediately after the decision to make them is taken.

Furthermore, to provide appropriate parliamentary oversight, the Government ensured the regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure and hence subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament. Regulations will need to be in place well in advance of any levy surplus being distributed, so authorities will have the certainty that the noble Lord is seeking. Once the regulations are in place, they will have this certainty each and every year until and unless they are revoked.

Amendment 49 requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament the reasons why any remaining balance of the levy account has not been redistributed within three years. Again, although I recognise the intention behind this amendment, I do not believe it to be necessary. I reiterate that it has always been the Government’s default position not to hold back excessive amounts of surplus levy. The levy account will also operate with a high degree of transparency—the payments made both to and from this account will be easy to identify, as will the overall balance. Furthermore, the Comptroller and Auditor-General will report on the account and lay this report before Parliament in the same way as he currently does in the report entitled Pooling of Non-Domestic Rates and Redistribution to Local Authorities in England. This will provide Parliament with adequate opportunity to raise the issue of the levy balance, if required, through the normal processes.

On the basis of these arguments and the fact that this has already been amended, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

Local Government Finance Bill

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

My Lords, may I pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, about reserves? I hope that when the Minister replies to that point, as she was asked to do, she will include within it how the strong reservations of the accountants’ organisation CIPFA about how much local authorities should hold in reserves will fit in with what the Secretary of State has apparently said. I hope that she will talk about specific reserves as well as unallocated reserves. It would be great if this could be clarified at some stage.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

While the Minister is on that subject, perhaps I may ask a question, although, first, I should have declared my interest as a councillor in the London Borough of Barnet. I apologise.

[Lord Tope]

Another vice-president?

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

No, I am not a vice-president of anything. In addition to the comments that I and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, made about reserves—specific and non-specific—one also needs to take into account the restrictions imposed on local authorities by external auditors. External auditors used to come under the Audit Commission but now they are a stand-alone operation. They require a certain level of reserves on the balance sheet, and it would be difficult if central government were to impose requirements on those reserves. External auditors say that you have to have £5 million, £10 million or £15 million in reserves to make everyone feel comfortable, but I have always said when making speeches that I think they make people feel too comfortable. However, that is what the auditors say and they will qualify your accounts if you do not do that.

[Baroness Hanham]

I return to the fact that unfortunately I did not hear, and do not know, what the Secretary of State was referring to. Of course, reserves are part of local government finance and part of control systems in local government. I should like to make some further inquiries about how that interlinks, if it does, with what we are talking about—the business rate retention scheme—so that I do not mislead the Committee. I know that the provision and use of reserves—and sometimes councils have large reserves—could potentially be used to help to ease the current financial situation. I shall not say anything more about that because I do not know what was said but I shall come back to it.

I was also asked about the police authority, and again I apologise for not picking that up. As I understand it, and I shall write if I am incorrect, the police authority will make the precept because it will be in place until November. It would be pretty unreasonable to ask a new police commissioner to come in to sort that out in the short time available. Therefore, what he or she inherits from the police authority will be what goes forward for the first year. After that, the police commissioner will set his or her own precept. I am not being prodded from behind and being told that that is incorrect but I will let noble Lords know if it is not correct.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

10: Schedule 1, page 20, line 35, at end insert—
“(4A) Such an amount should only be paid in place of other grants to local government if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the overall needs of local government will be met.”

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments 13 and 14. It appears that the effect of the central share is to allow the Government to reduce what would have been grants outside the formula grant—that is, paid for by general taxation—and thus allow the business rates to take up the slack. The Treasury could thus substitute business rates for other taxes. I would like to ask if the Minister agrees that there is a danger of improving central government’s fiscal position at local taxpayers’ expense. That is the crux of this very short amendment.

This would not have an immediate effect; the estimates have been made by various local government bodies that the effect could begin in 2016-17, but it could be a real effect.

The central share will come back to councils, as we have discussed, but not necessarily the same councils, in the form of grants. Other noble Lords have given an example of Westminster and have said that that is why there has to be a reallocation of these moneys. I understand and appreciate that, but the real problem is that one reallocates business rates to give an incentive to local authorities to improve businesses within their areas and improve the economy in those areas. Many of them need that incentive; the current system of business rates whereby you collect the money and keep none of it is not an incentive, which is why this is an improvement. If you take away and redistribute, you lose a lot of that incentive from the places where there could be a great improvement in the economy.

Mention has been made by other noble Lords as to the 50%. I could have come in at that stage, but I thought that I would include it in what I am saying now. There is one other aspect to a 50% share, which has not been broached by other noble Lords—that 50% for the Government and 50% for the local councils is a dangerous percentage. Local authorities will lose, as they have in other instances, the difference between the half-empty and the half-full bottle. You know exactly what it is when it is 50%, but it is more difficult when they start recalculating and the share is 51% and 49%, as has been my experience in local authorities. Measuring the value of local council housing, when the example given by CIPFA was 50:50, when the local authority came to use the calculation they took the wrong half, because it was never 50%—it was always something else. Someone in Whitehall may know how to do it; there is a rumour that that is the case. But there is a danger that when you have 50:50, you will end up with 51:49, which would mean that you would not know which was the Government’s share and which was the local authorities’. I would hope that the larger share would be for the local authorities.

