Transfer of Tribunal Functions (Mobile Homes Act 2013 and Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2014

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Beecham

Monday 16th June 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I declare that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a former council leader. Therefore, I have a keen interest in all aspects of local government matters.

I would like to ask about the level of fees to be charged rather than the transfer of jurisdiction, which is what the order is mainly about. My query relates to paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which states:

“The normal policy is that fees should be set at a level to recover no more than the full cost of providing the service”

I agree with that; that is the correct policy. However, will the Minister clarify whether the definition of full cost actually is full cost in this instance? It is a fee level of £155. Has that fee level been set to include a contribution to a council’s overheads rather than just being the recovery of the immediate direct cost?

I raise this because I think that it is an issue of principle. When I was a council leader, I discovered that in many instances, particularly in the regulatory and licensing areas, fees and charges were not, in fact, related to the total cost that a council incurred. That total cost includes its overheads for its premises, heating, lighting and so on. Too often fees were set to cover the cost of undertaking the immediate work involved. I seek assurance from the Minister that the total cost to a local authority has been included in paragraph 7.2 in setting the fee at £155.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I must follow the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in declaring an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a former leader of the same council for, if I may say so, quite a bit longer than the noble Lord. I have a certain sympathy with his view on this order to the extent that we are talking essentially about commercial organisations bearing the cost. The implication behind the noble Lord’s question is clear enough: is this a sufficient amount? If it were to fall on the occupier of a mobile home, I would be somewhat concerned about that. If the intention is that it should fall on the owner of the site as a commercial proposition, I think he makes a significant point. I am glad that he has made it because my only reservation about this order would have been to point to the split infinitive in the Explanatory Note.

Local Audit and Accountability Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Beecham

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I will add a brief comment about this, because from the perspective of the general public it is a very important issue. I understand that the Secretary of State has made a statement, published in the Local Government Chronicle, that a change will be effected in two years’ time. However, we need to be a bit clearer about what this might mean because of the rights of people to know what statutory notices are being placed that they might be interested in.

As I understand it, newspapers can still be used, which I welcome because newspapers in many parts of the country still have a role in publishing statutory notices. However, that will become a matter for a local council to decide. Let us also note that in the second part of this amendment my noble friend Lord Tope is saying that a local authority has to use a means of publicity that will bring it to the attention of the greatest number of people in the area. I hope no local authority thinks that that means it need not advertise on local lampposts and notice boards. If you are going to get to the greatest number of people, using local lampposts is a very effective means of achieving that.

I think the Secretary of State was quoted as saying that he prefers websites to be used in future. However, I will make three proposals to the Minister that might be thought about when the time comes to issue guidance. It is very easy for information to be lost on websites. There has to be a link to statutory notices from a council’s main page, and the website has to be easy to navigate to get the information off it. I also ask the Government to introduce an automatic postcode search facility so that someone who wants to inquire, as they do on a planning matter, can input a postcode, as they can in most local authorities, and get a straightforward list of current planning applications in that area. I propose that the same thing should happen for statutory notices.

Other than that, the world is changing around us. While I quite like to read statutory notices in newspapers, I understand the need to move with the times as long as the interests of the general public are protected and information is not hidden from them when lampposts, newspapers and the web could all be used in relevant ways as decided by local authorities.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, far be it from me to seek to mediate between the coalition parties on this matter, although of course I cannot resist the temptation to do so.

The noble Lord’s proposition is in many ways sensible. Even under the present law, councils certainly have the right to advertise in ways additional to publication in newspapers if they choose. Eventually, no doubt, that will become pretty much par for the course. The Government could facilitate the process by at least reviewing now rather than at some definite point in the future the list of items that have to be publicised, because frankly it is ridiculous. Planning matters are clearly important. However, when it comes to dog control orders or their revocation, the licensing of buskers, charges for street trading licences, abandoned shopping trolleys and charges for public baths and wash-houses, one wonders whether a formal statutory notice of any kind is desired. It is certainly not required, and certainly not in paid publications.

If the Minister were to indicate that the Government will address this matter—it is not that complicated; after all, there are only eight or nine pages of these things to work through—a sensible accommodation could be achieved that still leaves a statutory requirement for publication in newspapers. That should remain as part of a new framework, given that not everyone can look at the website, and there will at least be the opportunity to read a printed version. I hope that that would alleviate some of the concerns of the Local Government Association and, indeed, of the noble Lords who have already spoken. It would not be acceptable for the Government simply to reject the Motion and do nothing about this ridiculous list of notices that have to be published in a paid-for publication at the present time. A gesture from the Government in that respect, other than the normal gesture that one tends to get metaphorically across the Dispatch Box, would be helpful.

Local Audit and Accountability Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Beecham

Monday 15th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, this amendment refers to the Government’s proposal—which, again, was not subjected to scrutiny by the draft Bill committee—to introduce, effectively, an element of retrospection into the question of whether a referendum should be held. The Bill affects councils that have set council taxes for 2013-14 that would have been excessive if the clause becomes law, by virtue of the change that the Government are imposing in relation to levies by other organisations. Fortunately, it turns out that only a small number of authorities would be affected by the Government’s proposals. Those authorities are Wandsworth—an authority well known to the noble Baroness and other noble Lords—Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Stockport and Tameside. There is clearly a clutch around the Greater Manchester area, which presumably relates to some joint organisation in that area which collects a levy. Why Wandsworth should be affected, I really cannot say, although that does not really matter.

In Committee, the Minister indicated that councils had been notified by, I think, 31 January, that this might happen. However, that is a very late stage in the budget-making process, and it would have been very difficult at that stage to have reduced their council tax to the level which, if the Government were to apply the new rules, would have been operative. I repeat that the problem is not about the council’s own budget, it is about the levy imposed by other organisations. Had it been a precepting authority, the precepting authority itself could have had to call and finance a referendum on its own budget.

Many of us are extremely unhappy about the whole concept of these compulsory referendums, which of course do not apply when the Government increase taxes, with a considerably greater effect on the household budget than a corresponding increase in council tax. A 2% VAT increase takes a lot more out of people’s pockets than a 2%, or even slightly higher, council tax increase. Be that as it may, the effect is curiously different between a levying body and a precepting body; a levying body simply passes the cost on. The total amount of money is not enormous and would seem to amount to some £7.3 million. If the councils had been able to reduce their council tax to match the levy that they have had to impose, that would have been the cost to them, to be taken out of services. Nevertheless, it is a significant encroachment and, of course, if that were now to trigger a referendum—because the referendum limit becomes lower in future and councils may feel that they have to go for one—the cost of that, across these authorities, is likely to be pretty much the amount of the total levy across all those authorities. It is a bizarre situation. Given that it is now clear that it applies only to a very small number of authorities, in one particular cluster—in what, by the look of it, must be the special circumstances of Greater Manchester—I hope that the Government will reconsider this matter.

I suppose the Government do not have to apply the provisions of the Bill. If they do not want to amend the Bill and they want to reserve the power, so be it, but I strongly urge the Minister to think again about imposing this. It is wrong in principle, and it is an unnecessary reaction to what turns out in any event to have been a pretty small problem in terms of the number of authorities and the cash affected. It would be a statesmanlike move on the part of the Government to accept that perhaps, in the circumstances, they rather overreacted, fearing worse than has actually transpired, and to indicate that at the very least they would reconsider whether to proceed with the implementation of the clause, if they insist on its standing part of the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 43, and will be brief. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I think it is bad policy to backdate the definition of an excessive council tax rise so that it includes a levy from April 2013. I understand that in January this year letters were sent out to local authorities suggesting that the Government might take this course of action. I will say two things about that. The first is that it is simply not enough notice. Council tax-setting takes much longer than just a few weeks. There is a requirement that council tax is effectively set by the beginning of March, so that bills can be sent out. In my view, given the lengthy periods of consultation that local authorities are required to undertake, a period of six months would have been more reasonable.

