Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Shutt of Greetland and Lord Beecham

Monday 31st October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have spoken on this matter. Clause 46 of the Bill repeals the duty on principal local authorities in England and Wales to have a petitions scheme and the associated provisions. Amendment 15 would omit this clause, therefore reinstating the duty, and Amendment 49 would then amend the original legislation, which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to when he mentioned the eight pages. Incidentally, I have a note that there would be still four or five pages left of that, including the requirement to call officers to account. So a lot of it would still be there.

While the intention behind the amendments to ensure that councils treat the receipt of petitions sensibly and appropriately is laudable, I am not persuaded that reinstating this prescriptive and burdensome duty, albeit in a revised form, is either necessary or desirable. The revised duty proposed would remove Section 11 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, which provides for principal local authorities to have petition schemes, but it is clear that they would continue to need such schemes, given that Amendment 49 includes several references to petition schemes. Even with this change, the revised duty would mean a significant new burden on local authorities. The effect of subsection (6) of the proposed new section is that the statutory petitions schemes would have to go into far more detail than is currently required about how particular categories of petition will be treated.

In addition, the extension of the statutory duty to all categories of petition—including mayoral petitions and council tax petitions—which the amendment creates, will create further additional burdens, as a scheme would then need to provide for different processes for different types of petition. To reinstate the current overly prescriptive duty not with a clean sheet but with a confused mishmash of some retained elements, with some changes and some provisions dropped, is not at all helpful. We trust local authorities to make the best choices for their local areas and to respond to residents’ concerns in a locally appropriate way. However, how that looks should be a matter for local discretion, not central prescription.

We simply do not believe that we need to reinstate this duty in order to force local authorities to have a petitions scheme, any more than we believe that we need to tell local authorities how to respond to petitions from their own residents.

The noble Lord, Lord True, asked whether the Government still support the concept of petitions. Let me make it clear that they absolutely support and encourage the use of petitions but at a local and not at a national level. It seems to me that people want to put up a petition in a post office or whatever. They do not want to have to scratch about wondering what the proper way to organise a petition is for that council. They want to get on with the petition, get the names together and get on with it. That is how it is in democracy and how it is in local areas. In the circumstances, I trust that this amendment will not be pursued.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, can be forgiven for a sense of déjà vu since the issue has arisen, but he should have looked at the amendment rather than the Act. The amendment would substantially reduce what I entirely agree was a ridiculously overprescriptive regime for the presentation of petitions. It simply provides for councils to have a scheme to deal with petitions and is not about the detail of how petitions are to be presented, except that they would be acceptable in electronic or written forms. After that, it would be very much a matter of local discretion as to how they would be dealt with. There is no intention in the amendment to prescribe how petitioners should present their case. It is not at all a bureaucratic substitute and is significantly shorter than the three volumes that the noble Lord would have us believe the Act required.

The difficulty is that, by abolishing the provision without any alternative, the Government are sending a signal that petitions do not seem to be important. They are important and it is unfortunate that the Government are sending a signal to the contrary by neglecting this when Parliament is now adopting a procedure, for good or ill, which appears to place considerable value on petitions. However, it is clear that there is insufficient support for me to test the opinion of the House. I regret what has happened and I hope that at some point the issue will be revisited. In the mean time, at the very least I hope that Ministers will use their best endeavours to encourage councils, even if not on a statutory basis, to promote the use of petitions as an important element in local democracy. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Shutt of Greetland and Lord Beecham

Monday 17th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I would have thought that this amendment is unnecessary. If an application for retrospective consent is a fresh application, it would, or should, be notified to those occupiers—not necessarily those who objected before, who might be living anywhere. However, surely it should be treated as an application de novo, and therefore the normal processes would apply. So those affected on a retrospective application would receive notice. I should think, unless the Minister disagrees, that the amendment is otiose.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is right on this. I thank my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for bringing this forward. It is important that we get this absolutely clear. This word retrospective largely means that something happened for which there was no permission. Someone spots it and says, “Look here, you’d better put in a planning application”. That’s the position. In all instances where there is a change, there are requirements in place for local planning authorities to publicise and consult on those applications—that is, the retrospective ones. This is true when a new revised planning application is submitted, and where the holder of a planning permission wishes to delete or vary one or more of the conditions to which their existing planning permission is subject. The Government therefore believe that this amendment is a solution to a problem that does not exist. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

Heaven forfend that I should trespass on the griefs of the coalition about unfulfilled promises. It is already late enough and one could go on for many hours about unfulfilled promises, but I shall resist the temptation.

We cannot support either of these amendments. There is a balance to be struck between what is purely local and where there are other considerations which might well be of significance in regard to major areas of public policy, including that to which the noble Lord, Lord Reay, refers and about which he is exercised—it is right that he should be, if those are his views. There is a legitimate role for the Secretary of State to determine, at any rate, some appeals beyond those which the amendment would refer.