The amendment makes the point that the Treasury will be able to switch grants that have been paid for by general taxation into the rates system and in effect raid local businesses to assist the Exchequer. All this will, of course, be in addition to the cut of £500 million, in terms of the legislation overall. Amendments 10, 13 and 14 seek to protect local councils and central government from that usual thing of temptation, because it is not easy to resist temptation. As Oscar Wilde said, “I can resist anything except temptation”. I do not think that we should put too much temptation in the way of central government. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we have Amendments 11 and 24 in this group. Amendment 11 is a very straightforward probing amendment; it refers to paragraph 2(5) on page 20 and is to do with payments to local government in England. Presently it reads:

“The reference in sub-paragraph (3) to use for the purposes of local government in England includes the making of payments under an Act or an instrument made under an Act (whenever passed or made) to”—

then it gives a range of authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hanham]

I think I have said all I can say. The list is not complete and others can be substituted or interposed if necessary. Those will arise at other times but I do not know what they are. If we have information on or a sort of idea of which others we might be talking about, I will let the noble Lord know, but at the moment it is simply left that other bodies may be included.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 10 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Best because there is a need to take into account revalued and increasing rateable values of properties. The analogy used by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, reminded me of development land tax where when agricultural land got development planning permission its owner had to pay substantial extra taxation. We are in danger of looking at how much individuals, companies and corporations make as a result of Crossrail or whatever. If the land has increased in value as the property has increased in value, it ought to be a factor in the calculation of what the local authority receives. The point made earlier was that local councils such as Westminster would gain by the redistribution. Projects such as Crossrail spread that gain through rural areas and the like. I do not think that the fact that some local authorities may gain because of a national or regional development is a reason not to give that local authority the benefit of having an increased rateable base. If you look at new floor space, there are many places where that will not happen. Some noble Lords showed a degree of pessimism when they spoke about how things will devalue rather than increase in value. We have to look positively at how we should encourage local authorities to do infrastructure and to encourage infrastructure, even if it is Crossrail or whatever, so that the valuations of those properties increase and local authorities can see the benefit. That would incentivise local authorities to co-operate on those matters.

[Baroness Hanham]

That was an interesting, if unexpected, debate. When it started, I was very touched by the fact that I had a little note that said, “The purpose of Amendment 15 is not entirely clear”. My reply may not be totally applicable either, but somewhere along the line we have clearly raised really important points. We are going to have to look again at the amendment, but in the mean time, I will tell the Committee what we thought it was about, and if it does not quite tie up, we will sort it out, I am sure, between now and the next stage.

I am advised that the amendment in its current form could not stand as it would insert an amendment into Schedule 8 which, as a result of this Bill, will cease to apply for any purpose in England. That is the first problem. Even without this technical deficiency, we have a bit of a problem. We fully respect the noble Lord’s views that under the rates retention scheme authorities should be able to benefit from rental growth as well as physical growth. Westminster has been touched on by several speakers, but for authorities such as Westminster or, potentially, for my ex-authority Kensington and Chelsea, the potential for physical growth is much more limited than for others as there are very constrained sites with developments all through.

The efforts of local authorities to make their areas more attractive to business are not quite as limited as some would like to pretend. Efforts that have resulted in a steady increase in rental values and hence rateable values will arguably go unrewarded under the rates retention scheme. The duty of government is to legislate for a rates retention scheme that is workable for the whole of local government, not just for some authorities. For that reason, we could not devise a scheme that allowed local authorities to keep any part of the growth in rateable values. To explain why, I need to explain to the Committee how the revaluation works, although I hesitate to do that because the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, will understand this far more than I do. Perhaps for the benefit of the Committee we should go through it.

Every five years, the Valuation Office Agency undertakes the revaluation of non-domestic properties and, as a result, the aggregate rateable value of all English non-domestic properties either—amazingly—increases or decreases. In setting the multiplier for the first year following the revaluation, the Government take account of the overall increase or decrease in order to ensure that overall the same amount of tax is raised from business after revaluation as from before. For example, if the aggregate rateable value were to double, the multiplier would have to halve. In that way, it simply redistributes the tax burden between businesses on the basis of their up-to-date property values.

In the new world of rates retention, the system is set up at the outset so that through the means of tariffs and top-ups there is an initial redistribution of resources. That protects the position of those authorities that are relatively resource poor. But if, as I explained, we collect no more money from businesses following the revaluation than we did before, it follows that there is no additional money in the rates retention system. If therefore some authorities are to be allowed to keep additional resources, by the same token, some will have to receive less. Therefore, because of the uneven distribution of the rates base, this would not just mean a cut in funding for those authorities that have seen their rateable value fall. So an authority could see a funding fall, even if its rateable value had risen, if that price was by less than the national average. That could not be fair. In fact the only way to ensure that all authorities see their rateable value rise and see some income benefit is to break the multiplier link and raise the overall burden on business, and the Government are not prepared to do that.

