Queen’s Speech
Lord Patel of Bradford Excerpts(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Patel of Bradford (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to be speaking in the debate on the gracious Speech and to have the opportunity to raise an issue that I believe has been seriously neglected. Before I do that, I start on a positive note. I was pleased to see the inclusion of a number of reforms, including mental health legislation and on domestic violence and abuse—and, of course, the proposed consultation on social care which this time I hope will give social care charities and service users the opportunity to be heard.
I particularly welcome the focus on delivering on the Armed Forces covenant across the United Kingdom. I declare an interest having just completed a UK-wide report on veterans’ mental health needs. That report, alongside four detailed reports covering England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, were all commissioned by the Forces in Mind Trust. In fact the trust has just published an important second report on the community covenant which highlights issues of real concern. For example, there are mixed expectations about what the covenant means, especially in relation to the prioritisation of housing needs, and more worryingly, adult social care has been identified as an area where the covenant is least likely to be reflected in local policies and strategies. I hope that these and other issues will be considered in detail during the passage of the Armed Forces Bill.
However, I am confused by the proposed courts Bill. While of course I welcome a Bill to reform and modernise the courts and tribunal system, as many noble Lords have asked, what happened to the Prisons and Courts Bill that had been making its way through Parliament prior to the election? It had made good progress and was well supported across Parliament. Can the Minister say why this important work has been omitted from the Government’s legislative programme, particularly in light of the urgent and much-needed reforms of our prisons, including devolving greater powers to prison governors? By focusing almost exclusively on Brexit, are the Government failing to do their day job and ignoring a number of growing crises in public services?
I do not use the term lightly, but our prisons are in crisis. What else can you call a situation where we see soaring prison suicides, major staff shortages and rising drug use and violence among inmates? The 2016 figures from the Ministry of Justice paint a desperate picture. A record number of people killed themselves in prisons in England and Wales. There were 354 deaths in custody, including 119 self-inflicted deaths. That is only a little short of one person dying every single day. Self-harm incidents jumped by 23% to just under 38,000, which is nearly 7,000 more than were recorded in the previous year. There were more than 25,000 assaults in the 12 months to September 2016, representing a 31% rise. Of those, more than 18,000 were prisoner-on-prisoner assaults, up 28% from the previous year. Assaults on staff also rose 40% to around 6,500, and 761 of those were serious assaults. This Government cannot deny that people in prison, both prisoners and staff, are less safe than they have been at any time since records began.
Yet some of the most vulnerable people in our communities end up in prisons, including people with mental health problems and learning disabilities, people from black and ethnic minority groups, lesbian, bisexual, gay or transgender people and women, many of whom are also victims themselves of domestic abuse. In terms of racial discrimination, there is greater disproportion in the number of black people in prisons in the UK than there is in the United States. The most shocking figures are found in the youth estate. Around 43%—nearly half—of 15 to 17 year-olds come from black and Asian minority ethnic backgrounds, and this is against a background of youth offending dropping for the population as a whole. In 2016, the Prime Minister ordered a review into how ethnic minorities and white working class people are treated by public services; but now it appears that no action will be taken to address the “burning injustices” described by the Prime Minister and to tackle discrimination against black and ethnic minorities in the criminal justice system.
The overall situation in prisons is on a cliff edge. So I am calling on this Government to make a clear commitment to take action within this parliamentary Session to tackle these urgent issues. Without such action, I believe that we are heading towards a dangerous crisis point and placing some of the most vulnerable people in our communities at real risk.
Localism Bill
Lord Patel of Bradford Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“( ) the expression of interest includes evidence that a substantial number of the service users affected by the service support the expression of interest.”
Lord Patel of Bradford
My Lords, as has already been explained, Clause 68 concerns the duty placed on relevant authorities to consider an expression of interest. It is a very important clause, as it provides the foundation for the community right to challenge process. The duty sets out the definitions of relevant authorities and bodies, definitions that we have already discussed and that we shall debate further in two or three later amendments. It also sets out the terms by which an authority must consider an expression of interest. That is the part that the amendment would strengthen.
Think for a moment about the meaning of this chapter, and indeed the thrust of the Bill: it is about the central role and importance of local communities in determining the ways in which services are provided. When we talk about communities, whether we use the terms, “community organisation”, “body” or “group”, we must be very careful about what we mean. There is always a risk that we assume that a particular community group, voluntary body or even a local authority understands all the communities that use services or represents them. Clearly, we cannot have a situation in which any individual or group can challenge the provision of a particular service and have a right for their expression of interest to be considered. We must also guard against the interest being too narrow. When considering services it is only right that the views of those who use the services should also be considered in any challenge. It is, after all, the service users who will be most affected by changes made as a result of the challenge.