The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, in addition to the general principle, also creates difficulties. A community right of appeal is an arguable proposition. Whether a community right of appeal could be said to be legitimately exercised by,

“a ward councillor for the area; … any parish council covering or adjoining the area of land to which an application relates; or … any overview and scrutiny committee for the area”,

as proposed in new subsection (2B) that Amendment 232ZB would insert into Section 78 of the 1990 Act, is indeed arguable. I cannot see that those matters are a very persuasive definition of a community right of appeal, even assuming one was in favour of a community right of appeal, which, on balance, I am certainly not—whatever the coalition parties thought they were going to implement.

In these circumstances I offer once again an unusual degree of support to the Minister if he declines to support these amendments.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken. I should like, first, to respond to Amendment 232ZB in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, because it helps to set the scene. The amendment intends to give a new right of appeal for local councillors. Before going into detail it would be useful to start by setting out what we are seeking to achieve in the reforms and how communities can shape the area in which they live. The purpose of our planning reforms is to put the local plan at the heart of the system. In fact, the draft national planning policy framework explicitly says so. It is the plan where councils and communities weigh up and integrate different goals and long-term needs so that it sets the framework within which individual planning applications are assessed and decisions taken. We want planning decisions to be taken by local communities, not more appeals undertaken by unelected inspectors in Bristol.

Everything that we are currently undertaking in the Bill—removing unelected regional structures and the top-down targets which constrained local councils, stopping inspectors arbitrarily rewriting plans without a council’s consent and removing unnecessary central government monitoring regimes and interfering in local timetables—gives control, choice and responsibility for local planning back to councils and communities. Other reforms which introduce neighbourhood planning and ensure appropriate consultation with local people before proposals are submitted have also been to that end, so that local people will, in future, have a real say. They will encourage developers to work with the local community to develop proposals all can support, rather than setting them against each other.

Given this, I have considerable sympathy with the noble Baroness’s intentions here. She desires, as I do, to ensure that local communities and the plans agreed between them and their councils should remain at the heart of planning decisions and she is concerned that, in some cases, that does not always happen because of the way the system works. I do not think that her amendment is a solution here. We consider that this would risk adding unnecessary uncertainty and delay at this crucial time of recovery and growth. Applicants will have invested considerable time, money and effort in preparing their proposals and should expect a council’s decision to be a corporate one. However, I recognise that there are issues that we need to address.

First, I understand that local councils have often felt pressure to approve applications which have not been consistent with the plan. One reason is that officers may advise elected members that if they do not approve development, even where it is outside the plan, they may lose at appeal and have to pay costs. Therefore I can reassure the House that we will revise the costs award circular which governs this process so that where a council refuses a development proposal on the grounds that it is contrary to an up-to-date development plan and there is no issue of conflict with national planning policy, there should be no grounds for an award of costs against the council in question.

Secondly, in some cases applications are made and approved which fall outside the development plan. This is an important flexibility in the system. However, we must also be clear that if an application is outside the terms of the plan it should be approved only if locally elected representatives have considered the views of the local community and concluded that such a departure would be acceptable in planning terms. For this reason, we will consult on requiring departure applications to have compulsory pre-application consultation with the local community so that elected members are fully aware of local views before they decide an application. This will mean that local councils will have a clear understanding of local views when they deal with key applications, should have no fear of costs being awarded against them when they have followed the right procedures and will be able to decide cases in the long-term interests of local communities. These changes to the system will strengthen its resilience and ensure that our reforms achieve their objective of putting the local plan and the views of the local community at the heart of the system.

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for raising these issues so vigorously. By doing so, she has done a service to the House. Given our proposals to strengthen community influence and the involvement in planning as a whole, which I have outlined, I hope she will agree that our measures are strong and effective ways to ensure that community views are heard in the process, especially where a development might depart from an up-to-date plan, and that she will not press her amendment.

Turning to Amendment 232ZA, as the noble Lord, Lord Reay, said in Committee, planning is a matter of getting the balance right. I agree. We are committed to a system of fewer appeals and want development proposals to be determined locally. However, in the few cases where appeals are made, the Secretary of State, as decision-maker, must be entitled to take other material considerations into account, as can councils, on finely balanced matters of judgment—for example, where a local policy is out of date because it does not reflect the changing circumstances of the local area or more recent national policy. In such instances the law allows councils to consider other material considerations in making the right decisions for their communities. They should not be restricted and neither should the Secretary of State’s decision be fettered. Amendment 232ZA would therefore be unduly restrictive in this regard.

