Windsor Framework (Democratic Scrutiny) Regulations 2023

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2023 Lords Chamber

We talked about elections coming in Northern Ireland, and there are obviously elections coming here. I know that there is a great feeling of wanting everybody to be united. However, I end by quoting one very senior Conservative in the other place who did not vote for the framework—he did not vote against it, because he is loyal to his party. He sent me a text to say why: “I will not be voting for this framework. I decided that this was one vote where I do not want the judgment of history against me.” That is what I hope your Lordships are thinking.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, I will follow on from the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. I emphasise that I support the Windsor Framework; I think that it is a real and good step forward. I also share some of the anxieties that she expressed about its commercial implications.

Noble Lords will know that I have an interest: we are horticulturalists who supply quite a number of the retail outlets in Northern Ireland. I hope noble Lords will not object to me explaining that things are not as I thought they were. If noble Lords remember, I was very much relieved that we would be able to maintain our trade with Northern Ireland in seed potatoes, which are banned under EU law in European countries. I thought that the Windsor Framework would be pragmatic enough to realise that it was nonsense that we would not be able to sell them. But I now find—and I know this to be the case because it has been ratified in discussions between the Horticultural Trades Association, of which my son is a recent president, and the UK Government—that it is not possible for Taylors, my family business, to supply seed potatoes to retail outlets in Northern Ireland. They can be sold only from a grower in Scotland or the north country to a grower in Northern Ireland. The retail trade has gone completely for that particular product.

This applies to a whole series of things listed as being non-negotiable across the United Kingdom border with European Union countries. Those products include snowdrops—the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, will be most upset that he cannot buy these from the UK and have them delivered to Northern Ireland, even if they originated in the Netherlands at some stage or another. This is one of the paradoxes of this framework.

I hope that the Minister can say that this is not set in stone and that there will be pragmatic solutions. I do not take the pessimistic view of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, that this is the end of the story. This is the start of the story and is about a new relationship between us and Europe. This is why I support this statutory instrument. I regret that the only method that we have of debating the issues around this is through an amendment to the statutory instrument. That cannot be right. It cannot be in the interest of the people of Northern Ireland and is certainly not in the interest of British commercial interests in trade with Northern Ireland.

I too have known my noble friend the Minister for quite a long time and trust him implicitly, as indeed is true for my noble friend in front of me, the Minister of State for the Foreign Office. It is the Foreign Office that negotiated this agreement. I hope that this agreement can be an ongoing process and that we who are economically connected with Northern Ireland will be able to continue to trade with it.

Localism Bill

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate as we enter into the enforcement chapter of this part of the Bill. I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for his Amendment 153D, which at first hearing seems attractive but is, I think, unworkable. As the noble Lord pointed out, the problem is that there is no sanction if the person required to submit a retrospective application does not do so. I doubt whether failing to make a planning application could be made an offence, given that the authority has the sanction of enforcement action. In any case, a fine and conviction would not generate a planning application. In practice, the planning status of an unauthorised development is often regularised when the property is to be sold, in order to reassure the prospective purchaser. The developer will either make a retrospective application of his own volition or apply for a lawful development certificate, depending on whether the time limits for taking enforcement action have expired. Both of these carry a fee, as noble Lords will know.

In speaking to Amendment 154, my noble friend Lord Avebury, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, has made interesting points about a possible ambiguity in Clause 108. I can assure my noble friend that it is not our policy for both limbs of Clause 108 to operate on the same case. We see Clause 108 as an either/or process, depending on what happens first. If enforcement action has been taken, the council can decline to determine a retrospective planning application. If a retrospective planning application has been made and the council takes enforcement action in time, there could be no appeal on ground A. The aim is that if someone is seeking to obtain planning permission for an unauthorised development, they should have one bite of the cherry—not two, but they should not be denied their one bite. They must follow the first path that they take, to avoid the ambiguity that can occur.

My noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, reported that they had met the Minister, my noble friend Lady Hanham, last week and these concerns were discussed. I am not sure that the three-year time limit proposed by the amendments will necessarily solve the problem identified. However, my noble friend Lord Avebury can be assured that we want the same outcome and we shall continue to consider the points that he has made.

My noble friend used the illustration of Gypsies and Travellers. I emphasise that none of the enforcement provisions in the Bill is aimed at any particular group. It would be invidious to suggest that any particular section of the population was especially prone to breaching planning control.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

155A: Clause 109, page 89, line 17, leave out from beginning to “and” in line 19 and insert “apparent breach, or any of the matters constituting the apparent breach, has (to any extent) been deliberately concealed by any person or persons,”

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, in moving the amendment, I thought that it would be useful if I also spoke to the other amendments grouped with it. The need for Amendments 155A to 155C has arisen in the light of case law and difficulties encountered in some recent experiences. Although there is no doubt or disagreement that Clause 109 should be aimed only at the worst cases of concealment—I am sure that all noble Lords know about the case of the house in a barn in Welwyn Hatfield recently decided by the Supreme Court—the Law Society thought that the current drafting could be interpreted more widely. The Government also think that it is important that local planning authorities should be able to reassure landowners who are not responsible for breaches of planning control on their land that they are not in danger of prosecution. My noble friend Lady Hanham has written to noble Lords with an explanation of what the amendments do. Therefore, with the leave of the Committee I do not propose to go into further detail today, but if there are questions, I am happy to write to noble Lords.