I have worked for many years with a great number of service users from the full range of health and social care environments, including those with mental health problems, alcohol and drug addictions, those involved in the criminal justice system, and with people of all ages, including the very young and older people. My experience consistently is that service users are not only very willing and keen but very capable of saying what they think about services and how they would like to see them improved. I would like to think that among the reasons a local authority would accept a community right to challenge and go through a procurement process for the service is because they want to see improvements. I cannot think of a better way of doing this than by ensuring that service users are involved in the process.
Of course, we have then to consider how many service users should be involved. What is the optimum number? What might the minimum number be? I have no easy answers, but I am sure that other noble Lords will want to express a view on this. It seems to me that the number should be substantial, given the profound impact that any change in provider could have on those using the service. This approach gives credence to service users as a body of people whose views must be considered. It also places a duty on those wishing to lay an expression of interest to make sure that they have adequately consulted the service users, or are at least in a position to do so. I would argue that there is also protection in taking that approach. By ensuring that the views of those most affected by any proposed change are taken into account, we can avoid the situation in which potential bodies seeking to challenge the current provision are not doing so solely in their own interests.
I hope that the Minister will be willing to consider this amendment and that he can give me some strong reassurance on what steps will be taken to ensure that the views of those using services are taken fully into account. I beg to move.
Lord True: My Lords, I have some sympathy, of course, for the direction that the noble Lord is coming from, but he himself touched on important questions of practicality. There are a lot of questions of practicality in these clauses. Many local authorities are in the process of seeking to set up charitable trusts, social enterprises, and other organisations such as those that were referred to in Clause 5. I am not quite sure how the views of the service users would be established by those wishing to make a challenge or put forward an expression of interest. If there were a small social enterprise to be formed from among a group of local authority workers out of their interest in sustaining high-quality services, it would be proposed that they have focus groups, referendums or other means to establish the reaction of service users. Although well intentioned, the amendment might actually put obstacles in the way of local authority workers establishing social enterprises or bodies.
I am a little nervous about the direction in which the amendment would take us. Clause 70 contains rules for local authorities and how they should consider expressions of interest; there are duties laid upon local authorities to take into account how any expression of interest would promote the well-being of people in the local authority area. So although I understand where the noble Lord is coming from, this may add an extra complication to an already complicated piece of legislation, and I could not support the amendment.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, this is the other side of the coin in terms of whether one is being too prescriptive. This amendment would require a relevant body to demonstrate that a substantial number of service users support its proposal when submitting an expression of interest. This puts an unnecessary burden on relevant bodies, and the relevant authority if it must verify the information. Where more than one relevant body submits an expression of interest, service users could be approached several times, which may be frustrating and confusing. This will be magnified by the fact that local people will use many different services. We agree that expressions of interest should reflect the needs of service users. Relevant bodies will often have excellent insight into these needs. The Bill enables relevant authorities to specify periods for the submission of expressions of interest in particular services. They could, for example, set periods that would enable relevant bodies to take into account the results of any consultation with service users, undertaken as part of the commissioning cycle. We are considering how service-user needs might be reflected in the requirements for an expression of interest. I hope, under these circumstances, that the Minister will feel it appropriate not to press the amendment.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
I shall have to come back to the noble Lord on that. There two ways in which these expressions can be made: one is that once we have an Act of Parliament, people can, as it were, just pitch; and the other is by authorities saying, “We are looking at various things and this is the starting date and this is the finishing date, when we look forward to people making expressions of interest”. If it were the latter, it would be quite clear when expressions of interest could be made. If people were just making a pitch, an authority might look at that and be surprised that something else turned up later.
Lord Patel of Bradford
The Minister said that the best that he could offer was to put this into regulations. That is obviously welcome. However, I am disappointed. The noble Lord clarified the problem of practicality for me. I have worked in health and social care for about 20 years and every service that is delivered will never say that it will never engage with service users. Everyone is very happy to say, “Yes, we will engage with service users”, but they do not do it, simply because they think that practically they cannot manage it, that they will not get any benefit from it, and that they will talk to too many service users and confuse them. Using the words of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, this is utter nonsense.
You can engage with service users, and there was huge appetite for that. I can give noble Lords example after example of people with mental health problems having impacted on social policy and on the policy of the organisation and teaching professionals how they should inspect services. What matters is how we do that and the value that we give it. Perhaps I can give one example. Over the past 18 months, I have chaired a review group on the effectiveness of drug treatment in prison. We looked at the huge amount of money that we spend on drug treatment in prison, which is a very difficult environment. We brought together 20 experts: governors, a chief probation officer, experts in the drugs area and academics. Everyone came round the table to explore a strategy for commissioning and producing outcomes. We spent 18 months meeting, arguing and fighting.
One thing on which I insisted was talking to service users, offenders, people currently in prison, ex-offenders and their families. We were not given a budget for it because they said, “It is not practical. No offender or ex-drug user will engage with the process, but have a go”. On a shoestring budget and in the space of six weeks, we engaged user groups across the country and asked them to talk to offenders, users, carers and families. We anticipated that at most 50 people would respond, but in those six weeks 550 current and ex-offenders and drug users responded.
