Grenfell Tower: Rehousing Update

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the noble Baroness raises several points. I understand that there is no time limit on discretionary payments being made. I reiterate the point made in the Statement and by the Prime Minister previously that accommodation is being offered on terms at least as generous as those available previously. That means that no bedroom tax would be charged if it applied previously. Charitable payments will not have an effect on benefits, and there will be no sanctions.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement, in which he confirmed that,

“everyone whose home was destroyed by the fire will be guaranteed a new home on the same terms as the one they lost”.

The Statement then goes on to clarify what that means:

“Paying the same rent, with the same level of security and in the same area”.


I suggest to the Minister that there should be a fourth definition: “with at least the equivalent furniture, fittings and decoration at no cost to the tenant”.

I raise this because there are issues around whose insurance policies will pay for furniture and fittings. In my view, that should lie not with the tenant but with the landlord. Even though the Statement overall seems to imply that it includes the substantial cost of furniture and fittings, for the avoidance of doubt the Government should be very clear about this. I just remind the House of my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. I have some sympathy with that point. Indeed, when I read the Statement I made a similar point. I think it is inherent in the Statement but I am happy to confirm that not only should the accommodation be at least as good and with as many bedrooms—I understand that in many cases it will be more—but also the furniture and fittings should be of equivalent standard. Perhaps one could go too far in setting that out but that should encapsulate the point the noble Lord wanted.

Grenfell Tower Update

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Monday 3rd July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for repeating the Statement made in the other place by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. As the Minister said, this tragedy should never have happened. I am pleased that progress has been made on a number of fronts—but considerably more needs to be done. I am sure that Members of this House will agree with me that the devastation of this disaster was made all the worse in the immediate aftermath by the poor response of Kensington and Chelsea council, which can only be described as shameful. I am pleased that the leader of the council, Councillor Nicholas Paget-Brown, has resigned, along with his deputy, Councillor Rock Feilding-Mellen. I just wish they had accepted responsibility and resigned sooner. I note that the Secretary of State has welcomed the resignation of the leader of the council—but why did he not call for it, as others did?

Many have called for the Secretary of State to appoint commissioners to take over the running of this authority, as it is not fit for purpose. But so far he has decided not to do this and instead has opted to “keep an eye” on the council. Can the Minister explain why the Secretary of State has decided to do this? What exactly does keeping an eye on the council mean and entail? It certainly does not seem to me to be the sort of response one would expect to such a complete and abject failure by the council towards the local community it was elected to serve and protect.

I am pleased that housing offers are being made, but is the Minister satisfied that everyone has been contacted, and that they have been assured that no other issues—such as how they were renting a property at Grenfell Tower—will be of any concern to the authorities? We must be sure that no vulnerable, traumatised families are hiding, frightened and not getting the help they are entitled to, or not being able to provide the police and other authorities with valuable information, because they are too scared to come forward.

The faith communities and the local voluntary sector have a big role to play here. What support are the Government giving to them to do this important work? Why has only half the discretionary fund of £5 million been distributed to date? The Minister said that 112 households had received the £5,500 immediate assistance. So how many have not? If it is even just one family after three weeks, that is a disgrace. How have these families been able to live? What about the report that at least one tenant has been charged rent? What arrangements have been made for the schooling and care of local children who attend Avondale Park primary school and have been traumatised by these horrific events?

I move on to the public inquiry, which was reaffirmed in the Queen’s Speech. The background note to the Speech, published on 21 June, provided further detail and said:

“Residents, the families of the deceased, the Mayor of London and HM Opposition will be consulted on the terms of reference under which the inquiry will proceed and the Government will agree the terms of reference, which will be published in consultation with the Chair of the Inquiry”.


On 29 June, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the chair of the inquiry said:

“I’ve been asked to undertake this inquiry on the basis that it would be pretty well limited to the problems surrounding the start of the fire and its rapid development, in order to make recommendations as to how this sort of thing can be prevented in the future”.


The Prime Minister has also said:

“No stone will be left unturned by this inquiry”.