Perhaps it would be easier for me to respond to Amendment 156 at the conclusion of the debate on this group. I beg to move.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

I shall speak briefly to Amendment 156 concerning the removal of time limits on enforcement. I am not sure whether this is exactly what I was aiming for because I certainly would not want to do anything which would make the enforcement last forever. However, I am quite shocked by the enforcement procedures that have been put in place close to where I am in London. The council has put an enforcement order on a conservation area, but nothing has ever happened. The people have put in French windows and large terraces, and the council was successful in getting an enforcement order. I do not know whether the owners live abroad and I do not know why it has not been possible to get anything done about it, but I wonder whether it might be that despite having the orders, you run out of time and nothing can be done. Perhaps the Minister could clarify whether all those enforcement orders last for ever or only for the time limit within which you can apply for enforcement against something. I am concerned that if a breach has occurred and enforcement action is taken but no result is achieved, the person concerned will get away with it.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we have Amendments 156A and 156B in this group, which relate to penalty levels. I thank again the RTPI, which welcomes the increase in penalty level proposed in the Bill but considers that it should be even higher. This, it is argued, will help concentrate the minds of magistrates and help focus on the potential seriousness of offences. Amendment 156A is proposed by way of probing the rationale behind the level set by the Government. Equally probing is the amendment to Clause 110(2)(b), which relates to land situated in Wales. Doubtless there is an extensive and constitutional reason why there is a difference between levels of penalty in England and Wales. Perhaps the Minister could let us know how that works.

On government Amendment 155C, it is a bit odd to serve a notice on somebody and then write them a letter and say, “Well, in a sense, we didn’t mean it”. It seems rather a bizarre solution to an issue which I accept has to be dealt with. I wonder whether there is not a more elegant way of avoiding serving the notice on the landlord in the first instance. There may be other ramifications of not doing so, but to serve a notice and then to say, “Well, don’t worry—we’re not going to prosecute”, seems rather an odd thing for government to do.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, perhaps I may address first the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. Abolishing the limitation for enforcement action would be an extremely radical step for which the Government and planning professionals have no appetite. As we have just debated in the context of Clause 109, the Law Society thought that our original proposals for restarting the enforcement clock would have had a chilling effect on the property market. I fear that this amendment would put the markets into a deep freeze. If the amendment were to be approved, Clause 109 would become redundant; there would be no need to start the enforcement clock if there was no clock to start with. The purpose of having time limits for taking enforcement action is to provide certainty, particularly for purchasers. Excepting cases of deliberate concealment, as envisaged by Clause 109, if an unauthorised development or changes of use have not been notified within the time limits, they are probably not doing great damage. If the owner at the time was liable for an enforcement action in perpetuity, people would be reluctant to buy without a full planning history and the markets would be unwilling to lend against properties. I hope that my noble friend understands that argument.

The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie—Amendments 156A and 156B—are designed as a probe to try to evaluate at what level we can pitch penalties. I should remind the noble Lord that we are already proposing a significant increase in the fine for failing to comply with a breach of condition notice. The maximum fine would be raised from £1,000 to £2,500, which is level 4. This increase should have a considerable deterrent effect on those who are served with a notice and might otherwise be tempted to ignore it. To increase the maximum fine even further, to £5,000, which is level 5 in England, as the amendments propose, would be disproportionate to the offence. Level 4 fines already apply to the offences of displaying an illegal advertisement and non-permanent damage to a protected tree, which are comparable offences in scale and severity. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

I remind noble Lords that this is an England-only provision; Welsh Ministers would have to consent to any change to the provisions in the 1990 Act which apply to Wales. I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

Amendment 155A agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I support these amendments. A powerful case has been made. When I studied the amendments, I thought a slightly different argument might be advanced. As I understand it, issues around remedying persistent problems with unauthorised advertisements in the Bill are the subject of right of appeal to magistrates’ courts. It is just the non-persistent problems and the power to remove structures in Clause 111 that the amendment seeks to bring within the remit of the magistrates’ courts. If I have misunderstood that, doubtless the Minister will put me right. But there is an imbalance between those two situations, which will be remedied by the proposition in the amendment. Quite apart from that, the amendment should stand on its own. There is a proper issue of justice here, and a right to appeal to a magistrates’ court.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for introducing this amendment and my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood for speaking to it, as well as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. We understand the nub of the issue, as the noble Lord Borrie, presented it. It is to provide a speedier and more cost-effective means of challenging a removal notice as empowered under the Bill, especially where consent, or deemed consent, to display an advertisement already exists. But the magistrates’ courts are already heavily loaded with cases, and we should be cautious about increasing the burden on them unnecessarily. We should also be wary of giving any rogue hoarding owners the opportunity to delay the enforcement process by appealing against local authorities for no good reason.