Ultimately, the views of those drug users affected the way in which the final report—the Patel report—was written. They underpinned everything that happened. This effected the best evidence base ever gathered on drug treatment in prisons. They mirrored what that evidence base said and highlighted what drug users want and how they want it. With their evidence and their views, we produced an outcomes model. That would not have happened unless we had engaged with the so-called most difficult, hard to reach groups. People have a huge appetite to be involved. It does not matter whether two or three groups want to consult with service users; they should, because while they are consulting them and asking them what they want, they might learn something about what they should be doing and how they should be delivering their service.
It is crucial that this provision—that you cannot deliver a service without engaging service users—is in the Bill. I am sure that in his heart of hearts the Minister believes that. It is an important thing to do. My anxiety about not putting that into the Bill is that services will not do it; it will be an excuse not to do it. You have to force them to do it because it delivers goods. I will go away and think about this, and I would appreciate it if the Minister thought more about it and talked to his officials to see whether there is any way in which we could strengthen the provisions of the Bill that push those heading the new services to talk to service users. It might not have to be a substantial number, or whatever the legal phrase is, but this should happen because it is fundamental to the issue of the community’s right to challenge. The Minister himself said that this was about handing power to the community. Service users are a key aspect of the community, so we have to push this.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I am holding the line with the Bill. Anyone who thinks about challenging must put together all sorts of things to prove the viability of their outfit and the people involved. If they have any wit, they will say that they believe that they can do it and will have done some work in order to prove that they are up to the job. If the noble Lord were a consultant to people wanting to put forward a proposal, that is the sort of thing that he would urge them and everyone else to do.
Lord Patel of Bradford
Absolutely—if I was a consultant, it would be done. Unfortunately, however, there are not many folk like me about. We can discuss rates later. I take on board what the Minister said. I will think about it further and I would appreciate it if the Minister, too, would think further about whether we can strengthen this. I am sure that the issue will come back when we consider further aspects of the Bill. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Immediately, exactly the same bodies and people, including local charities and voluntary bodies, should be able to challenge these national services, in the same way as the Bill provides for them to challenge local services.
Lord Patel of Bradford
My Lords, I shall be very brief. I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, said, and I have read his amendment carefully. The basic principle of the proposal is exciting and warrants further investigation and explanation, although I agree that a list would be completely bureaucratic. As for the idea that we could take this a step further, I am excited by the community right to challenge aspect but would want to be assured that the amendments would not in any way, shape or form dilute the local community right to challenge.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have introduced these amendments. I wonder if I may deal first, out of sequence, with Amendment 132. This amendment would require local authorities to publish and maintain charitable services provided by all relevant authorities in their area. The Government are already asking local authorities to publish important information about services, and the Bill already enables relevant authorities to specify periods during which expressions of interest can be submitted for particular services, and requires them to publish details of these. This amendment would put additional administrative requirements on local authorities and falls into the trap of over-engineering the right, something which the Local Government Association has warned against.
Amendment 130 would change the definition of a relevant authority to extend community right to challenge to any public body. Amendments 131 and 130ZC propose changes to the definition of “relevant body” that would enable local authorities to challenge other relevant authorities, specifically government departments, agencies and non-departmental public bodies, under Amendment 131, and county councils, where the relevant body is a district council in a two-tier area, under Amendment 130ZC. The Bill already enables the Secretary of State to extend the right to other public bodies in regulations—back to our friend. Our recent consultation sought views on which other public bodies the right should be extended to. Many respondents said they felt that it should be extended to all public bodies. It was also suggested that local authorities should be able to challenge other types of relevant authority. Given this appetite, the Government are keen to explore the idea of extending the right to other public bodies. However, many of those respondents also felt that we should not rush into extending the right before evaluating its impact in its current form. Before extending the right, we would need to have detailed discussions with key interested parties, in particular to understand whether additional services might need to be excluded.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin usefully gave us various examples. I would just say that the examples are such that other Ministers and departments would have to get thoroughly involved and, by jingo, there would have to be some joined-up government in all this. I warm to the theme that it is exciting. I am just wondering whether it is too exciting for this Bill at the present time.
Lord Patel of Bradford
My Lords, I shall be brief. I am specifically speaking to support Amendments 130A and 131A, both of which are concerned with the nature and type of relevant bodies that may submit an expression of interest under the community right to challenge.
As we have heard from my noble friend Lady Thornton, the purpose of Amendment 130A is to bring greater clarity to the definition of a relevant body—something the noble Lord, Lord Newton, raised—particularly to make it plain that this is intended to include not only charitable organisations but community interest companies and industrial or provident societies.
As the Bill stands now, the question as to what constitutes a voluntary or community body is unclear, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has said. A voluntary body is defined in the Bill by virtue of not being a public or local authority and,
“the activities of which are not carried on for profit”,
while a community body is simply one that carries out activities for the benefit of the community. There is potential confusion here. For example, does the Minister intend that a public or local authority is also a community body, and what of community interest companies which are allowed to make a surplus? Does this mean that they are not voluntary bodies for the purpose of this? The amendment that my noble friend Lord Beecham has suggested may be helpful in this case.