It is important that we are very clear about this inquiry, its terms of reference when agreed, that no stone is left unturned, as the Prime Minister promised, and that Sir Martin has the power to go where the evidence leads him. Will the Minister please confirm that that is the case and that no conflict—perceived or otherwise—should be drawn from the statements I have previously outlined?

It is right that sensible precautions are taken to avoid another tragedy. It is shocking that all the samples so far tested have failed. The Statement does not make clear what the Government are doing to assist local authorities and other organisations when their buildings fail the fire safety test. The Government need to go much further than just saying, “Landlords must provide alternative accommodation”. We want to have a clear explanation from the Government of what they are doing to assist landlords in coping with this challenge—and that is not addressed in this Statement.

Finally, the Minister said that he would update the House on a regular basis—but we are going into the Summer Recess in three weeks and are not back until September. What plans do the Government have to ensure that, while we are in Recess, Parliament, the media, survivors and their families and the public are properly informed about what is happening; what progress is being made; and when things are proving more challenging than they thought they would be? The Minister may not be able to address my last point when he replies, but I trust he will agree to take it back to the department and will return to the Dispatch Box to address it before the Recess.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I agree with the Minister that it was the right decision for the Government to make it clear that there would be no prosecution of those who may have illegally sublet flats. The Government were also right to say that the resignation of the leader of Kensington and Chelsea council was the right thing for him to do.

It is now three weeks since the catastrophe that should never have happened hit Grenfell Tower. It is also eight years ago today since six people died in the fire at Lakanal House in Camberwell, following which a coroner’s report published a number of recommendations that were sent to the then Secretary of State. That occurred in 2011—six years ago. As a consequence of that fire, guidance to social housing providers was issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government. Does the department know which local authorities undertook works to meet the recommendations in that guidance? Is there a list of what each local authority—or local housing provider, for not all are local authorities—actually did?

The Minister referred to 181 out of 181 failures in cladding tests. It is clear that those tests are vital, but I understand that it is not simply a question of the cladding: it is also the insulation and the void behind the cladding that can cause a fire to spread so very quickly. I was struck by a briefing produced by the Association of British Insurers, which I saw today, about approved document B. This document defines fire regulations in England and the Association of British Insurers urged a comprehensive review of it in response to the Lakanal House fire.

It repeated that recommendation when it responded to the housing White Paper. Its briefing stated:

“The ABI recommends that the Government urgently revise Approved Document B to reflect the fire safety risks associated with modern building materials, techniques and construction methods, deviating away from a focus on more traditional masonry builds”.


I say to the Minister that that is a very important issue. I do not think that action as a consequence of that can simply await the result of a public inquiry. It is extremely urgent. Local authorities and local housing providers should be told what action they should take within a matter of weeks. We should note that the ABI has urged this review since 2009.

There has also been a problem with emergency planning that I want to ask the Minister about, because there was clearly a major failure in Kensington and Chelsea with emergency plans. It took around 48 hours for there to be an identifiable process of who was responsible for what. Even then, there was very serious doubt. Can the Minister commit to the department ensuring that all emergency plans of all local areas are checked out, updated and made robust so that emergency responses can always take place quickly, with the responsibilities of all the different agencies clearly understood and acted upon?

Grenfell Tower was a most appalling tragedy. It increasingly seems as though some of the lessons that could have been learned from previous fire incidents had not been fully taken on board—which means that the speed of response by the Government this time matters very greatly.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before the noble Lord responds, perhaps I could draw the attention of the House to my interests. I am a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association. I have found it surprising that the gracious Speech says virtually nothing about housing, the financial problems of local government, the funding of adult social care, or the future of business rates and the Local Government Finance Bill. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to give some greater clarity on each of those matters.

It does not help to promote the case for more house building when housing is not seen by the Government as requiring a Minister of Cabinet rank—I think it does. Despite the very good work being done by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, and other colleagues, it needs a Cabinet Minister in the lead. Despite the commitment of the Prime Minister to stand up for social tenants in the face of the appalling tragedy at Grenfell Tower, there is no indication in the gracious Speech of what this amounts to. The Speech simply says:

“Proposals will be brought forward to … help ensure more homes are built”.