However, I understand the intention behind the noble Lord’s amendment. We shall take the measures that I outlined earlier so that councils and communities feel confident, if challenged at appeal, in defending planning decisions made in accordance with an up-to-date plan and where there is no conflict with national policy. I reassure the noble Lord that judicial review proceedings can already be brought if a decision was unlawful or due process was not followed. I hope therefore that he will be willing to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, it is fitting that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, should effectively conclude Report stage after his many distinguished contributions to the Bill’s proceedings thus far and, indeed, his previous very substantial record in government. I have a couple of questions. I entirely endorse the thrust of the noble Lord’s amendment. I hope that it will be acceptable to the Government. This is more a matter of process. We are not entirely clear how the new system of post-legislative scrutiny will work and what pieces of legislation will be included in it. I hope that this will be one of them. I do not know whether the Minister can indicate whether that is so but in any case it is understood from the impact analysis that the Government intend to draw up the finer details of the review methodology in the months ahead, as they put it. Since the relevant document was written some time ago, that will presumably be done through a soon to be formed Localism Bill review steering group. Has such a group been formed or will it be formed? Who will be involved in it if it has not already been set up? When is it likely to report? How will it work? These are the crucial procedural questions. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, rightly refers to the financial aspect and we entirely endorse the view that as this will effectively be a new burden on local government, it will presumably be within the new burdens doctrine. It will be good to have an assurance on the record that any additional costs of that kind will be met by central government.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, Amendment 249 would mean that the department has to produce a post-legislative impact assessment setting out the additional expenditure incurred by relevant authorities as a direct consequence of this Bill. An established process is already in place for post-legislative scrutiny of Acts. As set out in Cabinet Office guidance, departments are required to submit a memorandum to their departmental select committees three to five years after Royal Assent of an Act. This memorandum sets out a preliminary assessment on how the Act has worked out in practice, relative to objectives and benchmarks identified during the passage of the Bill.

In addition, each of the individual impact assessments for the specific policies in the Bill is accompanied by a post-implementation review plan. The amendment to insert a further requirement to produce a post-legislative impact assessment is therefore unnecessary. Inevitably, putting the provisions of this Bill into practice will mean local authorities taking on some new responsibilities. However, the Government are committed to ensuring that any additional burdens on councils are funded in accordance with the new burdens doctrine. The impact of the Bill has been assessed in the usual way, and the necessary funding will be made available.

I regret that I am not cited on the localism group referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. Obviously, I shall have to drop him a line on that point. I hope that my noble friend Lord Jenkin will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Shutt of Greetland and Lord Beecham

Monday 10th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness, and welcome her on her return from her homeland. I trust she has not been suffering from jet lag; I will not detain her too long.

I am not sure that the amendment is necessarily the right way to deal with this. My understanding is that in conservation areas there are provisions under the Town and Country Planning Acts for steps to be taken to maintain properties of this kind. It is not without interest that in Edinburgh recently there have apparently been problems with requirements being imposed on local residents by the local authority—who appear to have powers similar to those advanced in this amendment—which have caused some controversy. Apparently large sums of money have had to be laid out on improving or maintaining properties, and some of those who are benefiting from those expenditures have been connected with the decision-making process. That would not be applicable if the amendment were carried, and one would hope that it would not occur. Nevertheless, it is difficult to define exactly what standards would be required.

There is, however, a more general point which applies to this and the other amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, and that is the general by-law-making powers of local government. This is something I took up with the previous Administration, and some modifications were made about that issue. It might be worth the Government looking at the extent to which councils are free to make by-laws as opposed to having to have everything approved by individual departments. Alongside that, perhaps the Government could look at the question of consent regimes generally, which is something again that I have been attempting to pursue for a number of years, including in some recent Written Questions.

The noble Baroness has touched on an issue, perhaps almost inadvertently, that is worth considering: the capacity of local authorities to make particular provisions for their areas without necessarily having to have everything approved by central government. I do not know how the Minister will respond; I suspect that he will acknowledge the good intentions but say that perhaps it is not appropriate for this Bill, and I certainly would not press him to go further than that. However, I ask the Government to take back the issues of by-law-making powers and consent regimes generally, not for the purposes of this Bill, but as part of a localist agenda.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for introducing her amendment and welcome her back to Britain. Local authorities already have extensive powers to take action where a property is dangerous or having an adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood. I see no need for additional powers. Under the Housing Act 2004, local authorities can tackle poor conditions across all residential properties. If a property is found to contain serious hazards, the local authority can instruct its owner to undertake any works necessary to ensure that it is safe. Inspections and any subsequent enforcement to address the disrepair can be triggered by complaints to the local authority.

Local authorities have a key role to play in identifying empty properties in their areas, and in developing strategies to bring them back into effective use. We encourage local authorities to work with owners to persuade them of the benefits of bringing their property back into use. However, where it is clear that owners are not prepared to co-operate with efforts to get their property occupied through agreement, local authorities have enforcement powers to deal with them. Further powers available to local authorities to tackle disrepair and poor maintenance include those in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Where properties have an adverse impact on the amenity of the area, local authorities can require that they are tidied up, repainted and, where necessary, rebuilt. I hope this will satisfy the noble Baroness and that those who are concerned will have more luck in getting their local authorities to pursue the powers that they have.

I take on board the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, on the by-law issue. I confirm that the Government will look into that further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, again, one sympathises with the motivation behind this amendment. Quite apart from the particular case to which the noble Baroness referred, it is not a particularly attractive sight to see people hanging about smoking in the street. However, the only grounds on which orders could be made would relate to the impact of that smoking on health.

Enclosed areas are of course covered by the existing legislation, and, as I understand it, there is power to designate areas other than enclosed areas, if, in the authority’s opinion, there is significant risk that without designation persons in the area would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke—areas where, although they are outdoors, there is a concentration of people or of prevailing structures around the area that might lead to people being exposed to the smoke. If that is indeed the case, as it appears to be under the Health Act 2006, there does not appear to be any need for the amendment. I would encourage local authorities to look at that Act. No doubt the Minister in replying will have more information about that.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, again I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. Indeed, I have great sympathy for the amendment as it seems to me that the place immediately after the no-smoke zone ends is the problem territory, whether it is outside a public building, or wherever it may be.