The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is quite right. The amendment draws heavily on the London experience. I note that these measures have been operating in London since 1995 without the benefit of a right of appeal. In that time, I understand that there have been only five judicial reviews against removal notices, so I hope that the noble Lord will understand the Government’s reasoning on this issue.

Included in the group is government Amendment 166ZA. It is a minor drafting amendment to page 100, which deletes subsection (3) of proposed new Section 225J. Noble Lords will, I am sure, have observed that the words are very similar to those in subsection (4)(a). They are superfluous and should be omitted.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Could the Minister help us out? Why is there the differential treatment in terms of rights of appeal to a magistrates’ court—assuming I am right on that—where there are persistent problems with unauthorised advertisements, compared to those where there is simply the power to remove structures for what may be ad hoc, unauthorised display?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think I can summarise it best by saying that they are two different orders of problems for local authorities. The reasoning for these proposals is obviously based on the London experience, which has provided local authorities in London with an effective way of dealing with the larger structure problems that one can have, where displays are put on unauthorised structures and their speedy removal is in the public interest.

[Lord Borrie]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, for his support for this amendment and for that of my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton on the opposition Front Bench. I am bound to say that I am a bit disappointed by the Minister's response, most especially when he said that in London, which is the route followed by the Bill itself, there have not been that many judicial review claims—I think he mentioned five. A great substance of my argument is that judicial review is a most unattractive route for anybody concerned about a decision against them by the local planning authority, because it is expensive and very challenging. It is not a real right of appeal.

The rest of the country has a real right of appeal. The anomaly that exists at present—recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Black, and by my noble friend Lord McKenzie—is not recognised by the government Front Bench. It is an anomaly to have a difference between London and outside London especially, in my submission, in the context of a Localism Bill. When the emphasis is on local government and local associations, it would be so much better and simpler to have a magistrates’ court appeal. The noble Lord has said that magistrates’ courts are very busy, but he will know that that partly arises because there are many closures of them by government decision. That is undoubtedly the case.

That decision may be supported on the basis of saving money, and in some towns and areas I would accept that there is an argument for saying, “The magistrates’ court here is not fully occupied, so it could be closed down”. However, the Minister’s point is that magistrates are already overloaded with work and cannot take on what would be very sensible new work, providing access to justice for those who feel that they needed to appeal against an unfair, unreasonable or difficult local planning authority decision. Of course, I withdraw my amendment at this stage but I think the Minister will realise that we are not happy with his decision, and I hope that he will rethink the matter in due course.

Localism Bill

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

99: Clause 22, page 25, line 32, leave out “senior”

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, this is a substantial group of amendments that includes several government amendments. Perhaps I can put our amendments into some context and address the issues raised by the other amendments in this group.

Our amendments set out the requirement for relevant authorities to approve and publish a pay policy statement which, in addition to the measures already in the Bill, must set out an authority’s policies on remuneration of its lowest-paid employees and the relationship between the remuneration of its chief officers and the rest of its workforce. As Will Hutton set out in his report on fair pay in the public sector, published on 15 March, there is value in ensuring that decisions about senior pay are taken in the context of similar decisions on lower-paid staff. Such an approach broadens the debate beyond discussion about salary amounts of top earners and into whether the pay of those individuals is justified.

These measures, therefore, further increase local democratic accountability and transparency over how decisions on pay are made, and embody the commitment given by Ministers to reflect on the measures in the light of Hutton’s report. The measures seek to minimise the potential burden on authorities and ensure that decisions on pay remain ones for individual employers to take locally.

The opposition amendments would take those measures beyond the scope of pay accountability. Our intention, through the provisions in the Bill and our amendments, is to bring greater accountability and transparency to an authority’s approach to remuneration of its own employees. We do not seek to prescribe what the approach should be by requiring authorities to publish a list of numbers, or by roaming about on other matters such as local decisions around recruitment or engagement with providers—which would be the effect of the opposition amendments. Our Amendment 101, in its requirements relating to the remuneration of the lowest-paid employees, is broader than the Opposition’s proposal and will lead to the publication of policies in a rounder way than by focusing on policies relating to total salary costs and numbers of staff, which is what Amendment 101A would achieve.