It does not say how many or what their tenure will be. Does the commitment of the last Minister for Housing to build a net 1 million new homes by 2020 still stand, or has the commitment altered to building 1.5 million by 2022, as outlined in the Conservative Party’s manifesto? I ask because consultation on the housing White Paper ended several weeks ago, but it would help to know when the Government will set out their plans as a consequence of that consultation. They know that there is broad support for getting more homes built, using every financial lever available, including permitting local authorities to borrow using the prudential code.

The housing crisis is getting worse. New house sales dropped 7% in 2016 in England and Wales. Government-funded homes built for social rent fell to just 1,102 in 2016-17. Shelter recently reported that 1 million households face their housing benefit not covering their rent. The problem is that we have been building around 100,000 new homes too few every year for at least 20 years. That failure to build more has resulted in high prices and high rents with 20% of households now dependent on the private rented sector. Most of them are in no position to buy, because an average home now costs eight times average annual earnings.

In our own manifesto, and elsewhere, we have made a number of suggestions. I will remind the Minister of something I have said previously in this Chamber. The Government need to change the balance of their housing investment. Only 16% of their planned housing investment will directly support the building of new affordable homes: it should be higher. The Government should take action to stop unnecessary land banking. They should permit much higher levels of taxation on properties that are bought to leave empty as investment properties. I hope they will take action to help leaseholders buy out spiralling ground rent contracts. Leasehold purchases represented 22% of all sales 20 years ago; today it is 43% and in London it is much higher. Will the Government increase funding for supported housing which, if provided, could pay for itself through reducing public spending overall? Do they have plans to abandon the policy of selling off high-value council housing? This is rumoured but not confirmed. Will the Government directly commission the building of homes on unwanted public land? All these proposals would help. Having said that, I welcome the draft tenant fees Bill to ban unfair tenant fees imposed by private landlords. I hope that it will include a cap on deposits.

I wish to say something further about the shocking tragedy of Grenfell Tower. The public inquiry is being set up, but it needs to report speedily on building regulations and safety checks. Immediate action is needed—probably as a consequence of an interim report by the public inquiry, but action needs to be taken very quickly. All councils will have to review the speed of their reaction in terms of their emergency plans. The Government should look at annual electricity safety checks. At present, these are not required; in my view, they should be. I hope that the Government will listen much more to tenants to ensure tenant participation works effectively.

I propose that the Government should adopt the following value—that someone in work on the living wage should be able to afford to live reasonably close to where they work. Might the Government share that aim?

Update on the Grenfell Tower Fire and Fire Safety

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Monday 26th June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much indeed. The Lakanal inquest in 2009 that he referred to suggested that the building regulations needed simplifying. That work has not yet started. We were about to start that when an election intervened but, clearly, we have to learn the lessons in relation to building regs and fire safety measures. We will be setting up a public inquiry, which I am sure will have an interim report that will come forward with some urgent findings. But I agree with my noble friend that this clearly is in purview.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps I might ask the Minister to say something further about the private sector. I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association, although it is in no way involved in my asking this question. He has referred twice to the private sector. If I recall his wording, he said, first, that private sector companies should do the checks in blocks that they own and, secondly, that the testing facilities will be open to them. However, where a block is in the private sector and the building control function has been undertaken by the private sector, does the Minister agree that it is very important that checks are compulsory and not advisory?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Perhaps I may track back on to something that I should have mentioned earlier in relation to those blocks that have, after testing, been found not to be compliant. In those 75 cases, my department will nominate a specific employee to liaise about the necessary action. That is in relation to all those public sector or social housing blocks that have been identified. In relation to the private sector blocks, subject to the same sort of constraints at 18 metres and above, we have been in contact with all the private sector landlords and are recommending that they test the cladding. It is not compulsory; we are making a facility available to them without charge, but those are not part of the 600 blocks which I mentioned. I am sure that we will want to follow up on that but, as things stand, it is not compulsory. We are focusing on the social rented sector at the moment because that seems the right thing to do.