For those reasons, I cannot accept the amendments that seek to allow any part of an increase in rateable values to be retained by local authorities. I hope that that explanation, somewhere along the line, meets the basis of the amendment. If it does not, perhaps we could discuss it between now and the next stage. I am not sure at all that it covers any of the matters raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. Having looked at Hansard, we may need to come back to that. While it was a very relevant aspect to commercial improvements, I am not sure that it necessarily fits in with the amendment, but it may do. I will happily say that if the amendment is to be pursued and if the noble Earl feels that the reply is not adequate or there is something more that needs to be done, we should discuss it between now and the next Sitting and then we might be able to get us both together to decide what we are trying to achieve.

Localism Bill

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has indicated, we are pleased to put our name to these amendments. We thank the Government for responding to at least one of the amendments, which means that the noble Lord will not have to introduce that one. The issues, as the noble Lord has explained, seem to be extremely straightforward and clear-cut. The consultation simply seeks for London boroughs parity with what happens to the London Assembly and for them not to have to go through the indirect route for the reasons that the noble Lord has explained and to make sure that there is fair representation. The Government have recognised that there should be representation for the boroughs on MDC boards. It seems a natural and reasonable extension to that that there should be representation on committees and sub-committees. Having said that, I fully support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

My Lords, as regards the mayoral development areas, reference is made to consultation with a number of bodies, including the Greater London Authority or local councils. But consultation is different in the minds of different people. In local government, we have seen many consultations, the results of which have been ignored. It worries one that a London borough may be only one part of the decision-making process and may only be consulted.

In particular, the government amendment refers to local borough councils having a “relevant” interest if the mayoral development area in any way impinges on the area of that local borough. The boundaries of London boroughs do not fit neatly into developments. For example, the Brent Cross development, which was built more than 30 years ago, is expanding, with which I agree. It is right on the borders of the boroughs of Barnet, Camden, Brent and Harrow. It seems to me that when this situation arises in the future, “relevant” local authorities should be those that have an interest and are affected by the proposed mayoral development areas, and not only those where the mayoral development area would be situated within that local borough. I invite the Minister to consider whether the word “relevant” is correct in this case and whether adjoining local boroughs should also be in some way incorporated in this Bill.

[Lord Campbell of Alloway]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment as a requisite safeguard for the flexibility of the London boroughs; that is, flexibility being within their remit and for their discharge.

Localism Bill

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

74: Clause 167, page 154, line 6, at end insert—
“( ) If having made a determination of pay compensation, the ombudsman must explain how the level of compensation has been calculated.”

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

My Lords, this amendment also has the fatal “o” word—ombudsman—in it, but noble Lords need not be afeared because it is a very non-contentious issue to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has kindly replied, and I agree with her answer. I tabled the amendment about the ombudsman because, when reading the Bill, one notes that the Housing Ombudsman will make a determination, but no mention is made of any compensation element. Determination is all very well, but an applicant may want monetary payment or grovelling of some sort and that is not mentioned in the Bill.

When investigating this in advance of the helpful reply of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, I went back to Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1996, which says, as the Minister implied, that the Housing Ombudsman may,

“order the member of a scheme against whom the complaint was made to pay compensation to the complainant”.

It is already in law that compensation of a monetary sum can be paid. I will make what is almost a drafting point. The laws of this country are so entwined and confused that it is wrong that one has to keep referring back to previous Bills to understand the Bill that one is looking at. We are not talking only of lawyers who will go back and say: “Ah, that is in the Housing Act 1996”. In this Bill one does not see any element of monetary repayment as compensation. I seek acknowledgement that, in whatever paper forms are produced, there will be a cross-reference to the 1996 Act so that people can see that there is a determination. I would be very happy if the Minister would confirm something on those lines. I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I will follow the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, on the question of compensation. Clearly, the ombudsman route provides the possibility of compensation. It is not certain whether that would apply to the alternative route, which we debated at some length earlier. Perhaps the noble Earl could indicate whether under the alternative method of the designated person—a councillor, Member of Parliament or tenant panel—there will be the opportunity for a compensation payment to be made by the designated person. If not, we would have two systems, one of which would afford the possibility of compensation while the other would not. I am sure that the noble Earl much appreciated that word in his shell-like ear. In the event that we will have two competing systems, will the Government ensure that guidance is given to tenants that that is the case—in other words, that under one system they may get compensation while under the other they will not? The matter could be discussed in the forum to which the Minister referred. Strange circumstances could arise if the situation were not clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, in view of the complexity, a detailed letter would be appropriate.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his comments. I am quite confident that the monetary compensation would apply to all reports to the ombudsman, in answer to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, so I have no worries on that score. My only comment is that for the sake of clarity in the ongoing negotiations and discussions, it would be useful for non-QCs to see that there is monetary compensation without having to go back to the 1996 Act. I very much thank the Minister for his reply and the reply from the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 74 withdrawn.