The amendment would give local authorities an explicit power to make by-laws designating areas as smoke-free. The Health Act 2006 makes provision for the prohibition of smoking in enclosed public places and workspaces. It came into force in England on 1 July 2007. Section 4 of the Act provides regulation-making powers for the Secretary of State for Health to make further regulations—for England—designating as smoke-free any place or description of place that is not smoke-free under the Act. This could cover outdoor places. Therefore, if the evidence on the harms of exposure to second-hand smoke becomes more robust, and the Government’s preference for voluntary local action to extend smoke-free places where there is a clear need is shown not to be working, the Government can consider using Section 4 of the Health Act 2006 at a later date. I would say that, at the moment, the Government do not intend to make use of these powers. However, I know that colleagues in the Department of Health welcome the debate on this important issue and will continue to monitor developments and the evidence.

While we are sympathetic to local authorities making by-laws that preserve public health, our preference is to see local authorities promote the benefits of environments free from second-hand smoke on a voluntary basis. Creating smoke-free areas through legislation gives rise to complex issues, which I know that colleagues at the Department of Health would want time to consider carefully, and I do not think this is something we should be dealing with at this late stage of this Bill. As such, I am afraid that I cannot support the amendment and trust that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, it is almost refreshing to move from the constant headlines about the casino economy, which the world has enjoyed for the past few years, to something as substantive and reasonable as the noble Lord has brought to the House today in terms of the limited number of premises to which this amendment would apply. The key to the argument of the noble Lord is that this should be a matter for local decision within the overall context of that limited number. It seems to be entirely consistent with the approach of localism—it should be a matter for local determination—with the benefits that the noble Lord has referred to being realised in a number of places that wish to see that kind of development augmenting their current offer to residents and visitors. I hope that the Government will look sympathetically on the amendment and facilitate its passage.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment. I am aware that this amendment would make changes that some elements of the British casino industry have been seeking for some time. I can sympathise with the sentiments behind it, but this is not the right time to discuss the issues that the noble Lord raises. It is not an uncontroversial proposal and it would be wrong to assume that there is unanimous support for it either inside or outside the industry.

Seventeen new licenses were provided for by the Gaming Act 2005 aimed at contributing to economic development and regeneration in carefully selected locations. We do not know what sort of impact this proposal could have on the eight competitions to award the new licenses which are currently under way. All of those have yet to launch their processes. It would not be right to bring forward measures at this stage which could undermine these competitions and adversely affect the benefits that these new casinos could bring to local communities.

Nor should we assume that the casino industry in Britain is united behind this proposal. I understand that the industry is split over the idea. The National Casino Industry Forum supports it, but the Casino Operators Association is thoroughly opposed. That is not to say that the Government reject outright the principle behind the amendment, but there is some way to go before we could consider offering our support and we would need to look at some issues. For example, the amendment as proposed does not require the 40 or 50 currently dormant casino licences to be handed back as a quid pro quo. That might be an important gesture to ensure that any new flexibility did not lead to a substantial increase in the number of casinos.

The relevant Minister, the Minister for Tourism, who is responsible for gambling policy has met with representatives of the industry a number of times and they are fully aware of his views. I am sure that he would be prepared to consider this matter in the future in the terms that I have just outlined. With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord is willing to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I am very taken with the image of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, patrolling the highways and byways of rural Essex as a sort of unpaid litter warden. It is a charming thought and I am sure he did a very good job, but he should not have to. That is the message of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and I congratulate him on bringing this matter to the attention of the House and hope that the Government will be able to respond. As the noble Lord said, the matter was debated in another place on an amendment moved by the Member for Gateshead, Ian Mearns, with whom I was discussing this on the train from Newcastle this morning. He received what seemed to be a sympathetic response from the Minister, Andrew Stunell, who said:

“We will certainly look carefully at the matters that have been raised”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/5/11; col. 441.]

Time has passed so I hope that the consideration has taken place. I think it is preferable to have this in national legislation rather than leave it to by-laws. There seems to be no reason why this amendment should not be proceeded with on this Bill or at least a clear indication given that it will have some priority in other legislation. But this is really too good an opportunity to miss and I hope that the Minister in replying, even if he cannot say today that the amendment will be accepted, will indicate that by Third Reading there will be a clear position and the Government will feel able to adopt it.

Of course, as the noble Lord pointed out, this is essentially a matter of enforcement. There is little point in having regulations without the capacity to enforce them. But, as the Essex police have found out in another context, enforcing measures concerning the driving of vehicles is not necessarily straightforward. This would certainly obviate the kind of difficulties that have arisen in another case and one would hope that the Government would see the logic of that and accept the thrust of the noble Lord’s amendment, and see to it one way or another that the objective which most of your Lordships share is carried into being.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and his tenacity in pursuing this issue. It is always said that this is a House of experts. I had not appreciated the expertise that we had between us about the distance from the fish and chip shop to the home. I am also an expert on this. The home where I was brought up and lived until I was 23 was the exact same distance from the fish and chip shop. It was our garden that caught the recycled newspapers which in those days were used for wrapping up fish and chips, and we had to keep shifting them, so I understand the concern that people have about litter.