My second reason for objecting to the Bill as it stands is that one should have respect for the law at the time at which the law is applied. I believe that councils and levying authorities abided by the law at the time. As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, quite rightly pointed out, it is a comparatively small problem. Retrospective change, whether or not there was a warning, seems to me to be wrong in principle, and should therefore be resisted. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said that he felt that the Government were overreacting. I concur with that, because I believe that it is an overreaction to backdate in the way the Government propose.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Beecham

Wednesday 10th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I express my full support for the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. The amendment is about getting TIF written into the Bill as a financial lever that can generate growth. All the international experience suggests that other countries are well used to using it.

I fully understand the need to ensure that investment and borrowing are responsibly undertaken and I have no desire to see problems arise such as have occurred in Spain with excess local authority and regional spending. However, localism in England has to mean trusting people with power and enabling them to manage their own investment and their own risk. As long as schemes meet the regulations, are genuinely additional and would not otherwise take place, the number of schemes should not be limited by central government, hence our full support for Amendment 71 which gives effect to that.

One of the amendments makes clear reference to tax increment financing, as opposed to there being no reference to those words at all. There is also an amendment that gives greater flexibility in start dates for schemes. Absolutely crucial, however, is the question of self-funding expenditure that complies with accounting standards, and the fact that it ought to be exempt from the public expenditure control framework because its impact on the deficit would be neutral, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has pointed out. In other words, there is a need to drive long-term growth through tax increment financing rather than through something that counts as an in-year spending decision, as long as it has been exempted from the public expenditure control framework. It seems that the Treasury has regarded infrastructure funded by TIF 2 as part of the local authority self-financed expenditure limits, which contrasts with the policy being followed for enterprise zones, which does not count, even though both mechanisms borrow against future business rate income over 25 years.

This is all about growth. We urgently want everyone to have responsibility for driving growth. This Bill says a lot about devolving business rates to local authorities. However, actually empowering and enabling local authorities to manage investment on the basis of future business rate income, but over a long period of time as opposed to a short one, is a vehicle that will enable growth levels to be enhanced. I hope very much that the Minister will agree with us that we need to do a little more now to promote tax increment financing as a vehicle for growth.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I warmly endorse the amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and supported by my fellow Newcastle councillor—ex-Newcastle councillor, I should say now—the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. The noble Baroness is quite right to point out that for all the potential of this scheme, the amount that the Government have decided to allocate to it is, frankly, pitiful. I think that the figure is £150 million. During the mayoral referendum campaigns, which took place earlier this year, much was made of the prospect of city deals for the eight authorities that were subjected to a referendum, and the prospect of tax increment financing was dangled in front of them. However, only three authorities, I think, have now been awarded tax increment financing arrangements. Newcastle, I am pleased to say, has secured I think £90 million of the £250 million, but only two other authorities have been brought in. That is a fairly minimal impact overall.

We have just been treated to the noise of fireworks, which reminded me rather of the spectacular opening of the Olympic Games and the wonderful display there, which of course cost £29 million. That is 20% of the total that is going to be allocated for tax increment financing—for one evening’s entertainment, however wonderful. There has to be something wrong with the Government’s priorities when they afford only £150 million to an imaginative scheme that should incentivise growth. This is a good way to promote growth quickly. As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, implied, infrastructure investment, which is of course what tax increment finance would essentially be directed to, can take place relatively quickly. It can generate growth in its own terms and blazes the trail for more substantial growth over a period.

In the debate in Committee the Minister prayed in aid the Office for Budget Responsibility as taking a view on these matters. I do not know on what basis that information was conveyed. It may be that the OBR has advised the Government—but the OBR does not take decisions in these matters.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, pointed out, it is for the Government to decide. On the face of it, it does not appear to be inconsistent with international practice. There has been some question about whether PFI arrangements should or should not be counted for those purposes—certainly, for many years, they were not—but the difference between this and PFI is that PFI was to cover public expenditure. To my mind, the only advantage of PFI arrangements was that they took it off the balance sheet internationally, as it were. It is not comparable when the whole thrust of the TIF proposal is to facilitate private sector development, with the beneficial effect that that would have on the economy. I hope that the Minister and the Government will look at this again and not seek reasons not to accept the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, but find ways to accept and develop it.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Beecham

Thursday 5th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley]

That would actually be a quicker way of proceeding.

I agree with the amendment moved by the noble Lord. The Localism Act was about devolving power and decentralising decision-making. This set of amendments makes it clear that there should be full consultation with local government before decisions are made. When decisions are made, that cannot just be about notifying those decisions but should clearly explain through consultation first but secondly explanation of the decision that has been made, particularly in a matter as complex as tariffs and top-ups. Thirdly, there has to be consultation on the detail not just on the general nature of things.

I hope that the Minister will take on board that feeling because the Localism Act has changed the balance of responsibility between central and local government. It would help enormously if it were not just left for the Secretary of State to have a set of powers whereby things can be announced but not actually explained.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I entirely support the amendment moved by my noble friend and supported by my erstwhile colleague on Newcastle City Council and fellow vice-president of the Local Government Association. It clearly makes sense, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, it is clearly in the spirit of the Localism Act.

However, there is another aspect. The Government set much store on the proposals in relation to the business rate as part of an approach to incentivise and increase local investment by business, growing the local economy and all the rest of it. In that context, it would surely be sensible if, in addition to consulting local government perfectly properly on these topics, they also consulted business. That cannot be done at every local level by the Government and councils will no doubt continue to have discussions with their own local businesses. However, as I pointed out on our first Committee day when I quoted the London chambers report, some 53% of businesses believe that councils set the business rates now. So there is a certain amount of education to be done here. But at the national level, I would have thought it important for government to consult, particularly about that proportion of the business rate that is to be held centrally rather than devolved locally, because that clearly would be a matter of concern to the business community.

Without the necessity of moving anything formally, it would be helpful if the Minister could put on the record an intention that in any consultation about the business rate and the various elements, resets and proportions and so on, the Government will consult the business community as well as local government.

Localism Act 2011 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2012

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Beecham

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the explanation of these two orders. I will speak to them both because, substantially, I have only one point to make.

I am particularly happy with the general power of competence applying to parish councils. It is absolutely right that clerks should be qualified and that there is a clear democratic mandate for the parish to undertake the general power of competence. But I have one question that relates to the duty to co-operate. I seek confirmation that there will be an application of the duty to co-operate.

One of the issues that arose when we discussed the Localism Bill was that neighbourhood planning had been addressed from a rural rather than an urban perspective. Of course it applies in both. Albeit that 1973 is a long time ago, the consequences of the policy in those days are broadly with us today. In rural areas, some parish councils were created to lie within what are now urban areas. My concern relates to a failure of a duty to co-operate between parish councils and the areas around them.

There could, for example, be a situation in which parishes have a neighbourhood plan but the adjacent non-parish area does not have a neighbourhood forum, or where a parish does not have a plan and the adjacent neighbourhood forum has been created and it does. Or there could be a situation where both the parish council and the adjacent neighbourhood forum could be contiguous and the plan of one would impact on the other. It is very important that where they both want to have a plan there is clear co-operation between the two.

There is a whole set of issues around whether urban neighbourhood councils or parish councils should be extended. That is for others to decide. But it is important, particularly in the context of the community infrastructure levy potentially applying, that a clear duty to co-operate should be imposed on parish councils and on other councils in exactly the same way that there is a duty to co-operate between neighbouring district councils.

In short, with a general power of competence, it is important that there is a general duty to co-operate as well. I simply seek the Minister's assurance that that is what is planned.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I am pleased to join two fellow north-easterners in the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in reviewing these revisions. I certainly endorse their commending the extension of the general power of competence to parish councils.