Amendment 101 would require authorities to disclose their policies on the relationship between remuneration of their chief officers and the rest of their employees, including the lowest paid. We do not feel it necessary to require authorities to break down their policies in this regard in the way proposed in Amendment 101A. Indeed, Will Hutton, in his report on fair pay in the public sector, highlights that, in seeking to measure pay dispersion using a pay multiple, comparison between top and lowest pay is not the most effective approach. As we have made clear, charities, voluntary organisations and businesses—particularly small businesses—have repeatedly called for the amount of regulation and red tape surrounding local government contracts to be reduced. I am sure that noble Lords opposite agree with that general principle. In this context, it is not appropriate to use this Bill to impose further duties on authorities to have policies relating to the pay of those who work for an organisation with which it contracts.

Nothing in the Bill limits the extent of information that an authority may include in its pay policy statement. Authorities may take the local view to include any other policies as they think fit. This could include policies on contracting staff where they have developed them locally. We will undertake to make this clear in guidance rather than set it out in the Bill.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord True for his work in submitting Amendment 105. Perhaps I can reassure him and other noble Lords that local authorities must always abide by relevant employment legislation when carrying out their duties as employers. This obligation extends to the formation of their policies on pay. Pay policy statements are intended to be an articulation of such policies. The measures that we are introducing do not take precedence over employment law. A pay policy statement could not be lawfully used by relevant authorities to sanction matters that are not in line with their existing legal duties and obligations. Similarly, any changes to policies included in a published pay policy statement, which must be approved by a full council, must also adhere to requirements placed on authorities as employers under employment legislation. We can undertake to reinforce this position in guidance, to which authorities must have regard. We believe that this will achieve the aims of the amendment without it being necessary to remind authorities of their duties as employers as set out in the Bill. I hope that I have assisted the Committee in its consideration of this matter. I beg to move Amendment 99.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord for introducing the government amendments. Indeed, I thank the Government for bringing forward the proposals, which build on the debate in the other place. I see that he has taken the opportunity to get his retaliation in first on our amendments. I will speak to Amendments 101A, 101B, 102A and 108B.

When these matters were addressed on Report in another place, the Minister, Andrew Stunell, said that Will Hutton’s report,

“made some clear recommendations, particularly about the benefit of setting decisions on senior pay in the context of the pay of the rest of a body’s work force”—

meaning the median earnings, and I accept that point. He continued:

“We are sympathetic to that idea, particularly the potential for linking lower pay with senior pay”—

so the Minister in the other place focused on low pay as well. He went on to say that he did,

“not think it would be helpful to use the Bill to address the pay of contracting bodies”,

which is consistent with what the noble Lord just said. However, he then went on to state,

“That does not prevent a local authority from developing a local policy to ensure that bodies with which it contracts are open about their rates of pay as a matter of contract”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/5/11; cols. 210-11.]

Although significant growth in executive pay is largely a private sector phenomenon, we support the thrust of greater transparency. We also support the Government’s approach to tackling this in the manner provided, rather than as in the other two options set out in the impact assessment. As the fair pay report also concludes, evaluating these by benchmarking off the salary of the Prime Minister is a nonsense, particularly if you add in the benefits that the Prime Minister gets, which include a central London flat with access to rather a large garden, not to mention the odd country estate. A more realistic figure of his remuneration might be in excess of £0.5 million a year. However, the report also concludes that putting in limits of fixed multiples of lowest pay would, in a sense, be unfair as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I understand the noble Lord’s point, but I have to say that it would be a huge infraction on the responsibilities and rights of elected members of councils to indicate what might go on a council agenda and what might not. That is going much too far. Although I expect members to behave responsibly, if they are irresponsible, it would be the task of those answering such a resolution to make the case. We ought to have the self-confidence to do that, so I do not think, with all respect to the noble Lord, that his amendment should progress.

I seek some assurances from the Minister, to see whether I have understood him correctly, apart from anything else. Later—many, many hours later—we will come to the question of the community infrastructure levy and whether or not it should be a material consideration in determining planning matters. There will, I think, be quite strong views about that. I wonder, having heard the Minister, whether it will be permissible for councils to take into account the factors referred to in my noble friend’s amendment as a material consideration in the awarding of contracts. If I understood him correctly, the noble Lord indicated that that would be permissible, although it should not be prescribed, and I can understand that position. Perhaps he will confirm or disabuse me of that notion.

I also ask the noble Lord whether he has a view on the living wage, which has been espoused—I think before an election but certainly after an election, to revert to the point of the noble Lord, Lord True—by no less a person than the Mayor of London, who has adopted the concept initiated by his predecessor of promoting the living wage. Does he accept that it is right for councils, if they choose, to adopt such a policy in respect of their own authorities and to seek to reflect that in the conditions upon which they let contracts?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, this has been a short but very useful debate on a very important aspect of local government policy. I assure noble Lords that the guidance which will be issued will take note of issues raised in this debate. While we may not agree on all aspects, there appears to be a good deal of consensus that the Government’s approach on senior pay is to be welcomed as, indeed, are the requirements of our amendments for a pay policy statement. I am grateful to the noble Lord for lending his support to that concept.