This amendment would give local authorities an explicit power to make by-laws about littering from cars. Throwing litter from vehicles on to public land is a littering offence under Section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Indeed, some local authorities successfully tackle litter louts, issuing them with fixed penalty notices. I fully acknowledge that taking enforcement action against those who litter from vehicles can often represent a practical problem. However, extending the scope of the littering offence, as was also suggested by the Local Government Group in its amendment rejected in Committee in the Commons, raises issues of fairness and proportionality. A registered keeper may be open to prosecution even though they did not commit the offence and were not present to prevent it. It may not always be a ready solution for the registered keeper to avoid prosecution by identifying who was the actual offender.

However, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, powers will shortly become available to London boroughs following enactment of the latest London Local Authorities Bill, currently before Parliament, which will allow them to issue a civil penalty to registered keepers where enforcement officers witness littering from a vehicle. It makes sense to learn the lessons from the application of that approach in London before moving to wider legislation—and legislation is not the only approach. Changing littering behaviour is key. That is why the Government are supporting Keep Britain Tidy in developing the Love Where You Live campaign. That work with businesses, local authorities and civil society partners will make an important contribution to changing behaviour on littering in all its forms. The Defra Secretary of State is calling together later this year representatives of vehicle hirers, motoring associations, manufacturers, service stations, et cetera, with a view to agreeing a voluntary commitment to tackle littering from vehicles.

It is one of the guiding principles of making a by-law that no by-law should reproduce national legislation, which is what this amendment would achieve. That being the case, and although I certainly support the intention behind the amendment, which is that the anti-social practice of littering should be a criminal offence, I cannot support it and trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

I will certainly use my best endeavours to see that we can write to the noble Lord and that copies are placed in the Library so that other noble Lords with an interest can see the results of that.

[Lord Beecham]

Can the Minister also consider the points that I made in addition to those made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for Third Reading?

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Shutt of Greetland and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I thank those who have contributed to this series of amendments. We have a fresh start here, in that the community right to challenge will hand the initiative to voluntary and community bodies with good ideas about how services can be run better, and more cost-effectively, ensuring these ideas get a fair hearing, and will give them the time to organise themselves to bid to run these services.

In making my preparations for the day, I spotted the word “regulation” more than once. I thought the best thing to do is to take this head on. Much of the detail of how the community right to challenge will work is to be included in regulations. In response to amendments from noble Lords which touch on this detail, I will often have to explain that we are currently carefully considering issues that have been raised in our recent consultation. It is important that we get the details right. I would like to reassure noble Lords that, on various issues on which we have consulted, we propose to set out the way forward prior to the Report stage of the Bill. I am not promising, but if we can, we will see if we can get some draft regulations. That may not be possible in all cases but we will endeavour to do so.

I understand what my noble friend Lord Greaves said. I had not thought of “jolly wheeze” as featuring in his vocabulary. However, community organisations are part of the Liberal Democrats’ vocabulary. Therefore, this measure may have been suggested by one part of the coalition but I readily embrace it as a means of giving communities an opportunity to come forward with better ways of delivering local services. However, we need to see what is in the regulations, on which consultation is still taking place.

[Lord Beecham]

Will the noble Lord confirm that the Government accept the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee regarding regulations under this part of the Bill being subject to the affirmative procedure?

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, the Government are considering those recommendations. I will not make any promises on that but I believe that they are very likely to take serious account of the committee’s views. It would be very unusual if they did not.

Amendment 129V would remove the Secretary of State’s powers to specify requirements for expressions of interest in regulations. We have taken this power to ensure that power really is pushed down into the hands of communities. The majority of relevant authorities will act within the spirit of the right but this power would prevent a recalcitrant authority requiring an unnecessarily burdensome amount of information that would stymie a relevant body wishing to use the right.

Amendment 130ZB would remove the Secretary of State’s power to exempt services from challenge. Taken with Amendment 133ZK, which would remove the power for the Secretary of State to specify the grounds for rejecting an expression of interest, which we will consider later, this amendment would give relevant authorities discretion to reject a challenge to any of their services. As I have already explained, we have taken these powers to ensure that power really is pushed down into the hands of communities. The majority of relevant authorities will act within the spirit of the right, but this power would prevent a recalcitrant authority rejecting expressions of interest out of hand.

Amendments 130ZA, 131ZA, 131G, 131H, 131E, 131F and 131DA would remove the Secretary of State’s powers to make changes to the right in regulations. Amendments 130ZA and 131ZA would remove the power to add relevant authorities and bodies. Amendments 131E and 131F concern the power to amend the definition of a relevant body and voluntary and community bodies. Amendments 131G and 131H concern the power to make any amendments to this chapter of the Bill that are necessary as a consequence of adding relevant bodies and authorities, including making changes to regulation-making powers. Amendment 131DA would remove Clause 68(9), which contains many of these powers.