I do, however, have questions about the detail of the proposals. I confine myself to the second instrument that the Minister proposes. My first question relates to the provision about the resolution, which will allow a council to proceed with the exercise of the general power. The council, having passed such a resolution, is able to continue to exercise that power until the next relevant annual meeting—even if, for example, it loses its clerk at some point during that period. I hesitate to say so, but parish councils do not have the highest reputation for stability in relationships between their own members or between members and clerks. They have been the source of vast numbers of complaints to the now abolished standards board. It is conceivable that a clerk, perhaps because of a disagreement or perhaps simply because he or she moves, leaves a parish council for the greater part of a four-year period. Yet the council could continue to exercise its general powers without the benefit of the kind of advice which, very sensibly, as the Minister outlined, can be secured through qualifications and training. Is it wise to allow for such a potentially long period?

There is also a transitional provision safeguarding those who have to deal with the parish council in those circumstances. I understand this. The Explanatory Memorandum states that the provision would ensure that councils,

“do not lose the incentive to continue to meet the conditions once they have initially become eligible. It also provides certainty for third parties in their dealings with parish councils as to the extent of a particular council’s powers”.

That is the point. It would seem to apply to not just existing projects but new projects to which a parish council, in between the appointment of clerks or resolutions, might embark upon. Is it all that sensible to make that provision? On similar lines, the Explanatory Memorandum points out that if a council does not pass at the “next relevant annual meeting”, for whatever reason, a resolution, either because it does not qualify through having a qualified clerk or because it changes its mind, an,

“activity that has been begun but not completed may be continued”.

I can see the logic of that, but I wonder about the word “completed”. Let us suppose, for example, that a parish council decides to undertake the maintenance of playing fields or provide a facility—it could be anything from a public convenience to meeting rooms or something of that kind. In that example, what does completing that project actually mean? If it is a contract, I can understand it; if it is not, I do not quite understand how it could be judged to be completed. Therefore, it would potentially seem that something could just continue indefinitely, even though the council has either become ineligible or does not pass a further resolution. There is a possibility for difficulties there.

The Explanatory Memorandum says:

“The Government’s expectation is that eligible parish councils will strive to fulfil the conditions at all times”.

That is in the motherhood-and-apple-pie part of the Explanatory Memorandum. If anything, what do the Government have in mind, preferably in conjunction with the National Association of Local Councils, to see that that expectation is fulfilled? I would hope that the national association would be helpful in supporting the Government’s expectation. Of course, not all councils are members of the national association; some have deliberately absented themselves from it, including some of the larger ones—unless they have rejoined since my time, when I was engaged with them on behalf of the LGA. So there is potentially an issue there as well.

There are two other points on which I seek clarification of the present position, or on whether the Government might be interested in pursuing them. The first, in a sense following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is whether the general power extends to councils combining for particular purposes. Would the power extend to allowing two neighbouring parish councils to set up something jointly in the way that councils in, for example, Greater Manchester have come together to do things together across the piece, serving a wider area than the individual parish? I assume that it is intended, but it would be as well perhaps to have that on the record.

Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (England) Regulations 2012

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Beecham

Monday 6th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

Would the noble Lord count a turnout of 18 per cent as a vindication of his position that there is a great public interest in this?

[Lord Shipley]

It is too low, but of course, local elections and leaders of councils are being elected in practice on similar numbers. So no, the point is not material. The fact is that the people of Salford have voted for an elected mayor. It is simply not the case that there is no apparent public support for elected mayors. I believe that we should test the public view. That was agreed as part of the Localism Act, and we should not regret that but should test the public opinion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

I am not sure that that is right. However, in any event, irrespective of whether or not the Government have the power to require referendums—I think that they do, but I may be wrong—what the noble Baroness has said constitutes a pretty substantial disparagement of the record of her political colleagues in significant authorities not unadjacent to where we are debating these matters, among others. I find it rather strange that apparently only mayoral authorities are capable of delivering regeneration and economic prosperity. The case that has been advanced is that you need a mayor to make that progress. Frankly, I do not accept that. However, in general there is a continuing lack of evidence in support of the mayoral system. I say with all due respect to the noble Baroness that affirmation is not evidence.

I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. He gives as a reason for supporting elected mayors that there are to be police commissioners. In November people will have the opportunity of buying one and getting one free because there will be two votes on the same day. But, of course, it will not be free; it will presumably be double the cost. If there is a mayoral referendum, that will cost roughly £250,000 and there will be separate costs for the police commissioner elections, which would also clock up to the same figure in individual authorities. If they are buying two, they will have to pay for two. They do not get one free.

Why the existence of a police commissioner should make it all the more desirable to have an elected mayor, I do not understand. But then few people understand why we should have police commissioners in the first place, including quite a lot of Members on the government Benches in this House and in the other place. Certainly it is not understood by the Prime Minister’s favourite police officer, Mr Bratton, whom he wanted to appoint as Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who could not understand why the American system should be imported into this country.

The noble Lord also welcomed the powers to be given to elected mayors but without explaining why only elected mayors should get them. In fact, it is not only elected mayors who are likely to get them because discussions are going on with other authorities. There is an interesting development around Greater Manchester with the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, which is not predicated on the existence of a mayor either from Manchester or the area as a whole.

I must tease the noble Lord somewhat. It is only a few months since he and I were jointly discussing how we might campaign together against the idea of an elected mayor. This gives rise to the Paul Daniels question. Your Lordships will remember the magician and television personality Paul Daniels and his attractive young wife. She was asked: “What is it about balding millionaire Paul Daniels that persuaded you to marry him?”. I gently put to the noble Lord, “What is it Lord Shipley, recently appointed government adviser on cities, that has led you to change your mind about elected mayors?”.

[Lord Shipley]

I have read a lot of the research evidence in that context as a large amount of research has been done on the role of elected mayors. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said that a number of countries in Europe do not have our system and that you cannot build an elected mayoral system on to our democratic system of local government. I do not agree. I have read research produced by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and I have read the report of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, and Terry Leahy on Liverpool and Merseyside. There is also the Warwick commission on elected mayors. There is a body of research demonstrating that you could have stronger economic growth by having a stronger governance system. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that he was talking to me about the importance of campaigning against elected mayors. I was not talking to him about that.

[Lord Beecham]

I do not recall the conversation being as one sided as that, but I shall allow the noble Lord to get away with his disavowal of those discussions. I was really only teasing him.

The issue is not who exercises the powers but what the powers are. They do not have to be conferred on a single individual with all the disadvantages to which I referred. Experience around the world is extremely variable. There are appointed mayors, as in Holland. The Labour Party, as I told the Grand Committee, once sent people to see the mayoral system in Holland without realising they were appointed rather than elected—not untypical. There are elected mayors. There is the Barcelona model. There are mayors in jail, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, rightly said. There are mayors who are very successful. There are leaders of councils in both categories no doubt as well. The crucial thing about economic development is having the necessary powers and being able to co-operate with other authorities. In that context, of course, that opportunity has been rather dismantled by the abolition of regional development agencies and the lack of a proper system for ensuring co-operation.

However, we are where we are. I will certainly be campaigning against an elected mayor in my own authority. I shall be happy to quote the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in support of a bipartisan approach. I look forward to seeing the noble Baroness campaigning up and down the country in Conservative authorities—while we still have Conservative authorities—for referendums and elected mayors too. That is something she has not yet found time to do. Perhaps she has not really had the inclination, but maybe that will follow after May. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. It addresses a question that is crucial for the success of legal aid advice at local level. The question is how the Ministry of Justice can deliver its legal aid budget cuts of £130 million out of £250 million while still delivering an effective system of support for legal aid. After a lot of thought, I have concluded that a centralised system of contract procurement is not likely to work well. It would mean high overheads and poor flexibility at a time when a significant number of third-sector providers will be forced to close because of lack of finance, with the consequence of problems that could be sorted out early not being sorted out, and a greater cost to the public purse.