I am a firm believer in the potential for local community and voluntary groups to deliver services, provided they are given the right support. I am concerned that without the additional clarification provided by Amendment 130A some important groups, including industrial and provident societies—which, as we are all aware, have a proud and significant history of representing local people—will be excluded from the community right to challenge. I hope the Minister will support the intention of this amendment.
Amendment 131A is closely related to these issues and similar in intent to one tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Tope. This concerns the question of whether those relevant bodies that may wish to use the right to challenge to become themselves providers of services are in fact from or primarily working within the local area. My concern is that once a challenge is made under the community right to challenge, it might not be local community groups that enjoy the transfer of services but big business or non-local providers. Therefore, it seems essential that in determining who can make an expression of interest to run a service, priority should be given to those local community groups first.
If localism is to mean anything in practice, it should be local groups who benefit and, as people who live and work in the area, they should be the preferred option. I accept that there will be some cases where it is desirable for a regional or national provider—such as Barnardo’s or National Children’s Home, as my noble friend Lady Thornton said—to initiate the process. They will have a strong specialist offer to give but even in these cases there will be real benefits in encouraging local involvement and local partnership. The risk is that this becomes an open invitation for non-local bodies to seek entry into an area. Again, I hope the Minister will agree that this would be undesirable and look to support the amendment.
Lord Patel of Bradford
My Lords, I shall speak to Clause 73 stand part. On the face of it, the heading of the clause, “Provision of advice and assistance”, appears to be very welcome. However, I am struggling with the direction of travel here. This is, after all, the Localism Bill whereby we are led to believe that the Secretary of State wishes to roll back the mighty arm of the state, yet here we find a clause that gives an astounding new array of powers for the Secretary of State to interfere, I suggest, in local decision-making.
I shall outline the extent of that interference. Clause 73 at least begins as it intends to go on. First, we are asked to endorse the following:
“The Secretary of State may do anything that the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of giving advice or assistance to a relevant body”.
Now, while I am certain that the Secretary of State has only the best intentions and that he means to provide helpful advice and assistance, I struggle to accept the idea that this may include anything that he considers appropriate. I am also somewhat concerned at the use of the word “assistance”. What do we make of this? Exactly what does the Secretary of State have in mind for such assistance? Clause 73 goes on to give us an idea, which I again find a little troubling. Assistance may come in the form of,
“the preparation of an expression of interest … participation in a procurement exercise”,
and, as if this were not enough assistance already, it may also involve,
“the provision of a relevant service”.
I am left to wonder what the point is of the previous clauses in the community right to challenge chapter, when the conclusion appears to be that the Secretary of State is going to do it all.
I am not a lawyer, so I will leave it to noble Lords who are to ponder the implications, but I am fairly certain that interference by the Secretary of State in local procurement exercises may well be against competition rules, not to mention the likely effect of this on local governance.
The Secretary of State has not yet finished—there is more in this clause. We go on to learn that the Secretary of State may also do anything that he considers appropriate in the operation of the whole community right to challenge chapter in respect of a body or person that is other than a previously defined relevant body. Once more I am forced to question why the previous sections of the chapter were written and why noble Lords have spent the last few hours discussing such things as what constitutes a relevant body. It seems clear to me that this clause intends the Secretary of State to have the powers to bring into the community right to challenge, at any time or place as he sees fit, any body that he wishes.
The clause goes yet further. The Secretary of State also intends to interfere with finances. If it is the intention of the Secretary of State to provide “financial assistance” to local groups seeking to take up the community right to challenge, why does he not make that assistance available to local authorities that have local knowledge so that they may decide on its use? That would be something practical, and something which I have previously said is lacking from the Bill. However, this does not seem to be his intention. The reason that I am suspicious is that the Secretary of State feels it necessary to include in the definition of bodies to which he can give financial assistance those that are not relevant bodies under the earlier clauses. Can the Minister explain who these bodies might be, and why the Secretary of State needs these new powers?
I say again that this is not localism. The aim of the community right to challenge is to enable local voluntary and community groups, social enterprises, parish councils and local authority employees delivering a service to challenge a local authority by making an expression of interest in running any service for which they are responsible. I do not recall this meaning that the Secretary of State shall attempt to supplant this very local process in any way he considers appropriate, including placing new bodies that are not defined under the Bill into the process. We have already debated the potential limitations and lack of clarity about the current definitions of a relevant body, and I am quite sure that it is the intention of this House that this should not include the private sector.