We have taken these powers to enable us to keep pace with change and appetite for extension of the right. For example, the powers to add, amend and repeal relevant bodies and amend the definitions of voluntary and community bodies enable us to ensure that these definitions continue to reflect the types of organisation representing communities.

Amendment 130ZBA would require the Secretary of State to consult representatives of relevant authorities and other public bodies affected by an extension of the right. We have recently concluded a consultation on our proposals to use the various powers with all those with an interest in the right and we will consider the need for consultation on future changes. Before extending the right, we would need to have detailed discussions with key interested parties, in particular to understand whether additional services might need to be excluded from the challenge.

I should respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who mentioned one type of social enterprise. I have certainly seen in my life numerous names representing organisations that are not a sole trader or public limited company but which have some social, community, environmental or other involvement. It seems that it does not stop. I think that the important thing is that other forms of enterprise might appear but that we are yet to hear from. The way that the script is written covers anything that might happen in the future. In those circumstances, I trust that the amendments will not be pressed.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

Letting many flowers bloom is the position. Clause 68(5) refers to a “voluntary or community body”, and the noble Baroness has mentioned the differences there; to a body “established for charitable purposes”; to the parish council; and then to “two or more employees”, and “more” could be considerably more. How that “more” then establishes itself is another way forward. There are clearly two features here: the elements of “voluntary”, “community” or “charitable”; and the way in which employees choose to organise themselves. They are lumped together, but in many minds—in my mind at any rate—they are two distinct ways forward.

[Lord Beecham]

The noble Lord may recall that I have an amendment dealing with precisely that matter, which we will discuss later.

[Lord Greaves]

My noble friends Lady Hamwee and the Minister are straying on to matters covered by future amendments. I remind my noble friend that she might have suggested some of those amendments. As for the idea that this is all about letting 1,000 flowers bloom, I invite my noble friend the Minister to come on over the tops and have a look at Colne at the moment. It is in an absolutely beautiful condition thanks to Colne in Bloom. There is a massive display of flowers; far more than 1,000. On the other hand, letting 1,000 flowers bloom did not do much good for Mao Tse-Tung. It has different connotations.

The Minister referred to recent consultations. Can he give us an assurance that the Government will publish a pretty full account of the results of those consultations and the evidence that they got? Will it be possible to access them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, the council concerned will have its own procedures for dealing with these things, but the chances are that one submission will be better than the other. If they are bang on equal, it might come down to price, but councils have their own decision-making ways. If the submissions are almost identical, councils will just have to look at them with great care. But it would be strange if they were identical. One could look at what lies behind the application, the strength of the body, whether it looks sustainable and whether the committee of the organisation looks as if it is there for the long haul. I am quite certain that these are all things the authority will be looking at.

[Lord Beecham]

Can the Minister indicate that on this topic, at least, there will not be regulations from the Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

If there are not to be clear structures which are recognised as appropriate, how do you prevent the situation in which two employees make a right to challenge when they have absolutely no support from the rest of the employees, but because they have made the right to challenge, the process has to take place?

[Lord Beecham]

Before the noble Lord replies, may I point out that I have an amendment dealing with precisely that matter as well?

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

I am quite clear that, if there are two employees, we are back to the whole business about looking at who is backing this and whether the people who will ultimately benefit from this service think that it is a good idea. It is unlikely that the local authority would say, “Off you go; you look a great pair”. It is very doubtful that that would be the case. That is the route to putting a stop to that. It may well be that our friend, regulations, will come into this as to the power of stoppage that there would be in these circumstances.

Amendment 133ZN would prevent the Secretary of State providing advice and assistance in using the right to a body that is formed of, or includes, any employees or ex-employees. That would introduce a disparity. It would mean that advice and assistance could not be provided to a voluntary and community body formed of employees and ex-employees, but could be provided to other voluntary and community bodies that did not contain such individuals. No decisions have been made on the form of any advice and assistance in using the right, but we expect to focus on those that need it most. This is likely to mean smaller, newer voluntary bodies, but it is sensible that we have the powers to provide assistance to any relevant body that might need it. I understand that an impact assessment has been done on this and the suggestion is that, across the country, £20 million will be required. It is not yet in any budget, but that is the suggestion in the impact assessment.

Clause 73(4) ensures that this includes employees who have formed a body to take on the delivery of a service, including where they have left the employment of the authority. This supports the Government’s commitment to give public sector workers the right to bid to take over the running of the service that they deliver. I trust that these comments will mean that these amendments are not pressed at the present time.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Shutt of Greetland and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I also have an amendment in this group. First, I endorse what the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Greaves, have said in speaking to their amendments. My Amendment 133ZEA is effectively to replace the Secretary of State’s regulatory function—again we come across the Secretary of State’s regulations—with the relevant authority being allowed to determine and publicise the relevant periods between accepting an expression of interest and beginning the procurement exercise. That really ought to be a matter for local circumstances and local decision and not something prescribed nationally.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, Amendment 133ZC would remove the Secretary of State’s power to specify minimum periods for the submission of expressions of interest. Amendment 133ZEA would require relevant authorities to set and publicise minimum and maximum periods between an expression of interest being accepted and a procurement exercise starting. Amendment 133ZE would remove the Secretary of State’s power to specify these periods, which would have a similar effect. We have taken these powers to ensure that power really is pushed down into the hands of communities.