We should note that the Legal Services Commission has very high costs. It spends £120 million on administration. After the cuts, with the new director of legal aid casework, the amount spent on administration is likely still to be around £120 million. That figure is very high. Of course, it includes criminal legal aid, but this has barely been cut at all. However, at local level, the budget cuts will be very significant. They will be in exactly the places that require a seamless service that will enable clients with problems that cut across agencies to benefit from integrated support.

I have a potential solution. I am grateful to Citizens Advice for its suggestion of how we might solve the problem. Could the Legal Services Commission, or its successor body, be moved from centre stage? Could, say, £20 million be reallocated from its administrative budget—which would thereby be reduced to £80 million —to front-line funding based on local legal advice partnerships that would map local advice needs, share back-office services and be based on clear professional standards? There would have to be—

[Lord Beecham]

Do I take it that the noble Lord is referring to £20 million a year rather than a one-off payment of £20 million?

[Lord Shipley]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I do mean £20 million a year from the recurrent cost to provide for those local partnerships. There would have to be a co-ordinating charity, but that should be possible.

In a short debate on citizens advice bureaux on 8 December, I talked around this point and said that there was capacity at a local level to help the Government to solve the problem. Of course, all of this would be in the spirit of localism. The Government have just enacted the Localism Bill. The Localism Act has as its basic principle the principle that far more should be devolved from the centre to local areas.

The first part of the amendment simply gives the Lord Chancellor discretion to permit transfers from the legal aid budget to other funding streams for the provision of advice on issues to which Schedule 1 does not apply. The second part facilitates a cheaper delivery model based on local partnerships. On a practical level, it is important to note that it would be a waste of resources if legal aid clients could not receive holistic advice. There could also be many cases at the margins of situations covered by Schedule 1, and we should note the Legal Services Commission's response to the Green Paper, which highlighted the problem of boundary issues and warned that,

“the administration costs of considering such cases could erode the revenue savings that the Ministry of Justice has committed itself to”.

I think this suggests that we ought to do some further work between consideration in Committee and Report and that we should not lose the opportunity to engage with finding a solution to this problem. I hope that the Minister will understand that in moving this amendment, we are trying to be helpful. There are suggestions that this approach, or one like it, could work very well. I hope that in his reply the Minister will say that he is willing to engage in further discussions prior to Report.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Beecham

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 84 I shall also speak to Amendments 86 to 90. These all relate to the standards of accommodation and repairing obligations. Amendment 84 will ensure that all tenants and other occupiers of housing with short terms have the benefit of repairing obligations. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 provides that the implied repairing obligations set out in its Section 11 only apply to leases of less than seven years. This Bill proposes to apply that Section 11 to secure and assured fixed-term tenancies of more than seven years to take account of the fact that the new, flexible tenancies may be granted for longer than seven years. The proposed new clause in my Amendment 84 gives all the tenants of all short leases of less than 21 years the benefit of implied repairing obligations, so this amendment is important.

Amendment 86 relates to the same Act, which currently provides that those who have previously held a lease for more than seven years and who have not previously had the benefit of the repairing obligations by landlords will still not gain the benefit of such obligations if they renew their lease with one of less than seven years. There seems to be no justification for excluding any short leases from the repairing obligations, which should surely apply to new short leases, irrespective of what length the previous lease was. This amendment would achieve that result.

Amendment 87 would make landlords responsible for repairing furniture, fixtures, fittings and appliances in furnished lettings. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies repairing obligations into all leases of less than seven years in those granted since 24 October 1961. They are required to,

“repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house”,

and,

“to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation”.

However, it makes no provision in relation to any furniture, fixtures, fittings or appliances provided by landlords in respect of furnished dwellings, such as beds, sofas, cookers, fridges and so on.

Although most people would expect landlords to be responsible for the furniture and fittings that they have supplied in furnished dwellings, few tenancy agreements—even those of social landlords—impose any specific repairing obligations in this respect. Most furnished lettings are granted by private landlords whose tenancy agreements often make no reference to repairing obligations at all. However, where there is any such reference it is usually only one to the terms implied by Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. In the absence of any specific term in the tenancy agreement covering furniture and so on, there is no obligation upon a landlord to repair or keep in working order the furniture or fittings that she or he has supplied. It is sometimes possible to argue for an implied term to make the landlord liable to repair in this situation, but this leaves the position uncertain and unnecessarily complicated in this regard.

The proposed amendment would ensure that the legal responsibility for furniture, fittings, fixtures and appliances in furnished tenancies falls where it should lie: namely, upon landlords. Given that furnished tenancies are usually short term, it is completely unrealistic to expect tenants to carry out such repairs themselves. These repairing obligations should fall on the landlord, not the tenant. This amendment would ensure that this was the case.

Amendment 88 would ensure that all tenants can live in housing that does not injure the occupier’s health. Again, it refers to the same Landlord and Tenant Act and the same obligations. The courts have decided that the obligation to repair arises only where there is disrepair—namely, where there has been deterioration from some former condition. As such, the obligation to repair does not usually cover design defects. However, sometimes unhealthy housing conditions arise not from disrepair but from design defects. The most common example is condensation dampness which occurs as a result of the construction of a dwelling house; namely, through inadequate insulation, ventilation and/or heating, and not because of any disrepair to the structure or the installations supplied. The point is extremely important because currently tenants living in unhealthy conditions which arise as a result of design defects are unable to take any civil action to ensure that these conditions are rectified. While it may be possible for tenants to take action in the magistrates’ courts under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, no public funding is available to take such cases. Local authorities can also bring proceedings under the 1990 Act but, of course, are unable to bring proceedings against themselves.

Amendment 88 would enable tenants to take civil proceedings in order to make their landlords rectify design defects which render the premises injurious to the health of the occupiers. It seems only right in the 21st century that tenants of residential accommodation should expect to live in accommodation that does not injure their health and should be able to take steps to rectify the defects giving rise to these conditions whatever the cause. In relation to the installations in a dwelling house, tenants are already able to take civil action to rectify design defects which result in the specified installations not being in proper working order. They should also be able to take action when the defects affect, or will affect, their health.

The public spending implications of this are not great because the decent homes standard has improved the public housing stock. The main benefit of this amendment would be private tenants of rogue landlords, where the worst of the housing stock now rests. Indeed, giving such tenants a private remedy could reduce public spending because it would take some of the pressure off hard-pressed local authorities, which have the job of enforcing the housing standards in the Housing Act 2004, and could also provide savings to the National Health Service. The current necessity to draw a distinction between disrepair and design defects, as opposed to simply concentrating on the effects on the occupier, makes the law in relation to repairs unnecessarily complicated and results in the need for expert evidence on the cause of the problems. Removal of the distinction would greatly simplify the law in relation to disrepair. This proposal would therefore benefit not just those tenants who are presently living in unhealthy housing conditions but the civil justice system as well.

Amendment 89 would make landlords responsible for the repair of installations for ventilation, particularly extractor fans. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, as currently enacted, makes no provision in relation to installations for ventilation, save in respect of windows. Lack of ventilation is a common cause of condensation dampness in dwelling houses and is often prejudicial to health. Over the years many properties have been fitted with extractor fans in order to combat this problem. However, there is presently no obligation on landlords to keep such installations in repair or proper working order unless this is expressly provided for in the tenancy agreement. Few tenancy agreements, even those of social landlords, make specific reference to extractor fans, with the result that tenants have no remedies when extractor fans break down or do not work properly. Given that extractor fans are usually fitted by landlords, the responsibility for repairing them should fall on the landlord, not the tenant. This amendment would ensure that this was the case.