I would have thought that the Secretary of State might have learned something from the recent debate over the role of competition in the health service about the risk of inviting the private sector to take over large parts of public services. If not, I am sure that my noble friend Lady Thornton could give him a quick lesson in this area. I have a strong suspicion—maybe wrongly—that this clause may well be a backdoor attempt to bring in such privatisation. Indeed, I believe that this is the same point exercising the minds of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, whose commendable amendment seeks to restrict these new powers of the Secretary of State so as explicitly to exclude the private sector. However, I do not feel that this clause is one that can be corrected by amendment. The entire clause raises so many questions, and appears to fly in the face of localism and the intentions of the Bill.
It is for this reason that I oppose the question that the clause stand part of the Bill. I hope the Minister will either reassure me tremendously, or support my argument.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I wish to ask one question, which has occurred to me only while listening to the debate—otherwise, it would have been down as an amendment. Does clause 73 extend to the Secretary of State giving directions to a local authority to provide financial assistance in this connection? The Minister can take it as my view that it should not.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
The noble Baroness takes words out of my mouth. I did indeed say that that is exactly what could happen. I hope that, in the circumstances, these amendments will not be pressed, and that the clause will be able to stay. As I indicated right at the start, regulations are with us, and we will all need to see that we are happy with them. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said that he wanted convincing before the Bill leaves this House. It will be a while yet before it leaves.
Lord Patel of Bradford
Can the Minister give the House an idea of when the draft regulations on this clause will be laid?
Lord Shutt of Greetland
All I can do is repeat what I said at the beginning. Before we return to this, we shall either have draft regulations, or we will have an indication of where we are going. I cannot do more than that. I suspect that there is some work to be done on this, although some work is being done as we are going on. We have only just got the response to the consultation. Every endeavour will be made, because obviously it will assist their Lordships if this information is available.
Lord Patel of Bradford
I think that the wording we are discussing is almost duplicated in Clause 88, which will be opposed by the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Tope, so it is worth taking a second look at the extent of these powers. I am not entirely convinced that we have cracked this nut as lots of issues have not been debated fully.
Lord Newton of Braintree
I hope that I may hop in before the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, sums up, because I have been left in a state of confusion—as, I suspect, has the opposition Front Bench. I understand the point that this provision is not intended to let in large, multinational companies. We probably would not want to do that and in any case it seems to me that the number of large, multinational companies that would want to bid for small, local contracts worth less than £150,000 would be rather small. However, I am not clear whether it is the intention to do what this amendment appears to do, which is to ban even a small profit-making organisation. If that is the case, I am not sure that it is justified. If we consider meals on wheels provision, small catering companies provide sandwiches for local businesses and possibly meals for local old people’s welfare clubs. I do not see why they should be barred simply because they are making a profit, if they can provide a better value service than the organisations we are talking about here. I should like to know what the answer is to that.
Localism Bill
Lord Patel of Bradford Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
I have this somewhere. Sorry, my Lords, I got a bit carried away with the previous amendment and stopped sorting my papers out. I shall speak also to my five other amendments in this group. There is also a Labour amendment in the group.
Amendment 133ZD follows a pattern of debate and amendments on this chapter in that it tries to give local authorities more freedom to make their own choices and attempts to minimise constraint by the Secretary of State. It would give local authorities the choice whether or not to respond to an expression of interest with a procurement exercise. We discussed this in some detail in our debates on amendments before the dinner hour, so I will not go into that in any more detail now. This is an area that I think we will want to come back to in later discussions.
The reason for Amendment 133ZF, which refers to Clause 70(6) and (7), is to try to find out what they mean. Subsection (6) reads:
“A relevant authority must, in carrying out the exercise referred to in subsection (2), consider how it might promote or improve the social, economic or environmental well-being of the authority’s area by means of that exercise”.
This is a welcome provision, because it suggests that, as part of dealing with the expression of interest that comes in, the social, economic and environmental well-being of the authority’s area has to be looked at. I assume that when it says “the authority’s area”, it also means the specific part of the authority’s area that the expression of interest refers to. It would be interesting to have a comment on that. Subsection (7) then says:
“Subsection (6) applies only so far as is consistent with the law applying to the awarding of contracts for the provision on behalf of the authority of the relevant service in question”.
This is simply an amendment to probe what that means in practice. I understand what it means on paper, but in reality what balance will be given when an authority is considering how to deal with a particular expression of interest, and particularly with the procurement exercise? If what really applies is the lawyers coming along and saying, “This is how this authority awards contracts, and this is how it has to be done”, the reference to social, economic and environmental well-being may not actually mean very much. Or does it mean that the authority’s rules on the awarding of contracts—its financial regulations and so on—can be changed in order to give more weight to the kind of things that we talked about earlier, such as community involvement and the enhancement of particular areas, even if that is not the cheapest way?
Amendment 133ZG would insert a new provision, which reads:
“Any contract or other agreement that the relevant authority enters into under the provisions of this section shall be time-limited”.
This might happen automatically, but it would be interesting to hear the Minister say what the Government’s view is. Does this hand over a local service for ever, or is it the normal sort of contract that a local authority would have with an outside contractor to provide a service, which would be time-limited to five or 10 years, or whatever it might be?