The power to specify minimum periods for submission of expressions of interest will ensure that relevant bodies have sufficient time to prepare and submit them. The power to specify a minimum period between an expression of interest being accepted and a procurement exercise starting will, in particular, ensure that employees, where they are not the challengers, have sufficient time to decide whether they wish to organise themselves to bid, and do so effectively. This will support the Government’s commitment to give public sector workers the right to bid to take over running the services they deliver. It should also help smaller and newer voluntary and community bodies. The power to specify a maximum period will prevent a procurement exercise from being unnecessarily delayed.

The majority of relevant authorities will, of course, act within the spirit of the right, but these powers will prevent a recalcitrant authority from specifying periods that are so short that they stymie relevant bodies wishing to use the right. However, following our recent consultation, we are carefully considering whether some discretion could be given to relevant authorities on the timescales associated with the process to enable them to take account of local circumstances.

Clause 69(2) gives discretion to relevant authorities to specify periods during which expressions of interest could be submitted in particular services. Amendments 133ZA and 133ZB would instead require relevant authorities to specify periods during which expressions of interest in a particular service would be considered, changing the emphasis of this provision. Relevant bodies would then be able to submit expressions of interest at any time. However, this amendment could result in expressions of interest being submitted so far in advance that they would be out of date by the time the relevant authority considered them. The time within which a relevant authority must notify a relevant body of its decision on an expression of interest, provided for in Clause 71(4), is intended to provide time for consideration of expressions of interest. I trust that, in the circumstances, noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

This amendment, and the other amendment in this small group, Amendment 133ZEB, relate to the situation where the challenge is made by two or more employees of the authority under the provisions of the Bill. The first amendment requires the consent of the majority of the workforce likely to be affected before the authority is obliged to accept the expression of interest. That seems a sensible precaution.

A previous amendment would have raised the number from two to five but, if I may say so, that is almost irrelevant. It would be wrong for a very small group of employees of an authority to have an expression of interest accepted without the support of people in the authority who might be affected by the decision to proceed with the challenge. I hope that the Minister would agree it would be essential in those circumstances for a majority of those who would be so affected to endorse the proposition, even if it were made by a relatively small number. It would not be a cumbersome or difficult exercise to test the opinion of the relevant workforce, and it would clearly be a sensible precaution.

The other amendment is based on concerns about the operation of EU competition and procurement law, particularly in the case of a service that had been carried out by the authority becoming outsourced. This is legal territory into which I venture with trepidation. It has never been my area of legal specialism; it is not an area in which perhaps many in my profession are all that confident. There seems to be a risk in these cases that when an undertaking has been carried out by a public body and outsourcing takes place with the relevant workforce, that may expose the procedure to the rigours of the competition and procurement laws that might then lead not to a community organisation taking over but a private enterprise, which is quite outside the intentions of the legislation.

The amendment would require the authority to take a view—and take advice, of course—about the potential problem. If it was not a problem, of course, the expression of interest could go ahead. If it were to be a problem the amendment would allow the authority to reject the expression of interest on the grounds of a serious risk of the intention of the expression of interest being frustrated by some entirely extraneous body being able to enter into the procurement procedure and win the contract. This is not intended to be a destructive proposal. On the contrary, it is intended to help the legislation fulfil its intentions, and I hope that the Government, if not tonight, will be prepared to look at these two amendments to see whether they can be adopted in the interests of their own position on the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, Amendment 133ZDA would require that a majority of the workforce affected by an expression of interest submitted by employees of the relevant authority consented to a procurement exercise before it went ahead. We agree that employees affected by an expression of interest submitted by their colleagues should be engaged in the development of the proposal and we are looking at how this might be reflected in the requirements for an expression of interest. The face-to-face meetings, intranet updates and staff clinics undertaken when some 1,200 staff from the Hull Primary Care Trust transferred to a social enterprise under the NHS right to request scheme is a good example of how employees have been engaged in a proposal. However, when a local authority decides to undertake a procurement exercise for services outside the community right to challenge, there is no requirement to secure the consent of the majority of the workforce affected by it. This amendment may therefore act as a barrier to services being provided differently and better. Of course, the requirement for employers to inform and consult representatives and employees affected by a prospective transfer of employment will continue to apply.

Amendment 133ZEB would enable a relevant authority to reject expressions of interest when EU procurement or competition law is likely to apply. The Public Contracts Regulations 2006, which are part of our domestic law that implement EU procurement law, set out requirements in relation to procedures for advertising, tendering and awarding contracts when the value of the service is more than £156,000 for relevant authorities or the service is not otherwise exempt. Authorities will already need to comply with these requirements in deciding what kind of procurement exercise to carry out for a service, and will need to continue to do so following a successful challenge under the right. The amendment would enable relevant authorities to reject an expression of interest in all but the smallest services, dramatically reducing the scope of the right. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Shutt of Greetland and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, Clause 30 removes powers that enable local authorities to run pilot waste reduction schemes. We announced our intention to remove these powers in June 2010. We believe that rewards rather than penalties are the best way to encourage people to reduce the amount of waste they produce. We wish to see local authorities helping householders to do the right thing with their waste, rather than punishing them for doing the wrong thing. We also consider that schemes which include fines based on the weight of residual waste left out by householders are likely to result in fly-tipping and other anti-social behaviour.