Our amendments build on that approach and will increase accountability for local decisions about the lowest paid in the local government workforce. I say local decisions deliberately. The Government are quite clear that these decisions on pay and reward must remain ones for local determination. I hope that noble Lords opposite will acknowledge that the Government have fulfilled our commitment to reflect on discussions around low pay in the other place and brought forward appropriate amendments, as, indeed, we do today.

The Government did not undertake at that time to consider measures to increase duties on local authorities with regard to their relationship with bodies with whom they can contract. We believe such proposals would be burdensome. Charities, the voluntary sector and business have called for regulation around contracting to be reduced. There is general consensus that in order to achieve greater participation of the voluntary sector and small businesses in local government contracting, we need to make the process of contracting as simple as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Before we conclude, I thank the Minister for what he said. We accept that from the Government’s perspective, they have fulfilled the obligation they made in the other place. As I said in speaking to my amendments, I do not think they have fulfilled it as fully as we would have liked, but when can we expect to see the guidance in this area? That would help our deliberations and could potentially preclude a return visit to this matter on Report.

In respect of the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord True, who is no longer in his place—I understand he has to be elsewhere—competitive resolutions are not quite the environment I would have expected. It is certainly not how we conduct politics in Luton, but it raises all sorts of interesting questions, not for debate now, about people addressing those resolutions on a predetermined basis.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I understand exactly what the noble Lord is referring to, but I hope it has expedited this debate to the advantage of the Committee. I cannot give an answer on when the guidance will be available. If I am able to get that information, I will write to the noble Lord.

Amendment 99 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

100: Clause 22, page 25, line 34, leave out “senior”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

101: Clause 22, page 25, line 35, at end insert “,
(b) the remuneration of its lowest-paid employees, and(c) the relationship between—(i) the remuneration of its chief officers, and(ii) the remuneration of its employees who are not chief officers.(2A) The statement must state—
(a) the definition of “lowest-paid employees” adopted by the authority for the purposes of the statement, and(b) the authority’s reasons for adopting that definition.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

102: Clause 22, page 26, line 5, leave out “senior”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

103: Clause 23, page 26, line 9, leave out “senior”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

106: Clause 23, page 26, line 17, leave out “senior”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

108A: Clause 27, page 27, line 28, leave out from “following” to end of line 32

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

109: Clause 27, page 28, line 20, at end insert—
“(5A) In this Chapter “remuneration”, in relation to a relevant authority and an employee of its who is not a chief officer, means—
(a) the employee’s salary,(b) any bonuses payable by the authority to the employee,(c) any allowances payable by the authority to the employee,(d) any benefits in kind to which the employee is entitled as a result of the employee’s employment,(e) any increase in or enhancement of the employee’s pension entitlement where the increase or enhancement is as a result of a resolution of the authority, and(f) any amounts payable by the authority to the employee on the employee ceasing to be employed by the authority, other than any amounts that may be payable by virtue of any enactment.(5B) References in this Chapter to the remuneration of an employee who is not a chief officer include—
(a) the remuneration that may be provided to that employee in the future, and(b) the remuneration that is to be provided to employees of the same kind that the authority may employ in the future.”

Localism Bill

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord True and, indeed, all other noble Lords who have spoken on this important subject and on the innovative development of this aspect of community empowerment. We are rather constrained by the rules of debate in the sense that these amendments are primarily about the threshold, but of course the threshold needs to be taken in connection with a series of government amendments and measures in the Bill that protect the whole process of referendums. While I shall try to focus principally on the threshold, I hope that noble Lords will be mindful that when we meet again to discuss these matters we will have further opportunities to debate a complex subject that runs across several aspects. I hope that what I have to say at least places the Government’s position in some context.

One of the most important aspects is the risk of populism. That was the theme of a number of speeches. To those who fear populism, I should say that leadership in institutional local government has nothing to fear from populism. If it strengthens leadership in local government, this innovation will, in itself, be important. We are quite clear that people should be able to trigger a local referendum by submitting a petition to their council containing the signatures of 5 per cent of the electorate. My noble friend Lord Cathcart and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, mentioned the problems of this low threshold in connection with parish councils. I should emphasise that the Bill’s provisions in this area do not provide for referendums relating to parish councils, which are not part of the Bill. We will have an opportunity later to discuss parish councils.