Amendment 133ZH would add four more provisions. The first is:
“Any contract or other agreement that the relevant authority enters into under the provisions of this section may be subject to such arrangements for supervision, monitoring and assessment as the relevant authority thinks are necessary”.
Is it a question of handing a service over to someone in the community, or an organisation comes in and takes advantage of the procurement exercise, who is then responsible for it lock, stock and barrel, or does the council still have a residual responsibility? Will it be treated like a normal council contract—for example, a contract for refuse collections and recycling—or is it something different? Will there be a lighter touch in supervision? Will there be any supervision whatever? If it is something that the council has a duty to do by law, and there is no supervision, how does that tie in with the council’s duty?
The second provision the amendment would add is that,
“Any contract or other agreement that the relevant authority enters into under the provisions of this section may be subject to stipulations about the minimum level of services that must be provided and standards relating to their provision”.
This is the same kind of argument. It is the kind of thing that would happen automatically with a normal council contract. Does it apply in this case? If it does not, what guarantees are there that a proper service will be provided in future?
The third proposed subsection states:
“Each such contract may contain provisions relating to the action that may be taken by the relevant authority if a stipulated level or standard of service is not provided”—
in other words, if people are not providing the service that they said they would provide when they made the expression of interest and when the procurement exercise took place. If they do not provide the service, what happens? Is the council responsible for stepping in and doing something about it, or does it just hold its hands in the air and say, “That’s tough, that’s the way it is”?
The amendment further states:
“Such provisions may include a procedure by which the relevant authority may take over the provision of the relevant service itself”.
In other words, if the provider is not performing adequately, can the council move in in default, as it can with a normal contract, and take over the service, or is it lost for ever once it is out in the community, even if it is no good?
Amendment 133ZJ would apply the provisions of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, usually known as TUPE. Clearly, if it is a question of looking after a pocket park at the end of a street, that can simply be transferred to a community group such as the parish council. However, if these provisions were used to transfer a refuse collection service, TUPE provisions would normally apply. Do they apply in the case of transfers under this legislation?
The final amendment in the group, Amendment 133ZM, is headed “Application of duties”. It seeks to investigate whether the Equality Act 2010 will apply in respect of the provision of a relevant service under the Bill. Will it be deemed to apply to the relevant body when that body is providing the service? If all you are doing is looking after a pocket park at a very local level, common sense suggests that the Act will not apply, but if you are transferring a service that involves employing people and providing a significant service such as social services to people, does the equality legislation still apply to those services, some of which might well be duties on the local authority that are being carried out by someone else? I beg to move.
Lord Patel of Bradford
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has raised important issues, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to them. I speak particularly to Amendment 133ZEC, which seeks to include a provision relating to expressions of interest. Clause 70(5) already calls on relevant authorities to consider the likely impact of any expression of interest on promoting or improving the,
“social, economic or environmental well-being of the authority’s area”.
I greatly welcome this and believe that it is an essential component of the consideration. However, I wish to strengthen it by including a consideration of equality. As noble Lords know, I have a long-standing interest in equality and feel passionately that this is a vital issue for all public services. I greatly welcomed the previous Government’s introduction of the Equality Act and have watched with some concern the current Government’s apparent retreat from many of the excellent provisions in that Act.
It seems appropriate that we should do all we can to ensure that equality is a prime consideration under the community empowerment chapters of the Localism Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, shares this concern. His Amendment 133ZM seeks to ensure that the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 that apply to relevant authorities will also apply to relevant bodies. I wish to go somewhat further than this as I believe we need to ensure that the existing equality requirements are strengthened. I wish to outline three reasons why this is important.
First, there is a risk that the community right to challenge could result in the exclusion of vital voluntary and community groups that currently empower people and ensure that local decision-making promotes equality. Groups working with specific communities, such as lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender communities, black and minority ethnic communities, people with disabilities, and faith groups, should all be given robust support to take up the community challenge. Without specific protections to ensure this, such as a duty to consider equality, many of these groups would be passed over.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, this is going to make for a very interesting Division on Report. It will be fascinating to see who ends up in which Lobby.
I should declare an interest that I own an asset of community value—a woodland in Kent. I would be happy to go along with the Bill’s provisions but that is for me. It is my decision and my feeling about my relationship with the community. Any suggestion that assets of community value are restricted to assets that are already in community use when it comes to land is extremely dangerous. It produces exactly the side-effects that all my noble friends have been talking about of immediately causing assets to be withdrawn from community use.
There is no great function for this part of the Bill when it comes to rural communities anyway. Under the neighbourhood planning provisions rural communities with a lot of land and space to spare, and therefore an ability to develop, will be in a very strong position to do deals to support the businesses that they want to support and mould communities in their own ways. They are the great winners from neighbourhood planning. I suspect that suburban communities with decent amounts of space will do equally well. I am concerned about the example that was adduced about the problems that arise in cities where neighbourhood planning has very little to offer. Such communities by and large will not have the ability to tackle these things proactively, to accumulate wealth to be able to support or buy assets as and when they are wanted and to think ahead in the way in which it will happen in rural communities. I do not have an answer to the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about what happens in cities, but for rural communities this part of the Bill is entirely unnecessary, as neighbourhood planning will do it all.