Localism Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I follow my noble friend with a small “f”—the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. As he said, we moved a number of amendments at an earlier stage of the Bill and I, too, pay tribute to the Minister for listening so carefully and for taking so seriously the points that we made. The apologies of my noble friend Lord Newton have already been given, but I specifically undertook not only to give his apologies—a hospital appointment prevents his being here—but to pass on his warm thanks to the Minister. Those thanks are perhaps not so much for the extent to which she has moved but for the extent to which she has been able to move those close to her during the proceedings here.

I think that we have moved a very long way from the position that we were in in Committee, when the person replying on the Front Bench said that standards were a matter for local discretion. I am probably one of the greatest localists in your Lordships’ House, but I thought at the time, and feel very strongly now, that if there is one thing that should not be left to local discretion, it is standards in public life. We have got to the point that we have now reached because in the past there has been rather too much discretion over standards in public life.

I am very pleased that we are going to have a mandatory code—or, rather, that it is going to be mandatory to have a code—but I am a little sad that its minimum provisions are not to be the same throughout the country. I think that in reality they will be the same throughout the country, because my expectation is that the great majority of local authorities will simply keep the code that they all already have. My concern relates to what I hope will be a tiny minority of councils that decide not to keep the code that they now have, and it relates more particularly to why they make that decision and in what way they might change it. That leads me to ask the Minister whether there will be any form of monitoring, whether by her department or by the Local Government Association, so that we know what changes are happening throughout the country. There may well be some that are a cause for concern. What we do about them may be another matter, but we should at least know about them.

The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, has already told us that he will not be moving his amendment, but my other concern is that councils now have, and will retain, the power as a sanction, if necessary, either to remove councillors from certain committees or sub-committees or simply not to appoint them. Will that also apply to outside bodies, as all councils appoint councillors as their representatives on outside bodies? Will they now also be able to remove a councillor from an outside body to which the council has appointed him or her?

Many councils, including my own, also have local committees or area committees that are constituted and stated in the council’s constitution to comprise all the councillors elected for that area. Presumably there is a power now to remove them from that area committee. Is that the case, and how does that fit with the constitution of the council, which says that all councillors representing that area have a right to be on that committee?

My other concern is about the form of monitoring—I do not mean imposition, but monitoring—there will be to let us know what is happening under the new regime. I certainly am grateful to the Minister for moving us so far on this, but quite a number of us are still concerned about this issue and feel that we are not there yet—well, we are there but this is not perfection and we may well have to return to the issue in the years to come after a number of high profile cases.

My last point is to welcome the lengths to which Ministers have now moved in the appointment of an independent person and in trying to ensure as far as possible that that person is genuinely independent and open. That independent person now plays an even more important role, in effect being the right of appeal—the only appeal that a councillor has—against what he may well feel is the unfair victimisation by a council with a heavy one-party majority, whatever the party, of someone who is a thorn in the flesh but is not necessarily doing anything improper. Again, it is important that the independent person, as far as it is ever possible, is upheld to be genuinely independent.

I join others in very much paying tribute to the Minister. I know from other sources how hard she has had to work at times to persuade more reluctant colleagues of the necessity to move in this direction. I congratulate her on her persuasive powers and the success that she has achieved. As my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, said, we do not have all that we want but we have a lot more than we thought we would get at an earlier stage in the Bill, and I am grateful for that.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I want to raise a specific issue, but first to declare an interest as a councillor and one-time member of a standards committee. I welcome the amendments because they move us towards a system that is proportionate, will protect the right to free speech, give confidence to the general public, be fair to an individual councillor and should prevent party-political prejudice leading to unjustifiable and unreasonable decisions. The introduction of the independent person—or at least one independent person—seems to me to be a major help in enabling us to abolish the Standards Board for England so that matters can be dealt with locally and we can remove the need for a national referral system.

My one remaining doubt is on how the decisions on allegations will be made. That relates to subsection (3). The Minister said that all local authorities would have to have a form of process for investigating and determining matters relating to breaches of the code of conduct but it is for them to decide what those processes should be. I hope that guidance will be given requiring a local authority to have a formal committee structure to achieve this. Otherwise, it is not clear how that will be delivered. If there is to be a formal committee structure, in my view it should be chaired by an independent person but not necessarily the same one who is the independent person referred to in other subsections. In addition to having an independent chair, there will be independent members, as now, along with sitting councillors. Then the whole council will be able to decide on any suspension from committees that might be recommended.