A large number of amendments have been tabled that seek to amend the figure from 5 per cent. Figures of 10 per cent, 15 per cent, 20 per cent and, indeed, 25 per cent have been suggested. As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said, I am thinking of turnouts and of my experience as a canvasser. I think how many households one can actually canvass and how many voters one actually speaks to. Collecting signatures is no mean task. I say that as a political activist. All noble Lords will have had experience of that and we should put the 5 per cent figure in that context.

There is a question as to whether there should be a higher threshold for small electoral areas. Clause 209(2) of the Bill provides for different arrangements in different areas to be made by regulations, if there is a need. I am not persuaded that there is a need, but the Bill does provide for that if becomes evident that a higher threshold is necessary. We believe that 5 per cent is a fair threshold, building on the established precedent. It appears to us to strike the balance between setting a fair and achievable threshold for issues in which local people are seriously interested but at the same time a high enough hurdle to deter potentially frivolous campaigns. I think the whole Committee would wish to see that. I would say to my noble friend Lord Greaves that, for example, a 25 per cent threshold in Pendle would require the signatures of some 17,000 people. That is an enormous threshold for any campaign to secure. Indeed, one could argue that if one secured 17,000 votes in a referendum, the result was a foregone conclusion.

I can give other examples and I hope to persuade the Committee that 5 per cent is no mean figure. Noble Lords will be aware that the figure of 5 per cent in the Bill is based on the petition threshold for binding referendums on council governance, introduced 10 years ago. In using this figure, we recognise that these referendums are far wider in scope, so we will want to monitor the threshold to see if it is the right one in practice. That is why we have included a power for the Secretary of State to amend the threshold by order if experience shows that the 5 per cent threshold is not quite right. Amendment 124C seeks to remove this power, so it leaves the Bill without that flexibility.

The debate that we have had today and the various thresholds put forward in the amendments show just how difficult it is to agree an appropriate petition threshold. In this area of referendums the Government are listening to these debates and want to get it right. We want a workable system that will reinvigorate community politics without at the same time making representative government difficult and threatened in the way that some noble Lords have implied. Therefore, getting the balance right is very important. We have taken the established threshold of 5 per cent, as I have said, to provide consistency. While we do not rule out a change to the threshold in the future—that is why we have included the power to vary it in the Bill—it would appear sensible to wait and see whether a variation is necessary.

Amendment 120J would allow local authorities to change the area in which a referendum is being held from the one stated in the petition. We believe that the amendment is unnecessary. If a council wants to hold a referendum throughout the area of the authority, it can resolve to do so irrespective of whether a petition has been received with the requisite number of signatures to trigger a referendum in just part of the area. Indeed, the council can resolve to hold a referendum of its own accord, separate from the issue of the petition threshold. We take the view that if a referendum is to be held in just part of an authority's area, it is right that the people in that part should have a say in whether there should be a referendum. They can do this either by joining in the petition or getting the councillors for that area to request that a referendum in their area be held.

Amendment 121, in the names of my noble friends Lord True and Lord Cathcart, seeks to retain the duty on authorities to provide facilities for the hosting of petitions in electronic form. In fact, the provision that the amendment seeks to omit is essentially a technical one. It attempts to deal with the situation that might arise if the referendums provisions that we are currently debating are brought into force before the petitions provisions in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 are repealed.

In practice, we intend to abolish those petition obligations as soon as possible. I think it is fair enough for us to debate the principle of whether it would be right to impose a new obligation on councils to host electronic petitions calling for referendums. However, I cannot say that from anything I have heard today I am persuaded that that is a necessary imposition. The Government’s view is that it should be up to local authorities to decide whether they provide for this, and our provision in Clause 43(4) makes that clear.

There has been a lot of concern about councillor requests for referendums and how they might impact on local campaigning and perhaps be extremely disruptive. Amendments 125 and 126 would provide safeguards against inappropriate calls for referendums by councillors, and I can certainly support the intention behind those amendments. In fact, we have already provided what I believe to be an important safeguard in Clause 49. I believe that the safeguard we have in place—that, following a request from a member, a referendum may not be held unless the full council has resolved that it be held—is a better check. These amendments would make a councillor call for a referendum redundant, as, if a petition is supported by 5 per cent of local voters, there will be a referendum in any event.

Finally, my noble friends propose in Amendment 129 that local authorities may recover the cost of a referendum from electors in the area in which the referendum is held. The amendment is, however, silent on how the cost would be recovered. My noble friend has voiced his concerns about the frequency of referendums—indeed, many noble Lords have thought that the numbers might be excessive—as well as the resulting cost burdens.. He is concerned that some areas within a council will, through the legislation, have all the opportunities to vote in a referendum, while the cost of the referendum will come out of the council’s overall budget, meaning that those who are not part of the referendum will bear some of the cost. Their amendment seeks to ensure that the costs of holding a referendum are spread across the area over which it is held. However, our approach already enables that to happen. It puts in place a scheme that enables referendums to be held in the relevant council area for the issue at hand. Therefore, if it is a district council matter or a matter over which the district council has influence, the referendum can be held at the district council level, whether it be across one or more wards of the district or the entire district council area.