Lord Patel of Bradford
My Lords, I will be very brief as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, covered many of the points succinctly. First, I thank the Minister for her intervention earlier. It was very helpful, but I think that we need to study the note in the Library. I have a feeling that this will be an iterative process. We would certainly welcome involvement in that and further meetings.
Notwithstanding the benefits that my noble friend Lady Thornton pointed out in respect of this clause to local communities and local areas, we recognise the good intentions and the thrust behind many of the amendments and the arguments that have been presented, together with carefully crafted amendments. We obviously need to look carefully at the practicalities of what this means. I can say certainly that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, struck a chord. It is clearly an issue that we need to take further and seek more clarification from the Government.
We agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in respect of the centralised delegated powers. We are completely on board with that. That issue has kept coming up throughout all the debates and needs to be looked at very carefully. As I say, I think this is going to be an iterative process. The amendments pose some very serious questions that we need to explore further, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say about that. We will certainly want to sit round the table with the Minister and others and look at this a bit more carefully.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, this has been a longer debate than we would have hoped for at this time of night. I fully accept that this is not ideal but that is how the business has gone. We could not have stopped at 9.30 pm. I kept hoping that somebody would manage to keep the debate on the previous amendments going long enough for us to stop, but that has not been possible. We have had the opportunity now to discuss the amendments pretty widely and I will speak to them as well as I can in a minute or two.
I want to say from the outset that we are looking at this all the time. I hear what has been said and where I cannot answer questions put forward by noble Lords satisfactorily, we will clearly need to make sure that by the next stage we have had the sort of discussions the noble Lord, Lord Patel, is talking about. Indeed, we have already had considerable discussions on the points made. The fact that they have come up again probably means that we have not satisfied noble Lords and we will have to try and do that and look at making revisions to the Bill before the next stages.
In my opening remarks I tried to bring this back from being a very wide problem into being quite a simple, singular matter. The purpose behind these provisions is to try and ensure that, when a valuable asset in a local community comes up for sale, the local community has a window of opportunity to see if it can get the money together to buy it. I know this is happening all over the place. There are lots of examples already of people buying their local pubs or shops to keep them from going out of business.
There are also plenty of examples of people saying, “If only we had had a bit of time, we could perhaps have done something to preserve this and protect it for our local community”, and that is what we are offering here. It is not going to be a very long time; it is just going to be a short time for people to say, “That is a valuable asset. We have already said that we like it. If it comes up for sale, we want the opportunity to see whether we can, as a community, get the money together”. What the Bill does not do is say that they can buy that facility if they cannot afford it at the price that the seller is asking. During the time that the community is putting the money together, there is nothing to stop the person selling from going through all the negotiations and discussions that they want. At the end of the day, the seller may be perfectly happy to sell whatever it is to the community, and they can do that. There is nothing in the provisions that says that they cannot sell to the community at an early stage if they want to. All we say is that there is a window of opportunity for the community to find out whether they can do something.
Most noble Lords have not seen that as being unreasonable, but there is a certain feeling of pressure and compulsion about this which really is not there. The only compulsion, if I can put it that way, is the fact that the asset has to be notified in advance as being something in which the local community is interested. That is where a list comes in.
In a village, I do not know how many pubs people can claim to have an interest in. I am not sure how many assets there will be in a town centre in which people can have an interest, but probably not a lot. I do not think we are talking about a multitude of areas on which people will want to put their finger and say, “If you are going to sell it, this is an asset that we want”. Public assets can also be listed. If a local authority decides to sell a sports ground, for example, that is an area where this provision would intervene, so that it could have an opportunity to see whether it could buy it.
I shall read very carefully what has been said and I shall make sure that my colleagues do too. We have to be able to answer more clearly than I can tonight the concerns that are being raised. I cannot say that they are not justified because I cannot narrow it down sufficiently at this stage to say categorically that this will be the situation. As regards the fears expressed by noble Lords about land assets being devalued because part of the land will have been identified as an asset, a compensation scheme will come into effect. On the point about something on a list coming up in a land search, presumably someone will say it is there anyway, but I do not know whether that will devalue it. I do not see why it should just because someone is trying to get some money together. It might delay the sale, but there will be compensation if that happens.
The fact that my noble friend Lord Moynihan spoke about the loss of sports and recreation facilities if this goes ahead, and that other noble Lords commented on the fact that landowners will be advised not to let their land be used for any community facility, is something of which we need to take cognizance. If that is what is being said, and if that is a fear, that will stretch out further as we go through the Bill. We need to take note of that and I can assure noble Lords that we will discuss it and come back on that.