I believe that because it is extremely important to avoid any perception or possibility of party-political bias in reaching a decision. Standards committees with independent members seems to be a means of preventing what may appear to the general public to be party-political decisions being made. Therefore, pursuing independence at a local level through the independent person and independent members of standards committees is extremely important.

Localism Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

28: Clause 141, page 136, line 4, at end insert—
“(3A) In carrying out the review, the reviewing officer shall presume that a new flexible tenancy for a term at least equivalent to the current or previous fixed term should be granted to the tenant unless the contrary is shown to be in accordance with the authority’s policies, in the interests of good housing management and compliant with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, this amendment is designed to create a presumption that flexible tenancies should be renewed on expiry unless good reasons are shown to the contrary. The reviewing officer should proceed on the basis of the presumption that a new flexible tenancy for a term at least equivalent to the current or previous fixed term should be granted to the tenant unless the contrary is shown to be in accordance with the authority’s policies, in the interests of good housing management and compliant with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That is, the decision should take account of the tenant’s right to respect for his or her home, or his or her private and family life.

The removal of security of tenure will result in a great deal more uncertainty for tenants where it occurs. They will be aware of the looming threat of possibly losing their homes towards the end of a fixed-term tenancy. While the presumption in favour of renewal would not remove this worry, it would at least ensure that tenants are on a more secure footing and help to ensure that landlords undertake a thorough and rigorous process when reviewing tenancies.

As the legislation stands, the process that tenants will have to undergo when their flexible tenancies come to the end of the fixed term is weighted almost entirely in favour of the landlord. The amendment would help to ensure that when this process is being undertaken there is greater protection and clarity for tenants towards the end of their tenancy. Many of those tenants will be particularly vulnerable. We can do this by placing the onus on the landlord to justify refusing to extend the tenancy, rather than expecting the tenant to undergo a potentially complicated reapplication process. This will be preferable, since many tenants will be unaware of what factors are relevant to the authority’s decision and may find it difficult to advocate their case for renewal of a tenancy or struggle to provide proof of need. Further, a presumption in favour of renewal would make it harder for landlords to adopt practices or make decisions that may discriminate against certain tenants, such as those who have made complaints about the perceived failures of the landlord.

Finally, there is one further issue to do with guarding against bureaucratic failure. The administration of a brand new bureaucratic system of housing assessments across local authorities is likely to be a significant undertaking and could well lead to mistakes being made. As a result, it is vital that tenants have basic protections written into the legislation that will provide for default renewal of the tenancy if landlords either fail to carry out a lawful review or are unable to justify a negative decision. Bureaucratic failings already cause a great deal of hardship to people on low incomes, such as when mistakes occur in determining housing benefit claims or when registered providers fail to issue an assured tenancy following a successful probation period. No one should face the possibility of losing their home as a result of a bureaucratic failing. The amendment would help to prevent this happening. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, as I said in Committee, Amendment 28 is not necessary. The review already ensures that a decision by the landlord not to renew the tenancy must be fair and in line with the landlord’s published tenancy policy. Should the reviewing officer decide that the decision is not in line with the landlord’s policy, the landlord will need to reconsider his decision. Where a landlord seeks possession of a tenant’s property despite a review concluding that he was not acting in line with his own policy, the court will refuse to grant possession, as the Bill makes clear. Amendment 33 will not be moved. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is minded to withdraw Amendment 28.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I hope that what she has described will happen. I am sure that it will. We need to ensure that people who are worried about a successive tenancy have little cause to fear that the landlord might decide not to grant a further tenancy. On the assumption that the measure will provide what we are trying to achieve, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 28 withdrawn.