This Government are clear that rewarding householders for recycling or for reducing waste is to be encouraged; we want to help them to do the right thing. Removing these powers in the Climate Change Act will free up local authorities to use their broader well-being powers or general powers of competence, as appropriate, to provide rewards for waste reduction. Since their introduction there has been little appetite for using the Climate Change Act powers. No local authority has yet applied to take up a charge-and-reward scheme and no schemes will be dismantled as a result of their removal.

This clause simply removes Sections 71 to 75 of Part 5 and Schedule 5 from the Climate Change Act 2008. This will remove the provisions for waste reduction schemes but have no wider effect on the powers of, or burdens upon, local authorities. It is interesting that Royal Assent was on 26 November 2008, two and a half years ago, and no one has sought to bring this in. I therefore beg to move that these clauses stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, this is another case of local authorities having the power to do anything they like except what the Secretary of State decides they should not do. It is on a simple point of principle that this amendment is moved. I regret very much that the Minister and his noble friends do not seem to grasp the inconsistency inherent in their position, but so be it.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Shutt of Greetland and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I hope I can be helpful on this but, while thanking all noble Lords who have spoken, I revert to the point that my noble friend Lady Kramer made in her initial remarks about this being a probing amendment.

The Government have committed to introduce tax increment financing but we should not pre-empt the outcome of the local government resource review that will conclude in July. The review is looking at both local retention of rates and tax increment financing as we need to make sure that tax increment financing proposals are consistent with our wider proposals on business rates retention. The amendment appears to increase the rates liability of businesses, whereas tax increment financing, as generally understood, does not increase the business rates that would otherwise be levied but uses those rates to repay the borrowing that helped to deliver a piece of infrastructure. The business rate supplement and proposals for tax increment financing are two separate models that are structured differently. Rather than integrate them, there is no reason why they could not be used alongside each other to facilitate the funding of infrastructure to support economic growth.

The amendment seems to create two types of business rate supplement. The first type is a traditional business rate supplement of up to a 2p levy on business rates payers within an authority area that occupy property rated above £50,000 for an economic development project. The second type is a business rate supplement for where tax increment financing has delivered some infrastructure project of up to a 2p levy within an authority area but is restricted to the increases in rateable value of properties rated above £50,000 as a result of some infrastructure that has been implemented by tax increment financing.

The amendment appears to be defective in a number of ways. There is no definition of tax increment financing. The amendment would also create some practical concerns. The tuppence maximum will apply to the area, so in London the proposal could not apply as the tuppence limit reached by the Crossrail business rate supplement has been dealt with. Applying the increase to the rateable value to adjust the impact of the tax increment financing project would require a second ratings list to be set up for all properties with rateable values both prior to and after the tax increment financing project delivery. A consequent increase in administrative costs is highly subject to challenges over the extent of any rateable value increase as a result of the tax increment financing project or other factors—refurbishment of a property, for example.

The tax increment financing scheme does not increase the business rates that would otherwise be levied but uses those rates generated by the infrastructure to repay borrowing. Under existing arrangements, 100 per cent of business rate revenues collected by local authorities are pooled for redistribution to local authorities in England. By considering options to enable councils to retain their locally raised business rates, the current local government resource review provides an opportunity for significant changes in the way in which councils are funded. Such an approach could help to set free many local councils from dependency on central government funding and provide incentives for them to promote economic growth. The review is considering how we could manage the distributional impacts of any new arrangements. More deprived councils will continue to receive support.

Last September, the Deputy Prime Minister announced that the Government were committed to take legislation to allow for tax increment financing. Then, the local growth White Paper, issued in November, set out the Government’s intention to carry out a resource review. The terms of reference for the resource review were published in a Written Ministerial Statement by the Secretary of State on 17 March 2011. The resource review will look at local retention and tax increment financing in the round and will conclude in July. The aim is then to move as quickly as possible towards implementation, taking into account the need for primary legislation.

I appreciate the spirit of Amendment 118ZA, which aims to ensure that any business rate supplement where the levy raises less than one-third of the overall project cannot be imposed between Royal Assent and the commencement order without a ballot. However, we do not think that bringing forward commencement of that part is necessary as we are not aware of any proposals for any new business rate supplement planned to be imposed—that would fund less than one-third of the overall project—as we have not seen an initial prospectus or consultation. The business rate supplement for Crossrail has already been imposed and would not be affected by the amendment. I should like to offer reassurance that the Government will bring into force the proposed change that will ensure a ballot for all future business rate supplements regardless of whether it funds more or less than one-third of overall costs.

Clause 38 will come into force following a commencement order to be made by the Secretary of State. We will look to make that commencement order for a date no earlier than two months after Royal Assent in line with convention that legislation is brought into force earlier only where necessary and in exceptional circumstances. I trust that that is a fair response to the noble Baroness and that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.