Finally, Amendment 90 seeks to ensure that all tenants and other occupiers of housing can live in housing that is fit for its purpose. In 1996, the Law Commission recommended that, subject to certain exceptions, an implied term of fitness should be imposed on all tenancies of less than seven years. This proposed new clause goes a little further in that it would apply the term not only to tenancies but to licences. It seems only right that any occupant of residential accommodation should be able to expect accommodation that is free from damp and has natural lighting, ventilation, a water supply and other basic facilities for sanitation and the cooking of food. At present, the other main repairing obligation in Section 11 of the 1985 Act is confined to matters of disrepair. Therefore, if a property is unfit in the respects mentioned above because, for example, of design defects, the occupier has no remedy. That cannot be right. A house with no damp-proof course could be rendered so damp as to cause the tenant pneumonia but there would be nothing in the tenancy agreement to compel a landlord to install one. On the other hand, if there was a damp-proof course in place that had failed through disrepair the tenant would have a contractual remedy. That is an absurd anomaly.

Public spending implications again are not great because a decent home standard has improved the public housing stock. Again, the main benefit of this amendment will be private tenants of rogue landlords, where the worst of the housing stock now rests. Indeed, giving such tenants a private remedy could reduce public spending because it would take some of the pressure from local authorities who have the job of enforcing housing standards in the Housing Act 2004.

In the recess, my noble friend the Minister replied to me following Committee stage. I should like to pursue a sentence in the letter that I received because it caused me some concern. I am sure that that was unintended but we need to clarify the record. In terms of repairing obligations on landlords, the letter states that,

“where there is no evidence to the contrary I am not prepared to increase burdens on landlords with the attendant risks for growth in the sector”.

It is inevitable that the private rented sector will grow but I am puzzled by what I would regard as the basic standards of accommodation, with basic attention to repair and maintenance of properties and enabling people who are tenants to live in accommodation that is fit for purpose. I do not see that as a risk for the sector. People have a right to expect a basic standard of accommodation and I hope very much that my noble friend will put my mind at rest and confirm that there should be applied a basic standard that needs to be delivered through amendments to the law. At present, too many private sector rented accommodation units are falling through the legislation that currently exists because it has not been modernised—well, in the past 25 years—to a standard that would reflect current modern needs.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, Newcastle is once again united. We are even more united now than we were under the previous Administration. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on tabling these amendments and equally congratulate those who have briefed him so thoroughly with the material that he has brought to your Lordships’ House today. He has highlighted an important area of the national housing debate which has been subordinated in recent times to the simple question of household numbers, housebuilding and the long queue of people denied access to accommodation, including first-time buyers and their problems. Much of the emphasis has been simply around numbers and the owner-occupied sector.

The real problems addressed by the noble Lord’s amendments are to be found essentially in the private rented sector, which has received insufficient attention for many years under Governments of both parties, with the result that, as the noble Lord pointed out, far too many people are living in unsatisfactory accommodation. We are living in a letters’ market, as it were. Demand for rented accommodation is going up all the time and obviously property numbers are not going up to match. Reputable organisations are anticipating additional problems when changes in housing benefit come in, and already there is some indication that private landlords are reluctant to let to housing benefit tenants. There is huge pressure within this sector. As the noble Lord pointed out, that sector has much the highest rate of disrepair and the least degree of modernisation through to decent home standards. Therefore, there is a huge need for concentration on these problems. The very basic matters to which the noble Lord referred must be an essential part of the responsibility of any landlord.

There will be a slight irony if the Government resist the amendment. If the exterior of a property was at issue, Town and Country Planning Acts would apply. Owners can be made to tidy up the outside of their property, and even paint it, whatever the length of tenure or even if it is owner-occupied; but when it comes to the inside, as the noble Lord pointed out, these powers do not exist for far too many properties. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in principle with imposing obligations on owners—in this case, renting owners—because they are applicable to all owners as far as concerns the property exterior. One might have thought that, from the point of view of safety and health, the interior is more important. It is perfectly logical that legislation should be amended in the way proposed by the noble Lord.

I will sound a cautionary note. The noble Lord referred to the availability of civil proceedings once the measures pass into law. Again, I remind noble Lords that access to the courts by this group of potential litigants is likely to be affected by the pending changes to legal aid. If current proposals go through, only under exceptional circumstances will legal aid be available to assist tenants in enforcing repair obligations of this kind. Perhaps that should be borne in mind in future debates. I hope that the noble Lord and his colleagues will join Members on all sides of your Lordships' House in investigating those steps very thoroughly, because these matters are not divisible. If we are looking at the housing situation holistically, we must look not only at obligations but also at methods of enforcement. The noble Lord touched on them. We must be sure that those methods remain available to the people who will need them.

I hope that the Minister will respond sympathetically to the suggestions contained in the amendments. I represent an area that has a significant private rented accommodation sector. There are a number of very poor landlords and a licensing scheme that is beginning to have some impact. I hope that that experience, which is reflected in many places, will be improved by the Government giving fair wind to the noble Lord's proposals.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Beecham

Monday 5th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 8 I shall also speak to Amendment 20. Amendment 8 would restore the requirement that any offer of private sector rented accommodation must be reasonable for a homeless household to accept. For clarity, the amendment would simply restore the law to its current position, which is why it refers to the deletion of a clause.

At present, local authorities must be satisfied that accommodation offered to homeless households is “reasonable to accept”. The Bill as drafted removes this requirement. However, the condition is important because “reasonable to accept” is distinct from suitability. It covers cases where a property may be defined as suitable in law by its condition, location and affordability but where there may be wider reasons for a household to turn down the offer. It has been used to challenge through the courts an offer of housing in an area where there had been racial harassment. It could apply equally in cases of domestic violence.

Amendment 20 seeks to define the suitability criteria for private sector rented accommodation offered to homeless households. It was previously tabled in Committee and would define suitability criteria for private rented accommodation in which homeless households are placed under the changes to the homelessness duties proposed in the Bill. It sets out important safeguards around physical standards, management, location and affordability. The Government have accepted some of the concerns raised about these issues at previous stages of the Bill, and have said that they are prepared to use order-making powers to set standards on physical condition and property management. Those are indeed very welcome. However, the Government have still not fully addressed the concerns around affordability and location.

Let me address examples of why an environment might not prevent accommodation being objectively considered as suitable but would, if an applicant were housed there, have a detrimental effect on that applicant. Examples include the risk of threats of racial harassment or violence by individuals unknown to the applicant, or a risk to the welfare of the applicant where the accommodation offered is in a neighbourhood associated with drug use or dealing and the applicant is a recovering drug addict. There may be a perceived risk of harassment or violence from individuals known to the applicant, such as a violent ex-partner whose relatives, friends or associates live in the neighbourhood.

There have been such legal cases; I draw attention to one in particular. A family refused an offer, arguing that it was unreasonable for them to accept the accommodation, even though it was suitable in terms of what was in it, because, when viewing the flat, they and their children had suffered racist abuse from people living nearby. That case went to the Court of Appeal, which considered that the flat may have qualified as suitable in its size, location and so on, but that the council should have gone on to consider the wider question of whether it was reasonable for the family to accept it in light of the intimidation. The court stressed that suitability and “reasonable to accept”, while overlapping terms, are different concepts. The requirement of “reasonable to accept” does not apply to temporary accommodation, but only to offers that are intended to discharge the authority’s homelessness duty completely. It is a serious issue and I am concerned.

In an ideal world I would be opposed to the removal of choice from homeless people by allowing local housing authorities to discharge their homelessness duty via an offer of private rented accommodation without the applicant’s consent. However, I recognise the general problem of supply and that more than three-quarters of local authorities, when responding to the Government’s consultation, said that they welcomed the proposed change and would use it. If local housing authorities are potentially able to discharge their main duty with one offer of private rented accommodation, it becomes much more important that this offer is suitable to meet the needs of the household.