Localism Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

133ZA: Clause 69, page 58, line 27, leave out “may” and insert “should”

[Lord Shipley]

I shall also speak to Amendment 133ZB and I shall be very brief, because a number of the issues that I would have raised were raised earlier in amendments on this section. It is interesting that in this chapter, which has four pages, the Secretary of State is mentioned 19 times. It seems very odd that in a Bill about localism, the Secretary of State has to have 19 separate possible roles. My amendment is simply about how the timing and consideration of expressions of interest could be progressed. Put simply, relevant authorities would have to specify when these would be.

It seems to me that local government can be trusted to do more things for itself. Given that councils will have a power of general competence under this Bill, we might consider allowing them to prove that they are generally competent to do things for themselves and do not need the constant intervention of the Secretary of State in a whole range of ways which do not support the principle of localism. There is a key principle here: this is an example of where the powers of the Secretary of State could simply be written out of the Bill and local authorities could be given a responsibility for defining when expressions of interest could come in and when the authority would then consider them. As a consequence, the role of the Secretary of State and a considerable number of the 19 separate roles of the Secretary of State in this four-page chapter could be reduced.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, Amendments 133ZC and 133ZE. They are all about the maximum and minimum periods by which local authorities have to deal with expressions of interest and the rules and regulations that the Secretary of State will be able to make in relation to those. I can only underline what my noble friend Lord Shipley has just said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I agree with much of what my noble friend Lord Greaves has said. This is about the issue of competence. A power of general competence implies that people are able to do things because they are competent to do them, but for local authorities there is a separate meaning for “competence”, which is the ability to do it. Local authorities have the ability to do it; maybe some do not but many do. Those that do not will have to grow in the role to enable them to do so. However, a four-page chapter in which the words “Secretary of State” are mentioned 19 times should not be part and parcel of a Localism Bill. I hope that between now and Report that further thought will be given to this and that someone somewhere might attempt to remove some of these mentions of the Secretary of State so that the words appear only where they really need to. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 133ZA withdrawn.

Localism Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Lords Chamber

The third thing that we question is whether a council ought to be able to regard a petition for a referendum as being valid even if it does not have the right number of signatures on it. It is a very odd provision which says if you want a referendum, you have to go through these hoops—you have to submit it according to the rules and have a certain number of people on it—but that if you do not manage to get that number of people, we can think, “It’s on a good thing, after all, so we'll have the referendum anyway”. If you are having rules on referenda, it is our view that they need to be pretty rigorous and not be open to continued political argument on whether the petitions fit those rules. We have some doubts whether it is possible to set out a sufficient number of rigorous rules to make the system foolproof against the kind of populist and perhaps extremist manipulation that I have been talking about, and we will be scrutinising the rest of this chapter of the Bill very strongly indeed.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 122 and briefly make the case for a 10 per cent trigger. There seems to be general agreement in your Lordships’ House that 5 per cent is too low. That is for two reasons. First, when you have an actual referendum—as opposed to simply a petition on an issue—you ought to have a clear demonstration that there is significant public support for the question. Secondly, referendums cost money and if there is going to be a substantial cost to holding the referendum, it is legitimate to expect that a higher threshold than 5 per cent is generated to merit the cost of holding the referendum.

Seeing this now from the perspective of those who are gathering the petition, is it reasonable, given that there could be a referendum, to ask people to collect more than 10 per cent of the relevant area? That would be quite hard to do. First, I believe that 10 per cent is a reasonable figure in all the circumstances. If it was 20 per cent and all the people signing it were in favour of the referendum question, a turnout of 40 per cent would mean that in effect the 20 per cent was almost a majority. Presumably some people would sign for a referendum even if they were unsure which way they might vote, but I think 10 per cent is a reasonable trigger.

Perhaps more importantly, it strikes me that if people can gather 10 per cent it is actually not that difficult for them to gather 20 per cent. You might just as well accept the fact that at 10 per cent the trigger has been achieved. That is my view and that of some other noble Lords.

The other method of triggering a referendum is through members, then a petition and potentially a percentage threshold. I do not understand why members are treated differently from the general public. We should have a single system and as a rule of thumb the best and most reasonable figure that I could think of is that 10 per cent would be publicly understood as a reasonable number in all the circumstances, whether or not members are involved.