I will go through the amendments. Some people will be quite happy with what I am saying and others will not be. Going through the brief on the amendments will pick up some of the points that have been raised and may explain matters better than I can at this time of night.
We do not think that Amendment 136, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hodgson, is necessary. Clause 75(1) and (2) say that there will be an indication under regulations of what will be involved. We will try to see that there is reasonable coherence about that so that when we come to the next stage it is understood as well as it can be. It will involve buildings such as pubs and local community facilities. I am not sure how much wider it will go, but we will ensure that it is well understood. I recognise that there has been pressure from noble Lords for greater certainty, including over definitions. We are very grateful to noble Lords who have raised this matter. My noble friends Lord Gardiner and Lord Cathcart raised the issue in connection with Amendment 136ZD.
Amendment 136ZD also combines a primary requirement that assets of community value have been or are promoting social well-being with a number of factors that local authorities must take into account as secondary considerations in arriving at final decisions on listing. These include relevant planning policies, the use that the nominator is proposing for the asset, evidence of community support for the nomination and the availability of other assets locally that could serve the same purpose. As I said, we will give this careful consideration and consult more on it. In doing so, we will have in mind the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that any regulations under Clause 75 should be subject to the affirmative procedure.
There has been a lot of criticism about the number of regulations laid out in the Bill. One reason is that consultation processes have gone on and are going on, and some regulation will come about as a result of those consultations to make this part of the Bill work.
Amendment 136ZBA proposes an ingenious way of addressing concerns that have been expressed on behalf of landowners who make land or buildings available for community use. This point was made very clearly by my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord Gardiner. We have had a lot of discussion about this outside the House. I will take the example of a corner of an agricultural field used for the cricket club or disused clay pits to which people have access for walking. The suggestions in Amendment 136ZBA are interesting and we will give them further consideration.
We have some sympathy also with the intention behind Amendment 136ZAB, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Tope. Since the provisions are breaking new ground, we will need to learn from experience how they work. However, we will need to give further consideration to those as well.
Amendment 136ZAC would limit the power to decide whether an asset meets the definition to a local authority and no other body. The present thinking is that it will be only the local authority, as defined in Clause 91, which can exercise that power as the democratic authority. My noble friend Lord Jenkin asked why this was being laid down from the centre and why local authorities could not make up their own minds about who will be able to nominate an asset, what the asset will be and whether it will go on the list. The centre is laying down only the ground rules for this. It would be impossible to leave it to local authorities to decide what an asset is without giving them guidance as to what an asset of community value might be, and whether there are limitations about which they need to know. Of course it will be up to local authorities to decide whether a community that is looking at something will be able to deliver or whether it is just putting forward a sighting shot. They will be in charge of making sure that the community is not simply using a delaying tactic but putting forward something that has a reasonable expectation of being successful.
I made it clear in my opening statement that it is our intention through regulations to exclude types of land such as residential premises from the listing—that point was made by my noble friend Lord Moynihan—unless, for example, they are integral to a pub or shop. If you have a pub with residential accommodation attached to it, you will not just be able to list the pub if it also has residential accommodation that is being used. We cannot support the remaining exclusions.
Amendment 133D fundamentally misconstrues the purpose of the provision by proposing to replace land and buildings with businesses. It is wider than that. It will not just be confined to businesses as such, but we need to talk about how much wider it is going to go. It would be entirely inconsistent with the rest of the chapter and would effectively exclude most public assets from these provisions, since they would not be considered to be businesses, although they are crucial to the aims of the policy.
On the other hand, Amendment 136ZA would limit land of community value to publicly owned land, or land that a private owner agreed is of community value. This would in effect limit it only to publicly owned land, since most private owners would probably not agree to make their land subject to the rules of the scheme. An owner can, after all, voluntarily choose to delay a sale to give a community group time to prepare a bid if they want to. They can also sell it to the community if they want to. By effectively excluding private assets from the provisions, this amendment would exclude some of the key assets that we want to help communities to save, such as the last village shop or pub.
Amendments 136ZB and 136ZC make a different point. They seem to propose excluding land for which public access is already guaranteed under statute, or which is very unlikely to be put on sale but which is self-evidently of community value. In both cases, while listing would be unlikely to lead to any further action, there is no reason, we believe, for not allowing such land to be listed to provide for the unlikely event that it does come up for disposal.
We have another series of amendments, all based on the same theme that local authorities should be allowed to operate the scheme as they wish within some very broad parameters set out in the Bill. It is a question of balance. As I have said, we will be considering that further.
I am conscious of the many questions raised by noble Lords, not all of which I have answered either in my opening remarks, in my response to the amendments or by what I have said. However, I hope that I have covered enough of them to make noble Lords realise that my ears are wide open to this. We appreciate that this is a controversial area of the Bill, but we have been having discussions and will continue to do so to see that we end up not with unintended consequences in this Bill but with what we believe would be a valuable asset, which is to be able to ensure that local communities have an opportunity, if it arose, to take over buildings of community value if they can afford to do so.