The Government have recognised that physical and management standards are important and have outlined them in the statement that the Minister placed in the Library recently. However, I do not think that we have been told what the draft regulations will say. As the protection of homeless households is such an important issue, and given the absence of draft regulations, should we not include definitions of suitability in the Bill, particularly physical and management standards? The statement in the Library does not address the vital issues of affordability and location. The assurances given by the Minister in Committee that the local authority must by law consider the applicant’s financial resources and the total cost of accommodation in determining whether the accommodation is suitable will do nothing to tighten the affordability aspect of the suitability definition.

There seem to be no reassurances on location. Once an authority has considered the applicant’s financial resources in assessing family income and expenses, it can still take its own view of what is affordable when deciding where to place a family, as long as it can show that it has had regard to the guidance—or, to put it another way, local authorities are advised that a household’s residual income should not fall below subsistence level. However, a local authority is able to depart from this guidance as long as it can prove that it has been considered. It would be much better if this were included in the Bill. The proposed new clause would include in the Bill certain specific criteria in relation to the affordability of accommodation and its location. These tend to be the most important factors in any offer of accommodation. This will prove to be a very important issue as homelessness continues to rise and local authorities have less accommodation to offer to those who are homeless and potentially homeless.

In addition to the affordability and location of the accommodation, we should consider the management of standards, who is renting out the accommodation, what processes they follow in managing their accommodation and whether it meets the standards of decency and reasonableness that I am sure all your Lordships would expect. I have further amendments concerning standards of accommodation in the private rented sector. I do not want to discuss them now but it is important that we define the quality of the accommodation, minimum physical standards and management standards better than we do at present. We should also take greater account of affordability and location. I hope very much that the Minister will agree to look further at this issue. People should not feel that the making of a single offer on the part of the local authority means that it has fulfilled its legal obligation towards them and that they should therefore take it up. I have great doubts about this issue but I still hope that the Government will understand that they have to do a little more than what is outlined in the note that has been placed in the House of Lords’ Library.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I wonder whether I can tempt the Minister—probably not—to answer the point I made on a previous amendment about the applicability of offers made outside the area of the local authority that is determining the issue of homelessness. It is a question of suitability in this context. Perhaps she could enlighten us on that aspect when she replies.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Beecham

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I add my voice to those who support this amendment because I see it as a critical part of the necessary checks and balances on the powers of the commissioner. I say that for two reasons. First, the acting commissioner could be in post for eight to nine months—that is, for up to six months as permitted in the Bill, together with the period during which a replacement is elected. Frankly, to have an unelected acting commissioner for that length of time is unacceptable as they will set the budget and the precept. Although there is a veto on the precept, nevertheless they will be responsible for making the proposal on the precept and they will make a decision about the budget. All those functions should be undertaken by people who have been elected as opposed to people who have not been elected.

Secondly, the commissioner will have appointed the staff member to their substantial post. The only power that the panel will have is over which staff member is nominated, although they have to bear in mind the advice given to them by the commissioner who is incapacitated. I regard this as an absolutely fundamental issue. The panel must be able to appoint from among its own members. Between now and the next stages of the Bill, I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will make clear to colleagues in the other place that this matter is of fundamental concern to a large number of Members of your Lordships' House.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I correct my noble friend Lord Hunt, who has underestimated the extent of the precept as a percentage of the local council tax, which would fall potentially to the acting commissioner to levy. It is 11 per cent in England and 15.5 per cent in Wales—even greater than my noble friend indicated. I respectfully suggest that there is potentially an equal underestimate in relation to the period of vacancy. As I read the Bill, the six-month period after which a vacancy would have to be declared and a new election take place, which would add to the length of time in any event, arises in connection with incapacity. However, there are other grounds on which a vacancy might arise. In particular, there is the possibility of a police and crime commissioner being suspended. That could conceivably take an even longer period to resolve, so there is the potential for this position to be filled by a second-hand appointee, as it were, for a long period. Of course, the whole rationale of the proposal for police commissioners—flawed in the opinion of many, certainly on this side of the House—is that it is necessary to have somebody who is elected and who has a direct mandate for the purposes of exercising the functions that the Bill confers on the holder of the office.

There will be no such democratic element in the event that the procedure currently in the Bill is enacted. There would be no democratic mandate of any kind—direct or indirect. It is intolerable that that should be the case when within the police and crime panel, there will be people with a mandate—not the complete mandate—that will be claimed for the police and crime commissioner in as much as he or she will be elected for the whole force area. There will at least be some democratic mandate for those elected local councillors who will constitute the majority of members of the police and crime panel. In those circumstances I can see no argument for allowing—indeed requiring—the appointment of somebody who has no mandate when there are those available within the structure who would have at least some mandate.

I hope that the Government will think again. The noble Baroness was unlike her old self, if I may say so, at the beginning of this debate when her rather surprisingly peremptory statements were made. I would like to see her return to what your Lordships might think is the much more acceptable Browning version.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Beecham

Thursday 7th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, in a number of respects, not least in that I think the Government are on the right lines. Some aspects of procedure and process—how this may be delivered—might need to be looked at before Report. I wanted to give some examples from my personal experience of where this legislation could well help to protect a community asset.

This is not entirely about pubs and post offices, but let me give an example of what can happen with a pub. Let us say that a pub is owned by a national, private sector organisation and is closed down. It is sold on the open market but, when research is done with a small advert in a newspaper over the summer, it is knocked down by the purchaser, and the community has no power under planning law to prevent it being knocked down. There is then an application for a change of use, but the criteria for change of use alter because the building no longer exists. It is treated and deemed to be a brownfield site. As a consequence, different planning law pertains and new planning permission for a change of use is much easier to obtain.

My second example is more hypothetical, but it reflects a concern that I have about the financial viability of sports clubs, which often find themselves in financial difficulties and needing to do things to protect their position. This might involve a merger, for example, or moving to a new site. There is an issue about whether land used for a sporting purpose should be considered, before it is sold, for permanent use as a sporting provision. Of course, planning law and the zoning of land help in that respect, but are not the entire story. There has to be a right to give a community the power, if the sports club is going to move, to say whether some greater community interest should be considered whereby a trust could be formed to perpetuate sporting recreational activity on that site.

A third example is government-owned land or buildings. This is not just about privately owned buildings. What about a cricket pitch on open space that is within the purview of a government building, such as a National Health Service building? Planning law currently protects that. One of my great fears is that it becomes easy, when finance is difficult, to suggest that the solution to that finance problem would be to sell off more land and that, to secure a reasonable price, it needs to be sold off for housing or some other purpose with a commercial outcome, which then generates a large sum of money for that government department. The community has to have some general right to intervene to protect that open space, above and beyond the rights bestowed by the planning system.

Another real-life example involved Ministry of Defence buildings for the Territorial Army next to a large secondary high school on a constrained site. The school needed further land, ideally for expansion, because it was too tightly constrained for the growth that it needed. It was in the community's interest that the school should expand, but it was clearly in the Ministry of Defence’s interest to secure the largest income it could from the sale of the buildings and land. That was a housing use issue. We are then up against the difference in values between what one government department is prepared to pay to another. Nothing in current legislation says that one government department must give another the right to buy at a price lower than open market value—in this case, for housing development. This is a problem because the community's interest is not in the housing development—that may be in the MoD's interest—but in that of the children being educated in our schools.

[Lord Beecham]

Would the noble Lord not agree that it is most important to deal with that problem because it is a right to bid, not a right to buy?