I should now like to refer to the comments of my noble friend Lord Greaves, who was concerned that the rules should be rigorous. The rules on referendum petitions relate to when a council must hold a referendum. A council has discretion to hold a referendum whenever it wishes on any subject it feels to be appropriate. Thus, if a council believes that it is right to have a referendum on any subject, it can do so, irrespective of how many people sign a petition, and indeed irrespective of whether there is a petition. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, worried about the 1 per cent threshold, the concern having somehow been lodged that the Government had tabled amendments to change the threshold to 1 per cent. We are not reducing the threshold to 1 per cent but in the case of London, in addition to the 5 per cent requirement, each London petition should contain the signatures of 1 per cent of the electorate in each London borough to demonstrate London-wide support for the petition. This is a safeguard; it is not meant to be a lightening of the burden regarding petitions.

There has been some concern that, by doing away with petitions and introducing the concept of referendums, we are destroying something positive and useful. We think that local referendums are more effective for two basic reasons. First, they have greater visibility than a petition. It is difficult to create the same impact with a petition than with a local referendum where every elector gets a chance to give their view. Petitions are essentially about one voice; referendums are about two voices, so that those who do not agree have the opportunity of voicing that. We must not assume that every referendum that is presented automatically results in a positive vote. Secondly, the effect of a referendum is almost certainly that more people will be engaged. If more people are engaged in holding a referendum the local authority will benefit as a consequence.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My noble friend said earlier that the Bill gives the Government power to alter the minimum numbers for a referendum by order, and helpfully he referred to Clause 209. It may be that I am totally misunderstanding it, but Clause 209(1) says:

“Any power of the Secretary of State … to make an order or regulations under this Act is exercisable by statutory instrument”.

The next subsection is the one to which I think he was referring, which states:

“Any power of the Secretary of State … to make an order or regulations includes … power to make different provision for different cases, circumstances or areas”.

I sense that my noble friend was rather relying on that for his proposition that the Secretary of State would be able to change the figures in the Bill by order. Nowhere in the Bill on the question of the minimum levels is there any power to make an order. It just does not apply. There are regulation powers towards the end of the part dealing with voting in and conduct of local referendums. Clearly, that would invoke Clause 209. Unless I have completely misunderstood, Clause 209 applies only where the Bill contains a power to make orders, unless in relation to these minimum figures it does not. It may be that my noble friend already has an answer. I went on long enough to ensure that perhaps he would. If I have misunderstood, I am happy to be corrected. I am not clear that my noble friend stated the provisions of the Bill properly. Perhaps he can reply before he finishes the point he was making.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank my noble friend. One can rely on one’s noble friends to provide the testing question. Clause 44(2) on page 39 of the Bill states:

“The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (1) to specify a higher or lower percentage than the percentage for the time being specified in that subsection”.

Perhaps I ought to have relied on that provision rather than the more complex structural arrangement.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I am extremely grateful to my noble friend. He was quite right when he said originally that Clause 209 would allow the Secretary of State, as he has an order-making power, to make different orders for different figures, different areas and different sizes of electorate. I am greatly relieved to know that he was able to get an answer as quickly as he did, and I am very happy to be assured.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My noble friend is not the only one to be pleased to have got the answer as quickly as that. Throughout the Bill noble Lords will discover that the residual powers vested in the Secretary of State are frequently to be able to modify the provisions of the Bill in the light of experience because, as noble Lords will know, it is intended that the provisions of the whole of the Localism Bill will indeed be subject to review under the terms of the Bill.

What I was going on to say was really by way of peroration. We will be debating amendments to Clause 47 when we meet again and they limit to some extent the number of referendums that may be held. Councils will be able to refuse to hold referendums on issues for which there is already a statutory process—a planning application and the right of appeal and issues such as planning or licensing applications. Repeat referendums may be refused if within four years of the original, and councils will have discretion to refuse if the costs of holding a referendum are disproportionate and above certain limits.

I hope that, taken in the context of the debate we have had this evening and future debates we are going to have on this subject and the approach of the Government, which is, indeed, to take note of the issues raised by noble Lords, my noble friend will feel free to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Byford]

Having listened very patiently, I have a very short question for the Minister. In his response he said that it obviously does not affect parish councils and I appreciate that it does not at this stage in the Bill. However, Clause 56 clearly does look at parish councils. I hope I am not too out of order—it is only a quickie—but will there be any trigger as to a percentage that would have to be considered for parish councils to able to hold a referendum? It is not clear; nothing is laid down in the Bill. I simply wonder, as we have been looking at the various percentages to trigger things, whether he has any information on that.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am not able to give a specific answer to that. All I can say is that the noble Baroness will be aware of the current situation in respect of parish polls and we will be consulting on the parish regime and, no doubt, consulting the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, in particular.