[Lord Shipley]

I fully understand that the Bill does not deal with precisely that problem, but I am trying to give the community's point of view on what it worries about, such as controlling the assets that it perceives to be of community value in its area.

There is a further general issue with council-owned buildings: whether councils should have an automatic power to sell buildings that they own prior to testing community interest in running a building, such as a loss-making facility. With everyone's good intentions, I am sure that is what councils would do under the Bill. However, a register of those buildings would make councils ensure that they behaved reasonably in protecting community assets that local people might want to use. The development of community trusts and facilities whereby people in a neighbourhood can get together and form a community interest company trust is in the public interest. Put simply, there is a lot of discussion to have on the Bill between this stage and Report, but this debate is not simply about pubs and post offices. I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that we have to think much more widely about what is in the public interest.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I want to add a word from the perspective of English core cities. The proposals around tax increment financing put by the eight largest English cities to Government three to four years ago have gradually been working their way through a number of committees, particularly in the Treasury. In the past 12 months added impetus has been given to tax increment financing. I hope that what my noble friend Lady Kramer is proposing here does not cause any delay to the move forward with the Government’s proposals because tax increment financing is urgently needed to enable cities, in particular, and all councils to be able to borrow against future business rate income growth. At present local councils have the power to borrow prudentially, but prudential borrowing requires there to be an income stream guaranteed to enable that borrowing to proceed. Tax increment financing enables borrowing to be made against future growth and projections of that business rate income, as my noble friend Lady Kramer rightly pointed out.

These are not separate issues and they can sit happily together but we are looking for some clarity from Government that tax increment financing as a principle will go ahead as speedily as the Deputy Prime Minister announced that it would last year. Local authorities are waiting for the powers to be implemented and it could well be a further 18 months to two years before those powers come forward. They are urgently needed. Otherwise infrastructure funding that requires a capital investment based on borrowing on the markets needs to be progressed. Without it that investment will not take place. I look forward to my noble friend the Minister clarifying the speed with which tax increment financing can be introduced and how then that proposal lies with this proposal in the name of my noble friend Lady Kramer.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is quite right to refer to the support for the principle from the core cities and also, in general, from the Local Government Association. I endorse that. To help me understand the implications of this measure, can the Minister refer back to the point that she raised about this being more acceptable to business ratepayers because they will benefit from the projects that are being financed through this mechanism as opposed to something like Crossrail where they may not have done? This does not necessarily constitute an objection to the proposal, but I wonder whether that is right. The rates are borne by the occupier of business premises. The value effectively goes to the owner and they are not necessarily the same. We have had over many years in local government finance the position where property owners contribute little to the regeneration of cities and the like. The financial burden falls on the tenants through the rents and they also pay the rates. I wonder whether she is not being a little optimistic in assuming that the occupiers of premises that may benefit from these developments will be as enthusiastic as she might suppose, although, as I say, that does not vitiate the validity of the proposal as a means of financing investment.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Beecham

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, the amendment touches on the question of transparency and the openness to the public of meetings. It seeks to reflect what I understand to be the present position, which is that meetings are open unless council committees or executives decide to exclude the press and public, usually on grounds of confidentiality. This might be commercial confidentiality or sensitive staff issues and the like. The amendments in my name create a presumption that the meetings will be open to the public unless there are good reasons for not having them as such. Those reasons clearly would have to be enunciated. It is difficult to find a form of words that fully meets the case. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, will speak to his amendments, which import the term “necessarily”. However, the question then arises of how one defines what is necessary. There is no simple answer, but it is important to have the presumption in the Bill if we can get it, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister in due course.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 53, 54 and 55 in my name. Each is a probing amendment to get confirmation from the Minister that there will be no deterioration in the access of the general public, the press and opposition councillors to meetings and to information. I seek that reassurance because, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, says, it is quite difficult to get the right wording. The overriding intention must be that there should be no deterioration in what currently pertains in local government for individuals—the public, the media or other councillors—seeking access to meetings and information. The Bill confers an awful lot of powers on the Secretary of State to make decisions in that area. I understand why that is, but I would be more comfortable if it was absolutely clear to the general public that there will be no diminution in their access to information and meetings.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Beecham

Monday 6th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I wish to comment on the amendments in this group standing in the names of my noble friend Lady Hamwee and myself. Amendment 124 is a preliminary amendment relating to the situation in Wales. I will not speak about that situation, and the amendments relating to that, as my noble friend Lady Randerson will do so. I wish to raise a broader issue relating to the discussion we have had so far about the nature of the panels, the number of members on them and their proportionality. Once the Committee stage is completed and before Report a number of issues will need to be discussed in detail.

I am not convinced that every panel needs to be the same size. It is proposed that there should be 15 members on a police and crime panel, but geography, population and other factors need to be taken into account. There may need to be lower and higher numbers of members in certain cases. I have a real difficulty with the proposal in Amendment 122AB that a police and crime commissioner could be appointed by a majority vote of a police and crime panel, which under this amendment would have 15 members, as a majority vote implies that eight people could appoint the police and crime commissioner. This will be a very powerful, highly paid and responsible job. I do not think that we should allow eight people to make an appointment of that kind. I would much prefer a directly elected police commissioner than one who might be appointed on the votes of eight people. A number of issues in Amendment 124A then become clearer. It proposes that each police and crime panel should have 15 members, but six of those will be,

“independent members to be co-opted by the panel”.

Therefore, the amendment implies that the panel will have only nine members, and that five of the nine can co-opt the six independent members. This concentrates and centralises power too much. At a time when we are trying to disperse power and make those who are elected to posts more accountable, I do not think that that proposal will work. Indeed, I assume that Nolan principles should apply in appointments of this kind. Therefore, there is a discussion to be had about what the powers of the panel members might be, how many there should be, who they represent, and how that will be done.

As regards having a discussion prior to Report about how proportionality will be delivered, broadly speaking proportionality on joint boards and police authorities can work reasonably well. However, it may not work reasonably well. It depends whether people want it to work well. There is a very strong argument for saying that proportionality in this case should depend not on the numbers of councillors by political grouping within the police authority area but rather on votes cast at the previous general election. There are a number of ways of doing this but it is very important that there is public support for the way in which the panels are constructed because if there is no public support it will make life very difficult for the chief constable, the commissioner, the panels themselves, the partnerships and the local authorities. At the heart of all this, the amendments carry a real risk of building single-party political control into the structure. One of the great benefits of the current structure, of which I am a strong supporter, is that it is a plural structure which enables everyone to work together with a common objective in their geographical area.

Amendment 127 seeks to ensure that,

“each relevant local authority has at least one of its councillors as a member of the panel”.

I believe that is very important. There is a discussion to be had about the nature of district councils, county councils, unitary councils and single-tier councils—whether they have only one or two members, high populations or more members than others. The amendment is a statement of our intent that,

“each relevant local authority has at least one of its councillors as a member of the panel”.

There may be a case for saying that in this situation district councils should give way to county councils but we need to discuss that.

Amendments 136 and 137 concern who can be a co-opted member of the panel. I do not think that a directly elected mayor of a local authority covered by the police area should be able to be co-opted to the panel—they should actually be on it. There is a fundamental issue here. We should add the proviso that a directly elected mayor cannot be co-opted to the panel because it should surely be assumed that they are members of it, otherwise there will be friction and that is one of the things that we are trying to avoid in the Bill.

[Lord Beecham]

Perhaps the noble Lord will bear in mind that there may be elected mayors in one authority in a metropolitan area, but not in others. Would that not promote friction between the authority with the mayor and those that have an elected leader?

[Lord Shipley]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his intervention, because that is absolutely true. Insufficient work has been done on the impact of having an elected mayor in some cities but not in a whole police area. Of course, the boundaries in London are coterminous, but they are not coterminous in the larger urban areas in the rest of England. That is a potential problem. I take the noble Lord’s point. How the situation can be properly addressed, should there be a mayor, has to be talked through.

As to Amendment 137, the Bill states that a local authority member is excluded from being co-opted. I think that the opposite will prove to be the case. There may well be a need for a local authority member to be co-opted, perhaps to demonstrate political balance but, more likely, to demonstrate diversity or geographical interest. Preventing a local authority member who has not been directly appointed by the local authority from being a member of the panel is a potential mistake.

Finally, Amendment 138 states that:

“Panel arrangements may not include provisions for the approval of any member other than by that member’s nominating authority”.

This simply makes it clear that the power of appointment should lie with a member’s nominating authority.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Beecham

Monday 28th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, in the coalition lexicon, there is a six-letter word missing: it is the word “region”. It has been banished by Mr Pickles, and the use of it has been banished from PCTs by the Department of Health. Of course it is true, as my noble friend Lady Royall has implied, that there is a variable geometry about regions. They are not all the same: some are regarded as too big—one thinks perhaps of the south-east, where a predecessor television programme to “Strictly Come Dancing” was called “Come Dancing”. Some of your Lordships may recall that then “Home Counties North” and “Home Counties South” were regarded as appropriate areas. Perhaps that might have been better than a single RDA for the south-east. Nevertheless, many of the RDAs have performed extremely well. If there were uncertainty about some of them, the question arises: why abolish all when there may be a very strong case for keeping some, if not all?

Nearly a year ago, Vincent Cable came to the north-east in his first few weeks as Secretary of State, and he declared his belief that the north-east was,

“one region where business support through a regional agency is both necessary and appreciated”.

He was right about that, but he subsequently went on to propose the abolition of that agency. In any case, he understates the case.

Consider the report on the RDAs from the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills. It found evidence of effective intervention in the face of economic shocks and strongly endorsed the RDAs’ role because they,

“improved the understanding of local economies and their connections with businesses … They were also able to catalyse delivery of infrastructure … and took a strategic approach to planning decisions”.

It thought that some RDAs were, perhaps, too big to profit from local engagement, but it made it clear that,

“policies were far from being applied on a blanket basis within regions”.

Interestingly, the CBI recorded 66 per cent support for continuing regional co-ordination via the LEPs, if they were to be the new mechanism—and especially strong support in the Midlands and the north. Even in areas where the number of local enterprise partnerships was great, it saw the need for an overarching structure. The Select Committee recommended that regional groupings should be recognised where a clear wish was expressed. It also expressed a concern that inward investment and tackling economic shocks would be inadequate without local knowledge and support, as my noble friend has said, when functions were translated to Whitehall. This has been compounded by the proposed abolition of Government Offices for the Regions providing critical intelligence and contact from within the regions to government. Accordingly, the Select Committee recommended that government should devolve powers to regional structures where there was clear evidence of good management of resources.

A back-handed compliment was paid to the Government’s policy from one witness to the Select Committee, who said:

“One good thing that the Westminster Government has done is to abolish regional development agencies in England”,

removing significant competition from the market. That witness was Dr Brian Gibbons, who is Minister for Economic Development in the Welsh Assembly. He clearly took the view—indeed he expressed it—that the Government’s decision presented Wales with a significant opportunity at the expense of the English regions.

The Federation of Small Businesses said that the local enterprise partnerships should have the capacity to address all the issues impacting on development, including transport, planning and housing at a strategic level, tourism, the low carbon agenda and skills and training. But that long list begs the question of the scale of the organisation to carry out those functions and the resources it will need. The organisations that will take the place of the RDAs are the local enterprise partnerships and, as my noble friend has said, they will not have responsibility for significant areas of policy including the ERDF. They will be expected to work with government, whatever that is supposed to mean, on investment priorities, transport infrastructure, the regional growth funds and getting the jobless back to work. Again, there is the question of scale: you will have, as we have in the north-east, at least two organisations, perhaps with an overarching body as well. In other parts of the country there are none, in some there are numerous: how will these work together at the strategic level as opposed to the very local level?

Of course, as my noble friend has pointed out, the funding is very limited: £1.4 billion over three years is very little more than what the Secretary of State himself described as the “trifling” figure—I think that was the word—of £1 billion that was originally proposed. The committee was also concerned about the not-so-local knowledge, about the assets and about the potential for a massive success or failure if the debts were not adequately resourced. Of course, they are not being resourced: they will have no funding and no powers. As I have said previously in this Chamber, they are in danger of being penniless, powerless and pointless. That is a real risk.

There are serious questions to be asked about assets. The Government’s plan is for the assets to be used to pursue economic development benefits through transferring assets to appropriate hosts. They qualify that promise, which on the face of it looks reasonable, by reference to the need to deliver maximum value on public sector investment in the context of deficit reduction. There is therefore a clear implication that the assets will be realised to meet that agenda. There is also a clear implication that that might lead to early disposal.

I have not had the advantage of reading the entire text because Wikipedia has not yet published it. I have seen only a redacted copy of the submission made by One North East, the agency with which I am most familiar, on the proposal for assets disposal. Interestingly, it is proposed to sell some at market value to local authorities. How local authorities are supposed to fund the acquisition of those assets in the present circumstances is beyond me. Some will eventually be put on the market for open market disposal, with an interim period of management by local authorities. Again, at a time of local authority cuts, where will the capacity exist to manage this estate? Similar difficulties arise in relation to intellectual property. There are no fewer than seven pages on that in the submission, including an interestingly little-known scheme called JEREMIE, which is spelt somewhat differently from the convention. It is to do with finance for business and has been extremely successful in the north-east.

What we have here is really an irony. This Government, above all, look to the private sector to lead and to make good the deficiencies in the economy. The RDAs, which they are about to abolish, are heavily engaged with the private sector. They are private-sector-led bodies, and yet they apparently cannot be trusted with economic development in the regions.

The proposals in the Bill bear all the hallmarks of a rush to misjudgment, like so many of the measures that the Government have brought forward. We have seen examples this very day of second thoughts having occurred. I hope that the Government will listen to their natural supporters, if you will, in the private sector, in business and across parties in parts of the country; and will pause, reflect and reconsider proposals that threaten to damage the economic recovery that is essential but seriously at risk in many regions.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, for much of the period since the Second World War—and indeed before—Governments have pursued some form of English regional policy. There have been several initiatives: regional Ministers in some or all regions; development corporations; development companies; and a variety of government office structures, so that Whitehall could be represented properly across all parts of England. Policies have been chopped and changed, but they have been clarified in recent years—first by the creation of the development agencies in the English regions, and secondly by the strengthening of government offices so that all Whitehall departments were housed in a single government office. The system was far from perfect and led to some unnecessary bureaucracy. There was a lack of democratic accountability within the regions. However, the system had one overriding virtue; it was regionally based and gave a clear and firm focus for each region in England that had previously been lacking.

Some regions did not like the structure because they did not feel that their region really existed as an entity. The south-east is the most obvious example. Others, such as parts of the south-west, felt distant from their RDA and government office. Perhaps it was a mistake by the previous Government to create an RDA in each region. Indeed, it is hard to see, in terms of strategic regeneration, why the south-east needed a development agency at all. However, that is history. What is not history is the decision to abolish all English RDAs.

In the north, people have identified with their RDA to a much greater extent than in the south. Maybe this is a function of the northern regions being further from London and the levers of power. It also reflects the greater needs of those regions, which require government intervention for the ultimate benefit of the UK as a whole. The decision to abolish the RDAs and government offices in the south-east may have been broadly popular but it is most certainly not a popular decision in my own region—the north-east. I declare my interest as a board member of One North East since 2005. There is a constitutional issue here, too. Why do Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London have substantial devolved powers, some of which are set to increase, at the very same time that the English regions are being further centralised within London-based structures?