[Lord Greaves]

I have just a couple of points. When we get to Clause 56 on parish councils we will have a stand part debate. It would be extremely helpful if the Government had some fairly clear ideas on where they are going on parish councils because those are the questions we will be asking.

The Minister said that the Government thought that it was right that people in an area should have a say on whether or not there should be a referendum, but if there is a petition signed by 5 per cent of the people to have a referendum, why should that prevail over an alternative petition in the same area signed by 10 per cent or 20 per cent of people who do not want a referendum?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My noble friend poses a complex question at this hour of the day and I am sure he will forgive me if I do not give him a full answer to the conundrum. The decision on whether or not to hold a referendum—on the basis of a petition, or on the basis of a councillor requesting a referendum—can be taken only by a full council agreeing to hold that referendum. The power to hold a referendum is vested in the council concerned. That is the most important provision, which would take care of that difficulty.

Environment: Drought

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to address the current drought conditions.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, the Government held a drought summit on 16 May at which a number of actions were agreed. The Environment Agency is now providing weekly updates on the situation and the impact of dry weather. It will report back shortly on the likely impacts of a prolonged drought and the plans in hand to manage it. On 10 June, the Government, with the Environment Agency, met abstractors from a wide range of sectors to look at ways of making water go further. We will keep the situation closely under review and reconvene the drought summit later this month.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, it was indeed inevitable that it would pour with rain since tabling this Question, but the situation, particularly in central and eastern England, remains severe. May I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister to ensure that due priority is given now and in the future to food production and its security in the wise use of our nation’s water resources?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Yes, I think that noble Lords will all remember Denis Howell. The vital link between water resources and food production has been a feature of government thinking from the Chatham House paper of the Government Chief Scientist, Sir John Beddington, through to the Royal Society’s report Reaping the Benefits, to the recent report of the Foresight group. These global views are equally applicable in this country, which is why water management will be a feature of the forthcoming water White Paper.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the comments made by the Lord Mayor of London yesterday that the shortages of water in London might be answered by providing more reservoirs in Wales, fed by a network of canals through to London? Can he give an assurance that in view of the controversial nature of any such proposal in Wales, there would be discussion with the Government of Wales before any action was taken?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I was not aware of those comments.

[Earl Cathcart]

My Lords, my farm, like others, has received less than three-quarters of an inch of rain since 23 February, and most of it over the last few days. The grass cut for winter feed for cattle has yielded just 40 per cent of what it would normally have done. Will the Government give a one-off permission to cut and bale the six-metre margins to try to make up some of the difference?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I live not very far away from my noble friend and can vouch for the fact that it is still very dry even after the weekend’s rain. I thank him for his suggestion. Grass and forage are a problem for livestock producers. However, on 2 June, Natural England issued advice to farmers who are in environmental schemes and have been hit by the spring drought about how they might manage their agreements. Natural England wants to ensure that the appropriate derogations are available to help farmers deal with the consequences of a prolonged period of dry weather. If any farmer needs further information or advice about the dry weather and their environmental stewardship agreements they should contact Natural England.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, with 20 per cent of cereal crops already ruined by the dry weather this is a serious problem for farmers, as we have heard. It is also a worry for consumers as food prices continue to rise. Clearly Governments cannot order the weather, but they are responsible for policy on water management and abstraction. The Government were due to publish a water White Paper this month. Why is this urgent piece of work now delayed until December?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think that the Government would want to get any White Paper which they brought forward on this issue right. I do not deny at all the premise of the noble Lord’s question: it is a very serious situation for cereal producers and farmers in general, and it has a knock-on effect on feedstuffs, foodstuffs and consumers as a whole. That is why the Government are working with the industry and other abstractors to make sure that the water that is available is being properly used without hazarding the biodiversity agenda, which is also important.

[Lord Glenarthur]

My Lords, have the Government given any thought to the possibility of a national water grid? As we heard from the noble Lord opposite, Wales has had more than its fair share of rain, and certainly parts of north-west Scotland have had more than their fair share. There is a grid for gas across most of Europe. Has any work been done to try to work out a way of transmitting water to enliven those parts of the world such as that of my noble friend Lord Cathcart which is so drought-stricken?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think that noble Lords will find that more will be said on this in the White Paper. A good deal of water is already transferred within the United Kingdom. There are some longer links; Welsh water goes all over the place already—for which the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, will no doubt vouch—and there are links between the fenland waterways and those of Essex. Ofwat is looking at its regulatory regimes to see if there are ways in which they inhibit the trading of water between companies. The water companies themselves are key agents of the distribution of water in this country.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

At one time there were plans for a salination plant to be built in the Thames—